democracia, mito o realidad

7/27/2019 Democracia, Mito o Realidad

1/47

ROMAN DEMOCRACY: MYTH OR REALITY?

Was the late Roman Republic a democracy? This course examines this controversial question by investigating Roman politics

through the lens of classical political theory, applying ideas about liberty, citizenship, equality, and form of government to the real


2/47

2

political practices of the Romans of the first century BC. Beginning with the political thought of influential ancient authors such as

Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero, the course progresses with a survey of the everyday political environment of first-century

Rome, which provides the context for an in-depth analysis of republican ideology. It continues by examining the ways in which

the image of the Roman Republic and its associated political ideology have been constructed and applied in political theory

across the centuries, tracing their metamorphosis in the writings of Machiavelli, 17 th-century English republicans, the defenders

of the American constitution, and the French Enlightenment.

Seminars

Preparation for and contribution to seminar discussion is essential. For each seminar session there is a minimum selection ofreading stipulated in the bibliographies below; for researching and writing coursework essays and preparing for the examination

you MUST consult the full bibliographies provided later in this document.

1. Introduction2. The Senate, the People, and the Forum

3. The contio

4. Public political culture

5. The politics of entertainment

6. Potestas populi and auctoritas senatus

7. Liberty

8. Equality and Justice

9. Citizenship

10. Plato on democracy

11. Aristotle on democracy12. Roman historical writing and political thought

13. Polybius

14. Hellenistic moral philosophy

15. Cicero

16. Machiavellis Discourses on Livy

17. English republicanism in the 17th century

18. The American republic

19. The French Enlightenment

20. Review and conclusion


3/47

2

Contacting the course tutors

The easiest method of communication is by e-mail. However, you should send me e-mails only when the message is urgent and concernseither technical administrative matters or your attendance at seminars. Note that I will not engage in lengthy e-mail conversations with studentsabout the content of the course. However, you are strongly encouraged to come and see me in person in my office hours, which runthroughout each term, for anytype of course-related discussion to supplement the seminars. Here are our details:

Name and address: Dr Valentina Arena, Department of History, UCL, Gower St., London WC1E 6BTOffice: room 402, History Department (25 Gordon Square)Office hours: Thursday, 1-2; Friday, 4-5.External phone: 020 679 2293Internal phone: 32293E-mail: [email protected]

Assessm ent

For students who attend for the whole year, the course will be assessed by two essays (25%) and one three-hour written examination paper(75%). You must achieve a pass in both your coursework and your examination in order to pass the course.

For Affiliate students leaving in December only (course code ending in A), the course will be assessed by two essays, which will be equallyweighted.

For Affiliate students who start the course in January (course code ending in B), the course will be assessed by two essays, the first of which willbe weighted 40% and the second (which will be a summative essay) weighted 60%.

Coursework Essays

Coursework essays must be c.2,500 words each (including footnotes/endnotes but excluding bibliography).


4/47

3

All essays must be well presented and clear. Please use double-spacing, 10, 11 or 12 point text, and leave margins of at least 2.5cm.Proof-read your work carefully and do not rely entirely on spell-checkers they can introduce mistakes, particularly with proper names. Please putyour name on your essay. A copy will be returned to you with corrections and feedback.

Questions for assessed coursework essays are listed below. You may suggest a question of your own, but you must agree this with you

teacher before starting work on the essay.

Essay questions:

1) In what ways have historians disagreed about the politics of the Roman republic, and why?

2) The senate was exclusively dominated by aristocratic families. Do you agree?

3) The conduction of political life in the open space of the Forum is a clear indication of the democratic nature of the Roman political

system. Discuss.

4) Did the meeting of the contio constitute an authentic democratic occasion?

5) Were the laws on the secret ballot motivated by the desire to increase the citizens influence in the political process?

6) What were the political implications of bribery?

7) The games were the only places where the ordinary Romans could exercise real political pressure. Discuss.

8) What was potestas populi and what role did it play as a concept in the political battles of the Republic?

9) Libertas is the Roman word that best translates the Greek . Discuss

10) Why, from an ideological point of view, was the Roman elite so hostile to land distribution?

11) How useful are Roman ideas about citizenship in assessing the character of Roman politics?

12) In the Republic, Plato denounced democracy; yet in the Laws, he advocated its implementation. Discuss.

13) What, according to Aristotle, are the characteristics of democratic city-states, and how does he evaluate them?14) What is the role of the mixed constitution in Polybiuss political theory?

15) Examine the political dimensions of the principal strains of Hellenistic ethics.


5/47

4

16) To what extent does Ciceros political theory in the De republica and De legibus constitute a distinctively Roman reworking of the

vision of Plato?

17) How do the accounts of Roman politics presented by Livy, Sallust, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus compare, and how would you

account for the differences?

18) What, in Machiavellis view, made Rome great?

19) What united the republicans of 17th century England was a distinctive theory of liberty. Discuss

20) To what extent, according to the Federalist Papers, did the constitution of the American Republic imitate its Roman predecessor?

21) Compare the visions of liberty presented by Rousseau and Constant, and account for their differences.

Deadlines

For s udents who attend the whole year:

The first essay should be handed in by November 15th 2010. This is an unofficial deadline that I have set to help you to space out your essaywriting assignments. You will not be penalized if you choose not to meet it.

The official deadline for your first essay is 4 p.m. on Monday 13th December. You will be penalised if you fail to meet this deadline unlessyou have been granted an extension by the Chair of the Board of Examiners (see below).

The second essay should be handed in by February 21st 2011. Again, this is an unofficial deadline and you will not be penalized if you choosenot to meet it.

The official deadline for your second essay is 4 p.m. on Monday 21st March. You will be penalized if you fail to meet this deadline unless youhave been granted an extension by the Chair of the Board of Examiners (see below).

If either of my unofficial deadlines clash with other unofficial deadlines set by your other teachers, please bring this to my attention, and wewill try to negotiate different dates.

For Affiliate students leaving in December only (course codes ending in A):


6/47

5

The unofficial deadline for the first essay is November 15 th 2010. I strongly recommend that you submit your first essay by this date so that Ihave an opportunity to give you some tutorial feedback before you write your second essay. However, you will not be penalized if you choosenot to meet this deadline.

The official deadline for both essays is 4 p.m. on Monday 13th

December. You will be penalized if you fail to meet this deadline unless youhave been granted an extension by the Chair of the Board of Examiners (see below).

For Affiliate students who start the course in January only (course codes ending in B):

The official deadline for your first essay is 4 p.m. on Monday 22nd March. You will be penalized if you fail to meet this deadline unless youhave been granted an extension by the Chair of the Board of Examiners (see below). Please choose your essay question from the list above.

The of icial deadline for your second (summative) essay is 4 p.m. on Monday 23rd May. You will be penalized if you fail to meet this deadlineunless you have been granted an extension by the Chair of the Board of Examiners (see below). This essay may not be submitted earlier thanMonday 16th May. A list of summative essay questions will be available on Tuesday 3 rd May.

For second- ear History students writing the HIST2902 long essay in connection with this course:You are required to submit an approved proposal for your essay by 4 p.m. on Monday 17th January. Your final 7,500-word essay should besubmitted by 4 p.m. on Tuesday 3rd May.

Bibliographies

NOTE (i): The secondary bibliographies below are deliberately extensive. Although they are by no means comprehensive, they are designed to

provide guidance on a wide range of issues for each topic. Students who choose to study a particular topic are not expected to read every itemon its designated secondary bibliography; they are, however, expected to have read the primary designated text(s), either in their entirety or inthe stipulated selections, and have a general familiarity with the secondary scholarship.


7/47

6

NOTE (ii): Items followed by [J] indicate their availability online via JSTOR (http://uk.jstor.org/); [I] indicates availability on Ingentaconnect(http://www.ingentaconnect.com). Both websites may be accessed on UCL-networked computers or via the UCL library services website(http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Library/database/index.shtml).

NOTE (iii): Most, if not all, of the primary texts for this course are available online in a variety of different translations and editions, and can befound easily using Google or any effective search engine. Because the quality of online versions varies wildly, we would encourage you to usethem only as a last resort for preparation for class discussions, and strongly discourage you from using and referring to such versions in yourcoursework. The same applies to secondary resources online, which excepting those recommended in the course bibliographies below should be treated with extreme caution and avoided if possible.

NOTE (iv): Other useful online resources:

Perseus Digital Library: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ contains an extremely large collection of classical texts online;Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum: http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/cicerox.html contains links to many of Ciceros works;The Internet Classics Archive: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html contains the works of Aristotle and Plato online.


8/47

7

1. Introduction

In the first seminar we shall introduce the principal themes to beaddressed in the next two terms via two routes: first, through anoverview of the characteristics and scope of classical politicaltheory in general; and second through a summary of thespecific historiographical debate that forms the central problemof the course: i.e., the hotly debated question as to whether thepolitics of the Roman Republic can be accurately ormeaningfully characterised as democratic.

Seminar requirements

As this is the first seminar, you will not be expected to prepareand deliver any specific presentations. However, you will needto have read, and be prepared to contribute to seminardiscussion on, the following items:

John North, introduction to the constitution of the RomanRepublic; and ONE item from section (b) of the bibliographybelow (recommended is J. North, Democratic Politics inRepublican Rome, Past & Present 126 (1990), pp. 3-21 [onJSTOR]).

Bibliographies

(a) Introduction to classical politics & political theory

J. Aalders, Political Thought in Hellenistic Times (1975)J. Brunschwig & G. Lloyd (eds.), Greek Thought (Eng. trans.,2000), chs. by Bods,

Moss, Cartledge, and Schofield

P. Cartledge, Greek Political Thought: The historical context, inC. Rowe and M.

Schofield (eds.), the Cambridge History of Greek and

Roman Political Thought (2000)J. Dunn, Western political theory in the face of the future (1979),ch. 1

- (ed.), Democracy: The unfinished journey, 508 BC toAD 1993 (1992)A. Erskine, The Hellenistic Stoa (1990)M. I . Finley, Politics in the Ancient World (1983)

- Democracy Ancient and Modern (2nd

ed., 1985)P. Garnsey, Introduction: The Hellenistic and Roman periods,in C. Rowe and M.

Schofield (eds.), the Cambridge History of Greek andRoman Political Thought (2000)

D. Hammer, Roman Political Thought and the ModernTheoretical Imagination (2008)J. A. O. Larsen, Representative Government in Greek andRoman History (1966)

A. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy (1974)J. North, The Constitution of the Roman Republic, in R.Morstein-Marx and N. Rosenstein (eds.), Companion to theRoman Republic (2006). Ober and C. Hedrick (eds.), Demokratia: A conversation ondemocracies ancient and

modern (1986)E. Rawson, Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (1985)P. Riesenberg, Citizenship in the Western Tradition: Plato to

Rousseau (1992)C. Rowe & M. Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greekand Roman PoliticalThought(2000)L.J. Samons, What's Wrong with Democracy? From AthenianPractice to American Worship (2004)R. Syme, Roman Historians and Renaissance Politics, inSociety and History in the Renaissance (1960), 3-12 (= RomanPapers, I, Oxford, 1979, 470-476)


9/47

8

(b) Roman Democracy: the debate

K. Hlkeskamp, Reconstructing the Roman Republic: AncientPolitical Culture and Modern Research (New York, 2010)J.North, Democratic Politics in Republican Rome, Past &Present126 (1990), pp. 3-21

[J]- Politics and Aristocracy in the Roman Republic,

Classical Philology 85 (1990),pp. 277-287 (a concise version of the article above; seealso the criticisms by W. V. Harris in On Defining thePolitical Culture of the Roman Republic: Some Commentson Rosenstein, Williamson, and North, pp. 288-294, andNorths reply, pp. 297-98) [J]

F. Millar, The Political Character of the Classical Roman

Republic, 200-151 B.C.,Journal of Roman Studies vol. 74 (1984), pp. 1-19 [J]- The Crowd in the Late Republic (1998) [cf. review by K.Hlkeskamp in Scripta Classica Israelica (2000)]- The Roman Republic in Political Thought (2002)

H. Mouritsen, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic(2001)J. Tatum, Roman Democracy?, in R.K. Balot (ed.), TheCompanion to the Greek and Roman Political Thought (2009)

A. M. Ward, How Democratic was the Roman Republic?, NewEngland Classical

Journal31 (2004), pp. 109-119A. Yakobsen, Petitio and largitio: popular participation in the

centuriate assembly of thelate Republic, Journal of Roman Studies 82 (1992), pp.

32-52 [J]

Essay question: In what ways have historians disagreed aboutthe politics of the Roman republic, and why?

***

2. The Senate, the People, and the Forum

In this seminar we shall analyse the two main political agents ofthe Roman Republic: the Senate and the People. In contrast to

Greek political theory, which would present the politicalstructures of the Roman Republic in tripartite form (senate,magistrates, People), Cicero and his contemporaries focusedmainly on these two entities, whose dynamics of interaction areof essential importance in the analysis of the Roman politicalsystem. For a long time, since Mnzers influential work at thebeginning of the last century, the senate has been viewed as aclosed circle, access to which was reserved to a few aristocraticfamilies; while the People, especially in their characterisation asthe urban plebs, have bee pictured as being content to be fedby the government and entertained by public games. Recently,these views have been challenged, and new pictures have beendrawn, but no consensus has been reached amongst scholars.Who were the members of the Senate in the first century BC?Were the people really uninterested in politics and unable to actin politics? And what can studies of the space of the Forumcontribute to these questions?


1. Before the class, ALL must read Lintotts chapter on thesenate and Purcells study of the plebs living conditions in thefirst century BC (photocopies provided).

2. Presentation questions:

(a) W hat social and political rules governed access tothe senate? (consult

Evans 1991; Hopkins and Burton 1983; Ryan 1998; andBurckhardt 1990)

(b) What was the role of the People in the politicalsystem of the late
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281984%2974%3C1%3ATPCOTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281984%2974%3C1%3ATPCOTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281984%2974%3C1%3ATPCOTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281984%2974%3C1%3ATPCOTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281984%2974%3C1%3ATPCOTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9


10/47

9

Republic, and how widespread was their participation?(consult Brunt 1966; Purcell 1994; Yavetz 1965; and,from section (c), MacMullen 1980; Mouritsen 2001)

(a) The Senate

T.R. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (1986)- Senate and Senators in the Roman republic: theprosopographical Approach, Aufstieg und Niedergandder Rmischen Welt, I.1 (1972), 250-65

P.A. Brunt, Nobilitas and novitas, Journal Roman Studies 72(1982), 1-17 [J]

L.A. Burckhardt, The political elite of the Roman Republic:comments on recent discussion of the concepts nobilitasand homo novus, Historia 39 (1990), 77-99

R. Develin, Patterns in Office-Holding 366-49 BC (1979)W. Eder, Who rules? Power and Participation in Athens and

Rome, in A, Molho et al., City-States, 169-196R.J. Evans, Candidates and competition in consular elections

at Rome between 218 and 49, Acta classicaUniversitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 34 (1991),111-36K.

Hopkins and G. Burton, Political succession in the LateRepublic (249-50 BC), in Id., Death and Renewal :Sociological Studies in Roman History (1983), 31-119

A. Lintott, The Constitution of the Roman Republic (1999)N. Rosenstein, War, failure and aristocratic competition,

Classical Philology 85 (1990), 255-65 [J]F.X. Ryan, Rank and Participation in the republican senate

(1998)

I. Shatzman, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics (1975)T.P. Wiseman, New Men in the Roman senate 139 BC- AD 14(1971)

(b) The People

E.E. Best, Literacy and Roman voting, Historia 23 (1974), 428-38

P.A. Brunt, The Roman mob, Past and Present 35 (1966), 23-5[J]- Free labour and public works at Rome, JournalRoman Studies 70 (1980), 81-100 [J]

D. Cherry, Hunger at Rome in the Late Republic, ClassicalViews 37 (1993), 433-50W.V. Harris, Ancient Literacy(1989)L. Havans, The plebs Romana in the late 60s BC, Acta

classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 15(1979), 23-33- Plebs rustica. The peasantry of classical Italy,

American Journal Ancient History 5, 1/1980, 134-73J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Literacy in the Roman World, Journal

Roman Archaeology suppl. 3 (1991)N. Horsfall, The Culture of the Roman Plebs (2003), ch. 5J.K. Evans, Plebs rustica. The peasantry of classical Italy,

American Journal Ancient History 5, 1/1980, 19-47J.S. McClelland, The Crowd and the Mob from Plato to Canetti

(1989)N. Purcell, The City of Rome and the plebs urbana in the Late

Republic, Cambridge Ancient History IX (1994), 644-88C.R. Whittaker, The poor, in A. Giardina (ed.), The Romans

(Engl. Tr. 1993), 282-99Z. Yavetz, Plebs sordida, Athenaeum 43 (1965), 295-311

- The living conditions of the urban plebs in republicanRome, Latomus 17 (1958), 500-17

(c) The Forum

S.M. Cerutti, P. Clodius and the stairs of the temple of Castor,Latomus 57 (1998), 292-305

J. Elster, The market and the forum: three varieties of politicaltheory, in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.), DeliberativeDemocracy. Essays on Reason and Politics (1997), 3-33


11/47

10

S.E. Finer, The History of Government (1997), vol. IM.H. Hansen, The Athenain ecclesia and the Swiss

Landesgemeinde, in K.H. Kinzel (ed.), Demokratia,324-49

R. MacMullen, How many Romans voted?, Athenaeum 58(1980), 454-7H. Mourizten, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman republic

(2001), ch.2, 18-37I. Nielsen and B. Poulsen, The Temple of Castor and Pollux, vol.

I (1992)R.J. Rowland, The number of grain recipients in the late

Republic, Acta Antiqua 13 (1965), 81-83- The very poor and the grain dole at Rome and

Oxyrhynchus, Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie undEpigraphik 21 (1976), 69-72 [J]

T.P. Wiseman, The Circus Flaminius, Papers British SchoolRome 42 (1974), 2-26

- With the Boni in the Forum, Talking to Virgil. A Miscellany(1992), 111-148

Essay questions:

The senate was exclusively dominated by aristocratic families.Do you agree?

The conduction of political life in the open space of the Forumis a clear indication of the democratic nature of the Roman

political system. Discuss.

***

3. The Voting Assemblies and Cont i o

In this class we shall investigate what is commonly regarded asthe central moment of any democracy: the popular assembly.Roman politics was characterized by different types of

assembly: the comitia curiata; the comitia centuriata, the comitiatributa, and the contio (please note that comitium - singular -indicates the place of assembly, while comitia - plural - indicatesthe assembly of the Roman people summoned in groups). Inthe late Roman Republic, mainly, but not exclusively, the lasttwo forms of assemblies were active. However, while in thecomitia tributa the people's vote was accounted by voting group,the tribe, in the contio everyone who wished to do so couldgather together and take part in this non-decision makingassembly. It is this latter form of assembly that has been at thecentre of recent scholarly debate, and its political functions havebeen emphasised by the supporters of a democraticinterpretation of Roman republican politics. What were thecharacteristics of this assembly that seem to suggest a

genuinely democratic element in Rome? And were the comitiademocratic institutions or not?

Class requirements

1. Before the class, ALL of you must read Cicero, de legeagraria I, II, III (any edition. Please note also the website:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu, which carries an Englishtranslation). The first speech (de lege agraria I) wasdelivered before the senate, the second and the third (de

lege agraria II and III) before the people assembled in acontio. Take note of the differences and similarities thatyou find between a speech given in front of the senateand speeches given on the same issue in front of thepeople. And be prepared to discuss these issues.In addition, you must read the chapter on Romanassemblies in A. Lintott, The Constitution of the Romanrepublic (1999) (provided)


12/47

11

2. In the class, presentations will be given that answers thefollowing question:

(a) 'Why was the secret ballot introduced, and was it ademocratic measure?' (consult Hall 1990; Hall 1998;Marshall 1997; Yakobson 1995; Rosenstein 1995;Nicolet 1980)

(b) Why does contio take such an important place in thedebate about Roman democracy? Is this centrality welldeserved? (consult Morstein Marx 2003; Mouritzen 2002;Fantham 2000; Fantham 1999; Pina Polo 1995;Vanderbroeck 1987)

(a) The Contio

(1) Primary texts

Cicero, de lege agraria I, II and III (Loeb Classical edition, trans.J. H Freese); other editions are widely available

(b) Secondary studies of Ciceros speches

R.W. Cape, Ciceros Consular Speeches, in J.M. May (ed.),Brills Companion to Cicero: Oratory and Rhetoric (2002),113-58

J. Fogel, Cicero and the ancestoral constituion. A Study ofCiceros contio speeches (diss. 1994)

E.J. Jonkers, Social and Economic Commentary on Ciceros delege agraria orationes tres (1963)

J. Leonhardt, Senat und Volk in Ciceros Reden De lege

agraria, Acta classica Universitatis ScientiarumDebreceniensis 34/5, 279-92

P. Mackendrick, The Speeches of Cicero: Context, Law,Rhetoric (1995)

A. Vasaly, Representations: Images of the W orld in CoceronianOratory (1993)

C. Thompson, To the Senate and to the People: Adaptation tothe Senatorial and Popular Audiences in the ParallelSpeeches of Cicero (diss., 1978)

(b) Secondary studies on the Contio

A.J.E. Bell, Cicero and the spectacle of power, Journal RomanStudies 87 (1997), 1-22 [J]

E. Fantham, Meeting the people: the orator and the Republicancontio at Rome, L. Calboli Montefusco (ed.), Papers onRhetoric III (2000), 95-112

Id., The contexts and occasions of Roman public rhetoric, inW.J. Domminik (ed.), Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric inSociety and Literature (London, 1999), III-28

Id., Fantham, The Roman World of Ciceros de oratore (2003)N. Horsfall, The Culture of the Roman Plebs (2003), ch. 7F. Metaxaki-Mitrou, Violence in the contio during the Ciceronian

age, Antiquite classique 54 (1984), 180-7Morstein-Marx, Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late

Roman Republic (2003), ch.2 (recommended also chs. 6and 7)C. Nicolet, The World of the Roman Citizen (Engl. Tr. 1980),

285-9F. Pina Polo, Procedure and functions of civil and military

contiones in Rome, Klio 77 (1995), 203-16J. Tan, Contiones in the Age of Cicero, Classical Antiquity 27

(2008), 163-201L. R. Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies, 15 ff.


13/47

12

Fantham, The Roman World of Ciceros de oratore (2003)A. Yakobson, The peoples voice and the speakers platform:popular power, persuasion and manipulation in the RomanForum, SCI 23 (2004), 201-212

A. Yakobson, The peoples voice and the speakers platform:popular power, persuasion and manipulation in the RomanForum, SCI 23 (2004), 201-212P.J.J. Vanderbroeck, Popular Leadership and Collective

Behavior in the Late Roman Republic (ca 80-50BC)(1987), 209 ff.

(2) The Voting System and the Secret Ballot

G.W. Botsford, The Roman Assemblies (1909)U. Hall, Voting procedure in Roman assemblies, Historia 13

(1964), 267-306Id., Species libertatis: voting procedures in the late Republic,

in M. Austin et al. (eds.), Modus Operandi (1998), 15-30Id., Greeks and Romans and the secret ballot, in E.M. Craik

(ed.), Owls to Athens. Essays in Classical Subjects(1990)

B.A. Marshall, Libertas populi: the introduction of secret ballotin Rome and its depiction on coinage, Antichton 31(1997), 54-73

C. Nicolet, The World of the Roman Citizen (Engl. Tr. 1980),217-85

N. Rosenstein, Sorting out the lot in Republican Rome,American Journal Philology 116 (1995), 43 ff. [J]

L. Ross Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies (1966)Id., The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (1960)E.S. Staveley, Greek and Roman Voting and Elections (1972)

A. Yakobson, Secret ballot and its effects in the late RomanRepublic, Hermes 123 (1995), 426-42

Id., Elections and Electioneering in Rome (1999)

Essay questions

Essay questions:

Did the meeting of the contio constitute an authentic democraticoccasion?

Were the laws on the secret ballot motivated by the desire toincrease the citizens influence in the political process?

***

4. Public Political Culture

In this seminar we shall analyse the dynamics of Romanelectoral campaigns in the late Republic. The best documentthat highlights the techniques of electioneering in this period isprovided by the so-called Commentariolum petitionis, an essayin an epistolary form addressed to Cicero allegedly by hisbrother Quintus in 64 (the year of Cicero's consular election).

Although its authenticity has been called to question, the textshows a considerable degree of familiarity with the history of theperiod, and, as such, can be regarded as a valid source forelectoral campaigning. What were the methods deployed byRoman politicians to gain political support? What were the

means by which the popular vote was canvassed?


1. Before the seminar, ALL must read A short guide toelectioneering : Quintus Cicero's Commentariolum petitionis:introduction and translation. (Lactor 3, 1968 anyedition.Please note it is also available in English and Latin onthe Perseus website: www.perseus.tufts.edu); and Morstein-Marx 1998)


14/47

13


(a) What can we infer from the practice of bribery about

the nature of the Roman political system? (ConsultYakobson in Journal of Roman Studies 1992; Gruen1991; Linderski in Ancient Classical World 1985; Lintottin Journal of Roman Studies 1990; Wallinga in RevueInternationale de Droits de l'Antiquit 1994)

(b) What role did violence play in the politics of the lateRepublic? (Consult Lintott 1968; Nippel 1995; Sherwin-White in Journal of Roman Studies 1956; Vanderbroeck1987)

Bibliographies

(a) Primary texts

A short guide to electioneering: Quintus Cicero'sCommentariolum petitionis : introduction and translation. (Lactor3, 1968)

(b) The Commentariolum Petitionis and the Political Campaign

P.A. Brunt, Clientela, in Id. (ed.), The Fall of the RomanRepublic(1988), 382-502

A. Coreill, Political movement: walking and ideology in

Republican Rome, in D. Fredrick (ed.), The RomanGaze (2002), 182-215G.E.M. de S. Croix, Suffragium: from vote to patronage, British

Journal of Sociology 5 (1954), 33-48J. Evans, The Art of Persuasion: Political Propaganda from

Aeneas to Brutus (1992)R. Laurence, Rumour and communication in Roman politics,

Greece & Rome 41 (1994), 62-74

F. Millar, Popular politics at Rome in the late Republic, in I.Malkin and Z.W. Rubinsohn (eds.), Leaders and Massesin the Roman World(1995), 91-114

R. Morstein-Marx, Publicity, popularity and patronage in the

Commentariolum petitionis, Classical Antiquity 17(1998), 269-88H. Mourizten, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman republic

(2001), 67-79 and 96-100D. Nardo, Il commentariolum petitionis: la propaganda elettorale

nella ars di Quinto Cicerone (1970)C. Nicolet, The World The World of the Roman Citizen (Engl. Tr.

1980), 289-310R. Seager, Factio: some observations, Journal Roman Studies

62 (1972), 53-58 [J]A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society (1989)

(esp. P. Garnsey and G. Woolf, Patronage of the ruralpoor in the ancient world, 153-170 and A. Wallace-

Hadrills)A. Yakobson, Petitio and largitio, Journal Roman Studies 82

(1992), 32-52 [J]- Elections and Electioneering in Rome (1999)

(c) Corruption

E. Gruen, The exercise of power in the Roman republic, A.Molho, K. Raaflaub, J. Emlen (eds.), City-States inClassical Antiquity and Medieval Italy (1991), 251-67

J. Linderski, Buying the vote: electoral corruption in the LateRepublic, Ancient World 11 (1985), 87-94

A. Lintott, Electoral bribery in the Roman Republic, JournalRoman Studies 80 (1990), 1-16 [J]

A. Riggsby, Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome (1999)T. Wallinga, Ambitus in the Roman World, Revue

internationale des droits de l'Antiquite 41 (1994), 411-42

(d) Violence

A. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome (1968)


15/47

14

W. Nippel, Public Order in Ancient Rome (1995)A. Sherwin-White, Violence in Roman politics, Journal RomanStudies 46 (1956), 1-9 [J]R.E. Smith, The use of force in passing legislation in the late

Republic, Athenaeum 55(177), 150-74- The anatomy of force in the late republican politics, in

Ancient Society andInstitutions (1966), 257-74

P. J.J. Vanderbroeck, Popular Leadership, 146 ff.

Essay question: What were the political implications of bribery?

***

5. The Politics of Entertainment

In this seminar we shall analyze the different ways in which theRoman people made their voice heard in the late Republic. Inparticular, we shall consider the theatre and public games asimportant locations of public gathering, where the populusRomanus could express its opinion on political issues in non-institutionalized settings. Are the episodes reported in oursources the product of the heated political climate of the lateRepublic? Did these venues really give the opportunity to theRoman people to express their say on public matters? And if so,what does it tell us about the level of democratic participation of

the Roman society of the first century BC? In addition, in classwe will analyze some political graffiti as preserved in the city ofPompeii. These constitute a different form of the publicmanifestation of political will, the importance and relevance ofwhich will be discussed in class.


1. Before the class, ALL must read (a) F. Abbott, The theatreas a factor in Roman politics under the Republic, Transaction

American Philological Association 38 (1907) [available on Jstor](b) H.I. Flower, Spectacle and Political Culture in the RomanRepublic, in Id. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the RomanRepublic (2004) (photocopy provided), and (c) Cicero, proSestio (photocopy provided)

2. In the class, (a) we shall discuss political graffiti (to bedistributed in class) and (b) a presentation will be given thatanswer the following question:

(a) What, If any, were the 'political' dimensions of theatreand games? (Consult Nicolet 1980; Tatum in AncientHistory Bulletin 1990; Veyne 1992; Horsfall 2003; Abbott1907; Flower 2004; Slater 1996)

Bibliography

(a) GamesK. Hlkeskamp, Images of power: memory, myth andmonuments in the Roman Republic, SCI 24 (2005), 249-271C. Nicolet, The World The World of the Roman Citizen (Engl. Tr.

1980), ch. 9, 343-81M.G. Morgan, Politics, religion and the games in Rome 200-

150 BC, Philologus 134 (1990), 14-36J.B. Payton, The public games of the Romans, Greece &

Rome 7 (1938), 76-85G. Sumi, Ceremony and Power. Performing Politics in Rome

between Republic and Empire (2005)W.J. Tatum, Another look at the spectators at the Roman

games, Ancient History Bulletin 4 (1990), 104-7


16/47

15

P. Veyne, Bread and Circus: the Historical Sociology andPolitical Pluralism (abridged ver. with intr. by O. Murray,1992)

M. Wistrand, Entertainment and violence in ancient Rome (1992)Z. Yavetz, Julius Caesar and his Public Image (Engl. Tr. 1983)Id., Plebs and Princeps (1969), esp. 58-74

A. Futrell (ed.), Bread and Circuses. A Sourcebook on theRoman Games (2005)

(b) Theatre

F. Abbott, The theatre as a factor in Roman politics under theRepublic, Transaction American Philological Association 38

(1907), 49-56 [J]G.S. Aldrete, Gestures and Acclamations (1999)W. Beare, Roman Stage (2nd ed, 1955)C. Edwards, The Politics of Immorality (1993)N. Horsfall, The Culture of the Roman Plebs (2003)S. Lilja, Seating problems in Roman theatre and circus, Arctos19 (1985), 67-73E. Rawson, Discrimina Ordinum: the lex Iulia Theatralis, in Id.,Roman Culture and Society (1991), 508-45Id., Theatrical life in Republican Rome and Italy, Papers BritishSchool Rome 53 (1985), 97-113

W.J. Slater, Pantomime Riots, Classical Antiquity 13 (1994),120-44Id. (ed.), Roman Theater and Society (1996)F.W. Wright, Cicero and the Theater (1931)

(c) Inscriptions and Griffiti

A.E. Cooley and M.G.L. Cooley, Pompeii: a Sourcebook (2004)J.L Franklin, Pompei: the Electoral Programmata, Campaignsand Politics A.D. 71-79 (1980)Id., Pompeis difficile est: Studies in the Political Life of ImperialPompeii (2001)H. Mouritsen, Elections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite (1988)R.A. Stacciolli, Manifesti elettorali nellantica Pompei (1992)P. Zanker, Pompeii: Public and Private Life (1998)

Essay question: The games were the only places where theordinary Romans could exercise real political pressure. Discuss.

***

6. P ot es t as P opul i and A uc t or i t as S enat us

In this seminar we shall investigate the meaning of twofundamental political concepts of the Late Republic: potestas

populi and auctoritas senatus. The first may be translated aspopular sovereignty, while the latter as authority of the senate.These translations, however, do not do justice to thecomplexities of problems related to these political ideas. While

potestas populi seemed to convey the idea of popular politicalpower, auctoritas senatus was frequently held to be central tothe ideological construction of the res publica. Did theseconcepts have a specific meaning accepted by all members ofRoman society? And if so, what role did they play in the politicalbattles of the late Republic?


1. Before the seminar, ALL must read (a) Cicero, pro Sestio(any edition please note you can also access to the text bythe website: www.perseus.tufts.edu); (b) Sallust, Histories (anyedition) and Ps-Sall, Epistula ad Caesarem (Lactor 6, 1970 orany other edition available), taking notes on political concepts,such as auctoritas senatus, potestas populi ,optimates/popuares and any other you may encounter.


17/47

16


(a) How far is it possible to assess the meaning of the

concept of potestas populiand its use in the politicalconflicts of the first century BC? (Consult Earl 1967,1961; Mackie 1992; Wiseman 1994; Wirszubski 1950)

(b) What role did the concept of auctoritas senatus playin Ciceros political thought and in the political battlesfought during his lifetime? (Consult Wood 1988;Wirzubski 1954; Baldson in Classical Quarterly 1960;

Adock 1959)

Bibliographies

(a) Primary texts

Cicero, Pro Sestio (tr. by R. Gardner, 1958) Loeb ClassicalEditionSallust, Historiae (tr. with introduction and commentary by P.McGushin, 1992)Ps.-Sallust, Epistula ad Caesarem (Lactor 6, 1970)

(b) Secondary studies

F.E. Adock, Roman Political Ideas and Practice (1959)E. Badian, Tiberius Gracchus and the beginning of the Roman

revolution, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rmischen Welt, I,1(1972), 668-731J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Auctoritas, dignitas, otium, ClassicalQuarterly1960, 43 ff. [J]D. Earl, the Moral and Political tradition of Rome (1967)

- The political thought of Sallust (1961)M. Griffin, Cicero and Roman philosophy, Cambridge AncientHistory IX (1994), 771 ff.J. Hellegouarc'h, Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis

politiques sous la

Rpublique (1963)N. Mackie, Popularis ideology and popular politics at Rome inthe first century BC,

Rheinisches Museum 135 (1992), 49-73

C. Nicolet (ed), Demokratia et aristokratia, mots grecs etralit romaines (1983)E. Remy, Dignitas cum otio, Musee Belge, 32 (1928), 125 ff.L. Ross Taylor, Forerunners of the Gracchi, Journal RomanStudies, 52 (1962), 19-27

[J]- Party Politics in the Age of Caesar(1949)

R. Syme, Sallust (1964)C. Wirszubski, Ciceros cum dignitate otium: a reconsideration,Journal Roman Studies 44 (1954), 1-13 [J]T.P. Wiseman, The senate and the populares, Cambridge

Ancient History IX (2nd ed., 1994), 327-367N. Wood, Ciceros Social and Political Thought (1988)

Essay question: What was potestas populi and what role did itplay as a concept in the political battles of the Republic?

***

7. Liberty

In this seminar we shall analyse the Roman concept of libertas(freedom) during the Republican period. This was an essentialconcept at the centre of Roman civic and political identity:

Other people can endure slavery: the assured possession ofthe Roman people is liberty (Cic., Phil. VI, 19). Although itscentrality in the Roman political arena is widely recognised,there is no consensus amongst modern historians on the role itplayed in the working of politics and, to a certain extent, on itsuses by the Roman politicians of the late Republic. Libertas wasthe common ideal invoked by Catiline and his followers; byCicero, whom the Catilinarians sentenced to death; by Clodiuswho exiled Cicero; and by optimates who supported his return;and by Caesat as well as his murderers Brutus and Cassius.


18/47

17

Was it then a vague notion just used by politicians to attain theirpersonal objectives? What did the Roman politiciansaccomplish by waving the banner of liberty? What was theRoman tradition of liberty? What relation did it have to the

Greek concept of freedom?


1. Before the seminar, ALL must read C. Wirszubski, Libertasas Political Idea at Rome during the late Republic and early

principate (excerpts) and M.H. Hansen, The ancient Athenianand the modern view of liberty as a democratic ideal(photocopies provided)


(a) What were the main characteristics of Greek theories

of liberty? (especially relevant are Barnes 1990; Gomme1962; Hansen 1989 and 1996; Raaflaub 2004)

(b) What were the main characteristics of Romantheories of liberty? (consult Berg 1997; Brunt 1988; Lind1986; Wirszbuski 1950 and its review by Momigliano1951)

Bibliographies

(a) Greek liberty

J. Barnes, Aristotle and Political Liberty, in Gunther Patzig(ed.), Aristotles Politik. Aktes des XI Symposium

Aristotelicum (1990), 249-63Eckstein, Polybius, the Achaneans and the freedom of the

Greeks, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 31(1990), 45-61

D.H. Frank, Aristotle on freedom in politics, Prudentia 15(1983), 109-16

A.W. Gomme, Concepts of freedom, in More Essays in GreekHistory and Literature (1962), 139-55

M.H. Hansen, Was Athens a democracy? Popular rule, libertyand equality in ancient and modern political thought, in

Historisk-filosofiske Meddelesener- The Royal DanishAcademy of Science and Letters 59 (1989)- The ancient Athenian and the modern view of libertyas a democratic ideal, in J. Ober and L. Hedrik (eds.),Demokratia (1996), 91-104

L. Karlsson, The symbols of freedom and democracy in thebronze coinage of Timoleon, in T. Fisher- A.M. Hansen(ed.), Ancient Sicily (1995), 149-69

K. Raaflaub, The discovery of freedom in Ancient Greece (rev.ed., 2004)R. Seager, The freedom of the Greeks of Asia from Alexanderto Antiochus, Classical Quarterly 31 (1981), 106-12 [J]

(b) Roman liberty

B. Berg, Ciceros Palatine home and Clodius shrine of liberty:alternative emblems of the Republic in Ciceros de domosua, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature andRoman History VIII (1997), 122-43

P.A. Brunt, Libertas in the Republic, in Id., The Fall of theRoman Republic (1988), 281-350

F. Cairns and E. Fantham (eds.), Caesar against Liberty?Perspectives on his

Autocracy (2003) (esp. Introduction, 1-18 and K.Raaflaubs contribution, 35-

67)

R.L. Lind, The idea of the Republic and the foundations ofRoman political liberty, C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in LatinLiterature and Roman History IV (1986), 44-108

A. Momigliano, review of Wirszubski, Journal Roman Studies 41(1951), 146-53 [J]

C. Nicolet, The World The World of the Roman Citizen (Engl. Tr.1980), ch. 8, 317-41

L.A. Spinger, The temple of Libertas on the Aventine, theClassical Journal 45 (1949/50), 390-1


19/47

18

R. Syme, Liberty in Classical Antiquity, in A.R. Birley (ed.),Roman papers, vol. III (1977), 962-68

R. Wallace, Personal Freedom in Greek Democracies,Republican Rome, and Modern Liberal States, in R.K.

Balot (d.), Companion to the Greek and Roman PoliticalThought (2009)C. Wirszubski, Libertas as Political Idea at Rome during the

Late republic and the early Principate (1960)

Essay question: Libertas is the Roman word that besttranslates the Greek. Discuss

***

8. Equality and Justice

In this class we shall discuss the concepts of equality andjustice in late Republican Rome. These values have beentraditionally recognised as part of the realm of philosophy,introduced in Rome by Greek philosophers and, as such,representing the conceptual framework of works such asCiceros de officiis. However, a close analysis of Roman politicssuggests that these ideas played also a part in the actualworking of late Republican politics. Is it possible to identify thepresence of the concepts of equality and justice in Rome?What relation did they have to their Greek counterparts?

Class requirements

1. Before the class, ALL must read (a) Cicero, de officiis, BookII, 71-88 and III, 20-57, taking notes on Ciceros ideas onprivate property (P. Walcot in GREECE & ROME22 (1975) inJStor might be of help) and (b) M. Schofield, Two Stoic

approaches to justice, A. Laks and M. Schofield (eds.), Justiceand Generosity, 191-212 (photocopies provided)

2. In the class, presentations will be given that answer thefollowing questions:

(a) What were the sources of Ciceros definitions ofustice and equality? (consult Christensen 1984; Harvey

1965; Fantham 1973; Schofield 1995; Van Zyl 1991;Wesoly 1989)

(b) How does Ciceros understanding of equality andustice serve to protect private property? (consult Annas

1989; Long 1997; Walcot 1975; Ferrary 1995; Long1995)

(a) Primary text

Cicero, de officiis (esp. II, 71-88 and III, 21-57) [several editionsavailable full text also available on the web ahttp://www.stoics.com/cicero_book.html ]. See also the excellent

introduction in E.M. Atkins and M.T. Griffin (eds.), Cicero, OnDuties (1991) and A.R. Dyck, A Commentary on Cicero,deofficiis (1996)

(b) Secondary studies: Greek equality

J. Christensen, Equality of man and Stoic social thought, inEquality and Inequality of a Man in Ancient Thought(1984), 45-54
http://www.stoics.com/cicero_book.htmlhttp://www.stoics.com/cicero_book.html


20/47

19

C. Georgiadis, Equitable and equity in Aristotle, in S.Panagiotou (ed.), Justice, Law and Method in Plato and

Aristotle (1987), 159-72F.D. Harvey, Two kinds of equality, Classica et Medievalia 26

(1965), 101 ff.W. Kullman, Equality in Aristotles political thought, in Equalityand Inequality of a Man in Ancient Thought (1984), 31-44

W.M. Leyden, Aristotle on Equality and Justice (1985)M. Ostwald, Popular sovereignty and the problem of equality,

Scripta Classica Israelica 19 (2000), 1-13P. Schollmeier, Democracy most in accordance with equality,

Harvard Studies Classical Philology 9 (1988), 205-9R.A. Shiwer, Aristotle theory of equity in S. Panagiotou (ed.),

Justice, Law and Method in Plato and Aristotle (1987)H. Thesleff, Plato and inequality, in Equality and Inequality of a

Man in Ancient Thought (1984), 17-29

(c) Roman equality

G. Ciulei, Lequit chez Cicron (1972)A.E. Douglas, Cicero the philosopher, in Dorey (ed.), Cicero

(1964), ch. 6E. Fantham, Aequabilitas in Ciceros political theory and the

Greek tradition of proportional justice, ClassicalQuarterly23 (1973), 285-990 [J]

J.P. Glucker, Ciceros philosophical affiliations, in J. Dillon andA.A. Long (eds.), The Question of Ecletism (1988), 34 ff.

D.H. Van Zyl, Justice and Equity in Cicero (1991)

(d)Classical Greek Justice

D. Keyt, Aristotles theory of distributive justice, A Companionto Aristotles Politcs (1991), 238-78

E.N. Lee, Platos theory of social justice in republic II-IV, in J.Anton and A. Prew (eds.), Essays in Ancient GreekPhilosophy(1989), 117-40

Y. Nakategowa, Athenian democracy and the concept ofustice in Pseudo-Xenophons

Athenaion Politeia, Hermes 123 (1995), 28-46S. Panagiotou (ed.), Justice, Law and Method in Plato and

Aristotle (1987), esp. Equitable and equity in Aristotle,159-72X.G. Santas, Justice and democracy in Platos Republic, O .

Gigon and M.W. Fischer (eds.), Antike Rechts undSozialphilosophie (1988), 37-59

L.F. Stally, Justice in Platos laws, in S. Scolicov and L.Brisson (eds.), Platos Laws from Theory to Practice(2003), 174-85

M. Wesoly, Aristotles conception of justice and equality, Eos77 (1989), 211-20

(e) Hellenistic and Roman Justice

J. Annas, Cicero on Stoic moral philosophy and privateproperty, in M. Griffin and J. Barnes (eds.), PhilosophiaTogata I (1989), 151-73

J. L. Ferrary, The Stateman and the law in the politicalphilosophy of Cicero, in A. Laks

and M. Schofield (eds.), Justice and Generosity 48-73A.A. Long, Ciceros politics in de officiis, in A. Laks and M.

Schofield (eds.), Justice and Generosity, 213-40- Stoic philosophers on persons, property ownershipand community, in R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle and After(1997), 13-31

- Ciceros Plato and Aristotle, in J. Powell, Cicero thePhilosopher(1995), 37-61J. Roberts, Justice and the Polis, in C. Rowe and M. Schofield

(eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and RomanPolitical Thought (2000), 344-365

M. Schofield, Two Stoic approaches to justice, A. Laks and M.Schofield (eds.), Justice and Generosity, 191-212- The Stoic Idea of the City (1991)


21/47

20

- Ciceros definition of res publica, in J. Powell, Cicerothe Philosopher, 63-83

P. Walcot, Cicero on private property: theory and practice,Greece & Rome 22 (1975), 120-8

Essay question: Why, from an ideological point of view, was theRoman elite so hostile to land distribution?

***

9. Citizenship

In this seminar we shall discuss the concept of citizenship inlate Republican Rome. In contrast to other ancient city-states,Roman citizenship did not depend on biological descent, but ona series of successive legal acts. Rome did not lose this featureof its policy even in the first century BC when was firmly at thecentre of an empire. Rome absorbed into Roman citizenship theexisting city-states, leaving them their own political identity andlocal constitutions, and producing a dual citizenship. It seems,therefore, that the practice of politics regarding the reality of aRoman citizen in the late Republic was quite different from theidealised picture that can be drawn from authors such asPlutarch. What are the precise characteristics of these twopictures? How can we account for such differences? And,above all, what are the consequences for later views of Rome?


1. Before the seminar, ALL must read (a) Cicero, pro Archia,taking notes on the issue of citizenship and (b) Plutarch, TheLife of Camillus, paying particular attention to the way in whicha Roman hero is portrayed.


(a) What were the components of Roman citizenship?(consult Shewin-White 1977; Broughton 1975; Lomas2000; Nicolet 1980; Riesenberg 1992; Dench 2005)

(b) What made a Roman hero? (consult Bruun 2000;Eder 1998; Geiger 1995; Larmour 1992; Momigliano1942).

Bibliographies

(a) Primary texts

Cic. Pro Archia (tr. by R. Gardner, 1965) Loeb Classical edition[numerous editions

available. See also http://www.perseus.tufts.edu ]- Pro Balbo (tr. by Watts, 1923) Loeb Classical edition

[numerous- editions available. See also

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu ]Plutarch, Life of Coriolanus (tr. by I. Scott-Kilvert, Penguin, 1965)[numerous

editions available. See alsohttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu ]

- Life of Camillus (tr. by B. Perrin, Loeb Classical edition)[numerous

editions available. See alsohttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu ]

(b) Secondary studies: Citizenship

K.A. Barber, Rhetori in Ciceros pro Balbo (2004)T. Broughton, review of Sherwin-White, Journal Roman Studies

65 (1975), 189-91 [J]M.H. Crawford, How to create a municipium. Rome and Italy

after the Social War, in M. Austin, J. Harries and C.Smith (eds.), Modus operandi. Essays in honour ofGeoffrey Rickman. (1998), 31-46.
http://www.db.dyabola.de/dya/dya_srv2.dll?07&dir=PDGMXZJD&RecNo=599238http://www.db.dyabola.de/dya/dya_srv2.dll?07&dir=PDGMXZJD&RecNo=599238http://www.db.dyabola.de/dya/dya_srv2.dll?07&dir=PDGMXZJD&RecNo=599238http://www.db.dyabola.de/dya/dya_srv2.dll?07&dir=PDGMXZJD&RecNo=599238http://www.db.dyabola.de/dya/dya_srv2.dll?07&dir=PDGMXZJD&RecNo=599238http://www.db.dyabola.de/dya/dya_srv2.dll?07&dir=PDGMXZJD&RecNo=599238http://www.db.dyabola.de/dya/dya_srv2.dll?07&dir=PDGMXZJD&RecNo=599238http://www.db.dyabola.de/dya/dya_srv2.dll?07&dir=PDGMXZJD&RecNo=599238


22/47

21

E. Dench, Romulus' asylum: Roman identities from the age ofAlexander to the age of Hadrian (2005)

H.C. Gotoff, Ciceros Elegant Style: an Analysis of the ProArchia (1979)

K. Lomas, The polis in Italy. Ethnicity, colonazation andcitizenship in the Western Mediterranean, in R. L. Brockand S. Hodkinson (eds.), Alternatives to Athens(2000)167-85

Mazzolani, The Idea of the City in Roman Thought (1970)A. Momigliano, review of Sherwin-White, in Secondo Contributo,

389-400M. Morford, The dual ctizenship of the Roman Stoics, in S.N.

Byrne and E.P. Cueva (eds.), Veritatis AmicitiaequeCausa (1999), 147-164

C. Nicolet, The World The World of the Roman Citizen (Engl. Tr.1980), ch. 1, 17-47

P. Riesenberg, Citizenship in the Western Tradition (1992), ch.

2, 56-84A.N. Sherwin-White, The Roman citizenship. A survey of its

development into a world franchised, Aufstieg undNiedergang der Rmischen Welt 1.2 (1977), 23-58

J.E.G. Zetzel, Citizen and commonwealth in de re publica, in J.Powell and J. North (eds.), Ciceros Republic (2001), 83-98

(c) Roman Heroes

J. Berlioz and J.-L. David, Rhetorique et histoire. Lexemplumet le modle de comportement dans le discourse antiqueet mdival MEFRA 92 (1980), 15-31

H. van der Blom, Ciceros Role Models (2010)W. M. Bloomer, Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New

Nobility (1992)C. Bruun, What every man in the street used to know: M.

Furius Camillus, Italic legends and Romanhistoriography, in C. Bruun (ed.), The Roman MiddleRepublic(2000), 41-68

T. J. Cornell, Coriolanus: Myth, History and Performance, in D.Braund and C. Gill (eds.), Myth, History and Culture(2003), 73-97

M. Coudry and T. Spth (eds.), Linvention des grandes homes

de la Rome antique (2001)W. Eder, M. Furius Camillus,Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopdie der Antike 4 (1998), 715-6

T. Frank, Two historical themes in Roman literature. A. Regulusand Horace Ode III, 5, CPh 21 (1926), 311-4

J. Geiger, Plutarchs Parallel Lives: the choice of heroes, in B.Scardigli (ed.), Essays on Plutarchs Lives (1995), 165-90

P.J. Holliday, The Origins of Roman Historical Commemorationin the Visual Art(2002)

D.H. Larmour, Making parallels: synkrisis and PlutarchsThemistocles and Camillus, Aufstieg und Niedergangder Rmischen Welt II.33, 6 (1992), 4154-4200

A.D. Lehman, The Coriolanus story in antiquity, ClassicalJournal 47 (1951-52), 329-35

P. Matyszak, Chronicle of the Roman Republic (2003)E.R. Mix, Marcus Atilius Regulus: Exemplum Historicum (1970)

A. Momigliano, Camillus and Concord, Classical Quarterly 36(1942), 111-20 [J]

H.T. Powell, The free citizens in Horace, Odes 3, 5, in G.E.Mylonas (ed.), Studies presented to D. Moore Robinson(1953), 663-77

A.D. Russell, Plutarchs life of Coriolanus, Journalk RomanStudies 53 (1963), 21-28 [J]

E.T. Salmon, Historical elements in the story of Coriolanus,

Classical Quarterly 24 (1930), 96-101 [J]M. Torelli, Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs

(1982)

Essay question: How useful are Roman ideas about citizenshipin assessing the character of Roman politics?

***


23/47

22

10. Plato on Democracy

In this seminar we shall explore Platos analysis and critique ofdemocracy in his two mature political works, the Republic and

the Laws. Is it the case, as the popular view has it, that Platowas an uncompromisingly hostile critic of democratic politics?Or do the recent studies arguing that Plato was more deeplyinfluenced by Athenian society than he would have cared toadmit prompt a reassessment?


1. Before the seminar, ALL must read Plato, Republicbooks 8 &9, and Laws book 6, taking notes on Platos view of democracyand other forms of government in these texts.

2. In the seminar, presentations will be given that answer the

following questions:

(a) What, according to Plato in the Republic, are thecharacteristics of the democratic city, and how do thesefeature in his depiction of the democratic man? (in thesecondary bibliography below, Ober 1998, Scott 2000,Samaras 2002 and Santas 2001 are especially relevant).

(b) How do the constitutional arrangements depicted byPlato in the Laws avoid the extremes of licence anddespotism? (especially relevant are Laks 1990 and 2000;Morrow 1993; and Stalley 1983).

Bibliographies

(a) Primary texts

Plato, Republic, trans. T. Griffith, ed. G. R. F. Ferrari(Cambridge, 1999) [numerous

alternative editions available], book 8

- The Laws, trans. A. E. Taylor (1960), or T. J.Saunders (1970) [alternatives available], book 6- Gorgias, trans. R. Jackson, K. Lycos, and H. Tarrant(1998), or trans. T. Irwin (1979) [alternatives available]


J. Annas, An Introduction to Platos Republic(1981)C. Farrar, The Origins of Democratic Thinking: The invention of

politics in classicalAthens (1988), ch. 7

R. W. Hall, Plato (1981)G. Klosko, Platos Political Theory (1986)

A. Laks, The Laws, in C. Rowe and M. Schofield (eds.), TheCambridge History of

Greek and Roman Political Thought (2000)- Legislation and Demiurgy: On the relationshipbetween Platos Republicand Laws, Classical Antiquityvol. 9 (1990), pp. 209-29

J. Ober, Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: Intellectualcritics of popular rule (1998),

chs. 1 and 4S. Monoson, Platos Democratic Entanglements: Athenian

politics and the practice ofphilosophy(2000)

G. R. Morrow, Platos Cretan City: A historical interpretation ofthe Laws(1960; 2

nded.,

1993)D. Scott, Platos Critique of the Democratic Character,

Phronesis vol. 45 (2000), pp.19-37 [I]T. Samaras, Plato on Democracy (2002)G. Santas, Platos Criticism of the Democratic Man in theRepublic, Journal of Ethics

vol. 5 (2001), pp. 57-71 [I]R. F. Stalley, An Introduction to Platos Laws (1983)N. White, A Companion to Platos Republic(1979)


24/47

23

Essay question: In the Republic, Plato denounced democracy;yet in the Laws, he advocated its implementation. Discuss.

***

11. Aristotle on Democracy

In this seminar we shall discuss Aristotles analysis ofdemocratic constitutions in the Politics, and the account of

Athenian democracy in pseudo-Xenophons Constitution ofAthens. Traditionally, Aristotle has been held to be assuspicious of democracy as his teacher Plato, though somepolitical theorists have more recently pointed to tendencies inhis thought most importantly, his high valuation of equality that suggest he should not be viewed as an unambiguously

negative critic of the arrangements that prevailed in his adoptedpolis of Athens. How does Aristotle reveal his political principlesin the self-consciously empirical middle books of the Politics,and what can we discover about the nature of classicaldemocracy from his highly nuanced analysis? How does this gelwith the analysis of Athens offered by the Old Oligarch?


1. Before the seminar, ALL must read Aristotle, Politics booksIII-VI and pseudo-Xenophons Constitution of Athens, taking

notes on the characteristics attributed to democraticconstitutions, and the ways in which these are implemented inthe descriptions of Athens.


(a) What, according to Aristotle in the Politics, are thebenefits and drawbacks of the different kinds of

democracy? (base your talk primarily on Politics booksIII-VI; in the secondary reading Strauss 1991; Schofield1999; and Mulgan 1990 and 1991 are especiallyrelevant).

(b) What were the defects of Athenian democracy,according to the author of The Constitution of Athens?(base your talk primarily on the Old Oligarch, butincorporate the accounts of Athenian politics f ound inHansen 1991/1999; Ober 1989; Ober and Hedrick (eds.)1986; Thorley 1996)

Bibliographies

(a) Primary texts

Aristotle, Politics, trans. S. Everson (Cambridge, 1988), booksIII-VI [other editions

available]Ps.-Xenophon [=the Old Oligarch], The Constitution of Athens,in Aristotle and

Xenophon on Democracy and Oligarchy, trans. J. M.Moore (London, 1975; 2

nded. 1983); other editions

available


J. Barnes, Aristotle and Political Liberty, in G. Patzig (ed.), XLSymposiumAristotelicum: Studien zu Politik des Aristoteles (1989)

G. Huxley, On Aristotles Best State, in P. Cartledge and F.Harvey (eds.), Crux (1985)C. Johnson, Aristotles Theory of the State (1990)B. S. Strauss, On Aristotles Critique of Athenian Democracy,in C. Lord and D. K.


25/47

24

OConnor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations ofAristotelian Political Science

(1991)R. Mulgan, Aristotle and the Value of Political Participation,

Political Theory 18 (1990)- Aristotles Analysis of Oligarchy and Democracy, in D.Keyt and F. Miller

(eds.), A Companion to Aristotles Politics (1991)W. R. Newell, Superlative Virtue: The problem of monarchy in

Aristotles Politics, in C.Lord and D. OConnor (eds.), Essays on the

Foundations of AristotelianPolitical Science (1991)

J. Ober, Political Dissent in Democratic Athens (1998), chs. 1and 6F. Rosen, The Political Context of Aristotles Categories ofJustice, Phronesis 20

(1975), pp. 228-40C. Rowe, Aims and Methods in Aristotles Politics, ClassicalQuarterlyvol. 27 (1977),

pp. 159-72 [J]M. Schofield, Equality and Hierarchy in Aristotles Thought, inSchofield, Saving the

City: Philosopher-Kings and other classical paradigms(London, 1999)B. S. Strauss, On Aristotles Critique of Athenian Democracy,in C. Lord and D.

OConnor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations ofAristotelian Political Science

(1991)W. von Leyden, Aristotle on Equality and Justice: His politicalargument(1985)

Essay question: What, according to Aristotle, are thecharacteristics of democratic city-states, and how does heevaluate them?

***

12. Polybius

In this seminar we shall discuss the analysis of the Roman

Constitution found in the sixth book of Polybiuss Histories.Polybius, a Greek from Achaea, is sometimes regarded as aperceptive and generally accurate commentator on Rome,though detailed attention has also been paid to thesophistication and innovation in his theoretical approach topolitics. As we shall see in later seminars, his concepts ofanacyclosis and mixed constitution also proved immenselyinfluential in early-modern constitutionalism and republicanism.But for now we shall ask: on what grounds did Polybius arguefor an overarching model of political evolution and degeneration;what was the mixed constitution; and how did the master-example of Rome fit into this scheme?


1. Before the seminar, ALL must read book 6 of PolybiussHistories (see bibliography below), taking notes on (a) themethods and theoretical assumptions Polybius employs, and (b)the details of his analysis of the Roman constitution.


(a) Explain what Polybius means by the cycle of politicalrevolution, and discuss its relevance to his attitudetowards democracy (especially relevant are Walbank1994, 2002; Hahm 1995, 2000)

(b) For Polybius, the reason the mixed constitution isso successful is not because it results in harmony, butbecause it enables creative conflict. Discuss, withreference to his analysis of Rome. (consult Lintott 1997;Hahm 2000; Walbank 1964, 1998, 2002; von Fritz 1954;Nicolet 1973, 1987).


26/47

25

Bibliographies

(a) Primary text

Polybius, The Histories, book 6

There are several available translations:

- The Histories, trans. W. R. Paton (6 vols., 1966-8), vol.1

- The Rise of the Roman Empire, trans. I Scott-Kilvert(1979)

- The Histories, trans. M. Chambers (1966)

There is also a translation online at:http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html


C. B. Champion, Cultural Politics in Polybiuss Histories (2004)P. Derow, Polybius, Rome and the East, Journal of RomanStudies 69 (1979) 1-15 [J]C. W. Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece andRome (1983)K. von Fritz, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity:

A crit ical analysis ofPolybiuss political ideas (1954)

D. Hahm, Kings and Constitutions: Hellenistic theories, in C.

Rowe and M. Schofield(eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman

Political Thought (2000)- Polybius Applied Political Theory, in A. Laks and M.

Schofield (eds.), Justiceand Generosity (1995)

S. Hornblower (ed.) Greek historiography (1994)A. Lintott, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution at Rome, in J.Barnes and M. Griffin

(eds.), Philosophia Togata (1997)C. Nicolet, Polybe et les institutions romaines, in E. Gabba(ed.), Polybe (1973)

- Polybe et la constitution de Rome, in C. Nicolet (ed.),

Demokratia et Aristokratia propos de Caius Gracchus:mots grecs et ralits romaines (1987)J. S. Richardson, Polybius view of the Roman Empire Papersof the British School at

Rome 34 (1979), pp. 1-11F. W. Walbank, Polybius (1972)

- Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays andreflections (2002), section III- Polybius on the Roman Constitution, ClassicalQuarterlyvol. 37 (1943), pp. 73-89 [J]- Polybius and the Roman State, Greek, Roman, andByzantine Studies 5 (1964), pp. 264ff.- 'Polybius' perceptions of the one and the many, in I.

Malkin and Z.W.Rubinson (eds.), Leaders and Masses (1994)- 'A Greek looks at Rome: Polybius VI revisited, Scripta

Classica Israelica 17(1998)

Essay question: What is the role of the mixed constitution inPolybiuss political theory?

***

13. Hellenistic moral philosophy

In this seminar we shall explore the central teachings of three ofthe principal schools of Hellenistic philosophy Stoicism,Epicureanism and Cynicism and attempt to draw out theirpolitical dimensions. Each of these movements has historicallyenjoyed renown for their influential treatments of ethics, andthey have sometimes been said to prioritise different forms ofindividualistic moral reflection over the construction of anygrand political vision. From this point of view, the growth of
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281979%2969%3C1%3APRATE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281979%2969%3C1%3APRATE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281979%2969%3C1%3APRATE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281979%2969%3C1%3APRATE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8


27/47

26

Stoicism and Epicureanism in the Hellenistic era has been seento reflect the gradual decline of the classical polis. Yet theirethical doctrines had immensely important political implicationsand influence (not least, as we shall see, on the thought of

Cicero). We shall be looking at the ways in which these wereaddressed via theories of citizenship, and the long-runningdebate concerning the moral requirement or otherwise toparticipate in public life.


1. Before the seminar, ALL must read the provided selectionsfrom Long and Sedley (eds.), taking note of the specifically

political dimensions of the excerpted texts in relation to the twopresentation questions below. Please also read at least oneitem from the secondary literature below.


(a) For the Stoics, human beings are naturally citizensof the cosmic city. Explain, with reference to the Stoictheory of human nature and its ideal of the community ofthe wise (consult: Schofield 1991 and 2000; Long 1983;Cooper 1999; Erskine 1990; Sharples 1996; Striker1991; Van der Waert 1991)

(b) Should the wise man participate in political life? If so,why and how? Outline and discuss the answers to thesequestions given by the different schools of Hellenisticphilosophy. (Schofield 2000; Moles 2000; Griffin 1986and 1996; Sedley 1997; Vander Waerdt 1987 and 1991;Cooper 1999)

Bibliographies

(a) Primary texts

A. A. Long and D. N Sedley (eds.), The Hellenistic Philosophers,Volume 1:

Translations of the Principal sources, with philosophicalcommentary (1987), chs. 20-25 (Epicurean ethics), 56-

67 (Stoic ethics), 68-70 (Academic scepticism), and 71-2(Pyrrhonism)


A. Alberti, The Epicurean Theory of Law and Justice, in A.Laks and M. Schofield

(eds.), Justice and Generosity (1995)J. Annas, The Morality of Happiness (1993)J. Brunschwig and D. N. Sedley, Hellenistic Philosophy, in D.Sedley (ed.), The

Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosphy(2003)

A. W. Erskine, The Hellenistic Stoa (1990)M .Griffin, Philosophy, Politics and Politicians at Rome, in J.Barnes and M. Griffin

(eds.), Philosophia Togata (1995)- Philosophy, Cato, and Roman Suicide, Greece &

Rome vol. 33 (1986),pp. 64-77 [J]- Philosophical badinage in Ciceros Letters to hisFriends, in J. Powell (ed.), Cicero the Philosopher:Twelve papers (1995)- Cynicism and the Romans: Attraction and repulsion,in R. B. Branham and M.-O. Goulet-Caz (eds.), TheCynics: The Cynic movement in antiquity and its legacyfor Europe (1996)- Seneca: A philosopher in politics (1976; repr. 1992)

A. A. Long, Roman Philosophy, in D. Sedley (ed.), TheCambridge Companion to

Greek and Roman Philosphy (2003)- Pleasure and Social Utility: The virtues of beingEpicurean in H. Flashar and O. Gigon (eds.), Aspectsde la philosophie hellnistique: Neuf exposs suivis dediscussions par I.G. Kidd.. .[et al.] (1986)


28/47

27

- Greek Ethics after Macintyre and the Stoic Communityof Reason, Ancient Philosophy vol. 3 (1983), pp. 184-99

P. Mitsis, Epicurus Ethical Theory (1998)J. Moles, The Cynics, in C. Rowe and M. Schofield (eds.), The

Cambridge History ofGreek and Roman Political Thought (2000)E. D. Rawson, Intellectual Life in the Late Republic (1985)M. Schofield, Epicurean and Stoic Political Thought, in C.Rowe and M. Schofield

(eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and RomanPolitical Thought (2000)

- The Stoic Idea of the City (1991)R. W. Sharples, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics (1996)D. Sedley, The Ethics of Brutus and Cassius, Journal ofRoman Studies vol. 87 (1997),

pp. 41-53 [J]P. H. Schrijvers, Lucretius on the Origin of the Development of

Political Life, in K. Algra, P. van der Horst, and D. Runia (eds.),Polyhistor: Studies in the history and

historiography of ancient philosophy (1996)G. Striker, Following Nature, Oxford Studies in AncientPhilosophyvol. 10 (1991), pp.

1-73P. A. Vander Waert, The Justice of the Epicurean Wise Man,Classical Quarterly vol.

37 (1987), pp. 402-22 [J]- Politics and Philosophy in Stoicism, Oxford Studies in

Ancient Philosophy vol. 9 (1991), pp. 185-211

Essay question: Examine the political dimensions of theprincipal strains of Hellenistic ethics.

***

14. Cicero

In this seminar we shall discuss the political writings of Cicero inthe two works he wrote explicitly in imitation of Plato: the de Re

Publica and the de Legibus. Like his classical Greekpredecessor, Cicero aimed to incorporate ethical doctrines toconstitutional theory in order to produce an overarching visionof the best political society. However, as befits a writer who was

not only actively engaged in political affairs, but also deeplyimbued with a sense of the Roman past, Cicero also aimed tointegrate an account of the history of the Roman republic to histheory, and sought to demonstrate that here was a politicalcommunity that exemplified both Greek wisdom and Romanpractical experience. How do these aspects of his writing holdtogether in his analysis of the res publica? And how can weexplain his attitude towards the democratic element in theRoman constitution?


1. Before the seminar, ALL must read Cicero, De republica and

De legibus (see section (a) of the bibliography below).


(a) How does Cicero explain the constitutional changesthat occurred in the early history of Rome? (Focus onbook 2 of the de Re Publica; Cornell 2001 is especiallyrelevant)

(b) What is the role of the people (populus) in Cicerosaccount of the Roman republic? (Focus on books 1 and3 of the de Re Publica and book 3 of the de Legibus;consult: Schofield 1995/1999, Frede 1989, Seager 1972,Sharples 1986, Zetzel 2001).

Bibliographies

(a) Primary texts

Cicero, On the Commonwealth and On the Laws, trans. J.Zetzel (Cambridge, 1999)


29/47

28

- The Republic and the Laws, trans. N. Rudd, ed. J.Powell (Oxford, 1998)

- De republica, trans. J. Zetzel (Cambridge, 1995),books I-III

- De legibus, trans. J. Powell and N. Rudd (Oxford, 1998)(b) Secondary studies

E. Asmis, The State as a Partnership: Ciceros definition ofrespublica in his work on

the state, History of Political Thought 25 (2004), pp.569-98 [I]E. M. Atkins, Cicero, in C. Rowe and M. Schofield (eds.), TheCambridge History of

Greek and Roman Political Thought (2000)P. Brunt, Ciceros Officium in the Civil War, Journal of RomanStudies vol. 76 (1986),

pp. 12-32J. Carter, Cicero: Politics and Philosophy, in J. Martyn (ed.),Cicero and Vergil (1972)J. Holton, Marcus Tullius Cicero, in L. Strauss and J. Cropsey(eds.), The History of

Political Philosophy, 2nd ed. (1973)D. Frede, Constitution and Citizenship: Peripatetic influence onCiceros political

conceptions in the De re publica, in W. W. Fortenbaughand P. Steinmetz

(eds.), Ciceros Knowledge of the Peripatos (1989), pp.77-100W. Lacey and M. Schofield (eds.), Justice and Generosity:Studies in Hellenistic Social

and Political Philosophy (1995), essays by Brunt, Long,and SchofieldP. MacKendrick, The Philosophical Books of Cicero (1989)T. N. Mitchell, Cicero: The ascending years (1979)

- Cicero: The senior statesman (1991)J. Morall, Cicero as a Political Thinker, History Today vol. 33(1982), pp. 33-7J. Powell (ed.), Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve papers (1995)

- The rector rei publicae of Ciceros De republica,Scripta Classica Israelica

vol. 13 (1994), pp. 19-29J. Powell and J. North (eds.), Ciceros Republic (2001)

E. Rawson, Cicero (1975)M. Schofield, Ciceros Definition of res publica, in J. Powell(ed.), Cicero the

Philosopher(1995); also in Schofield, Saving the City:Philosopher-kings and other paradigms (1999), ch. 10

R. Sharples, Ciceros Republicand Greek Political Theory,Polis vol. 5 (1986), pp. 30-

50C. Wirszubski, Ciceros cum dignitate otium: A reconsideration,Journal of Roman

Studies vol. 51 (1961), pp. 1-13N. Wood, Ciceros Social and Political Thought (1988)

Essay question: To what extent does Ciceros political theory inthe De republica and De legibus constitute a distinctivelyRoman reworking of the vision of Plato?

***

15. Roman Historical Writing and Political Thought

In this seminar we shall consider the views of Sallust, Livy andDionysius of Halicarnassus on the Roman political system.They lived very close to the period under investigation (and inthe case of Sallust, at least, we are in the privileged position ofdealing with an author who was contemporary to some of theevents he narrates and himself directly involved into politics)and wrote historical works. However, although they did not usethe criteria of Greek political philosophy to explain the subjectthey were writing about, they present in their accounts their owncomments and explanations based on their own contemporaryexperience, and insert speeches, which very often embodycurrent political ideas. How can we detect in these works the


30/47

29

relevant features for an analysis of the Roman political system?What are the differences between these authors? And whatconsequences do their pictures have for later views of Rome?


1. Before the seminar, ALL must read (a) Dionysius ofHalicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, II, 14 (on Romulus), VII, 59(on Coriolanus); (b) Livy, II, 22-33; III, 36-42; 54-55 and (c)Sallust, De Bello Catilinae, paying attention to what thesepassages might tell us of the Roman political system.


(a) What features of Roman politics were emphasised inthe accounts of Sallust? (consult Drummond 1995,Dunkle 1971, Earl 1961, Scanlon 1980; Wiedemann

2000)

(b) What features of Roman politics were emphasised inthe account presented by Livy and Dionysius ofHalicarnassus? (consult Walsh 1971; Edlund 1976; Fox,1993; Gabba 1991, Mitchell 1990, Jaeger 1997; Luce1977; Miles 1995, Shutt 1935, Walsh 1996)

Bibliographies

(a) Primary texts

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 6 vols., trans. E.Cary (1961-8)Livy, Ab urbe condita: numerous translations available, e.g. byF. G. Moore (1940-49) or

P. G. Walsh (1991-2), T. J. Luce (1998)Sallust, The Conspiracy of Catiline and the Jugurthine War,trans. S. A. Handford (1982)


T. A. Dorey (ed.), The Latin Historians (1966), chs. by Badianand Walsh

- (ed.), Livy (1971)

A. Drummond, Law, Politics and Power: Sallust and theexecution of the CatilinarianConspirators (1995)

J. R. Dunkle, The Rhetorical Tyrant in Roman Historiography:Sallust, Livy and Tacitus,

Classical Worldvol. 65 (1971), pp. 12-20D. C. Earl, The Political Thought of Sallust (1961)I. M. Edlund, Dionysos of Halicarnassos: Liberty anddemocracy in Rome, Classical

Bulletin vol. 53 (1976), pp. 27-31C. Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome(1983), ch. 3M. Fox, History and Rhetoric in Dionysius of Halicarnassus,

Journal of Roman Studies,vol. 83 (1993), pp. 31-47 [J]

E. Gabba, Dionysius and The History of Archaic Rome (1991)M. Jaeger, Livys Written Rome (1997)D. Kapust, Skinner, Pettit and Livy: The conflict of the ordersand the ambiguity of

republican liberty, History of Political Thought 25 (2004),pp. 377-401 [I]C. S. Kraus, Jugurthine Disorder, in Kraus, (ed.), The Limits ofHistoriography(1999)T. J. Luce, Livy: The composition of his History(1977)J. Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography(1997)G. Miles, Maiores, Conditores, and Livy's Perspective on thepast, Transactions of the

American Philological Association, vol. 118. (1988), p.185-208 [J]

- Livy: Reconstructing early Rome (1995)R. Mitchell, Patricians and Plebeians: The origin of the RomanState (1990)T. F. Scanlon, The Influence of Thucydides on Sallust (1980)


31/47

30

R. J. H. Shutt, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Greece & Rome,vol. 4 (1935), pp. 139-150R. Seager, Populares' in Livy and the Livian Tradition,Classical Quarterly, new series,

vol. 27 (1977), pp. 377-390 [J]P. G. Walsh, Livy: His historical aims and methods (1961; 2nd

ed., 1996)- Livy (1974)

A. J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: Fourstudies (1988)T. E. J., Wiedemann, Reflections of Roman Political Thought inLatin Historical Writing,

in C. Rowe and M. Schofield (eds.), The CambridgeHistory of Greek and Roman Political Thought (2000)- Sallusts Jugurtha: Concord, discord, and thedigressions, Greece & Rome vol. 40 (1993), pp. 48-56[J]

Essay question: How do the accounts of Roman politicspresented by Livy, Sallust, and Dionysius of Halicarnassuscompare, and how would you account for the differences?

***

16. Machiavellis D i s c our s es on Li v y

In this seminar we will discuss Machiavellis famous historicalcommentary on the first ten books of Livy. The history of Rome,according to Machiavelli, yielded a multitude of timeless lessons

for the government of republics, perhaps the most important ofwhich concerned the kinds of political conditions in which libertycould flourish. But what exactly was the liberty of the republic?

And what, in his view, was the relationship between Romanliberty and its putatively popular (or democratic) institutions?


1. Before the seminar, ALL must read at least book 1 ofMachiavellis Discourses, and the chapter on Machiavelli bySkinner (photocopies provided).

2. Presentation questions:(a) How, according to Machiavelli, was Roman libertymaintained? (focus esp. on Disc. 1.1-10, 1.16-18, 1.28-45, 2.1-3, 3.3, 3.49).

(b) How does Roman history support Machiavelliscontention that government by the populace is betterthan government by princes (Disc. 1.58)? (focus esp. onDisc. 1.1-3, 1.46-60, 3.29-30, 3.34-5).

Bibliographies

(a) Primary text

Niccol Machiavelli, The Discourses on Livy

There are various versions available:

- The Discourses on Livy, ed. B. Crick (London, 1970)- The Discourses, trans. L. Walker (London, 1975)- The Discourses on Livy, trans. J. Bondanella and P.

Bondanella (Oxford,1997)- The Discourses on Livy, trans. H. Mansfield and N.

Tarcov (Chicago, 1996)

There is an English version online athttp://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy_.htm

(b) Secondary

A. Oldfield, Citizenship and Community: Civic republicanismand the modern world


32/47

31

(1990), ch. 3H. Baron, Machiavelli the Republican Citizen and Author of ThePrince, in Baron, In

Search of Florentine Humanism (Princeton, 1988), vol. 2

B. Fontana, Sallust and the Politics of Machiavelli, History ofPolitical Thought vol. 24(2003), pp. 86-108 [I]

I. Hannaford, Machiavellis Concept of Virtu in The Prince andThe Discourses

Reconsidered, Political Studies vol. 20 (1972), pp. 185-9

A. Grafton and L. Jardine, Studied for Action: How GabrielHarvey read his Livy, Past

and Present, no. 129 (1990), pp. 30-78 (for comparativeuse) [J]H. Mansfield, Machiavellis New Modes and Orders: A study ofthe Discourses on Livy

(Ithaca, 1979)J. McCormick, Machiavelli against Republicanism: On theCambridge Schools

Guicciardinian Moments, Political Theory 31 (2003) [I]E. Nelson, The Greek Tradition in Republican Thought (2004),ch. 2J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine politicalthought and the Atlantic

republican tradition (1975; rev. ed., 2003)P. Rahe, Situating Machiavelli, in J. Hankins (ed.),Renaissance Civic Humanism

(2000)N. Rubinstein, Machiavelli and Florentine RepublicanExperience, in G. Bock, Q.

Skinner, and M. Viroli (eds.), Machiavelli andRepublicanism (Cambridge,

1990)S. Shumer, Machiavelli: Republican politics and its corruption,Political Theory vol. 7

(1979), pp. 5-34 [J]Q. Skinner, Machiavellis Discorsi and the Pre-humanist Originof Republican Ideas, in

G. Bock, Q. Skinner, and M. Viroli (eds.), Machiavelliand Republicanism

(Cambridge, 1990)- Machiavelli on the Maintenance of Liberty, Politics 18

(1983), pp. 3-15, revised in Skinner, Visions of Politics(Cambridge, 2002), vol. 2, ch. 6M. Viroli, Machiavelli(1998)

- Machiavelli and the Republican Idea of Politics, in G.Bock, Q. Skinner, and

M. Viroli (eds.), Machiavelli and Republicanism(Cambridge, 1990)D. J. Wilcox, The Development of Florentine HumanistHistoriography in the 15th

Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1969)

Essay question: What, in Machiavellis view, made Rome great?

***

17. English Republicanism in the Seventeenth Century

In this seminar we will discuss some of the most importantEnglish republican writers of the 17

thcentury John Milton,

Marchamont Nedham, James Harrington and Walter Moyle and consider the important role played by the history of Rome intheir political theory. For these authors, who were writing eitherin the midst or the aftermath of a bloody civil war and a failedrepublican constitutional experiment, the workings of the

Roman Republic, and equally importantly the manner of itsdownfall, provided invaluable lessons that were directlyapplicable to contemporary England. We will focus particularlyon the type of liberty that the English republicans perceived tobe at the centre of the Roman system, and explore its historicaland political-theoretical implications.



33/47

32

1. Before the seminar, ALL must read Walter MoylesDemocracy Vindicated (photocopies are available in thedepartmental office; the text is also online); MarchamontNedhams Discourse of the Excellency of a Free State above a

Kingly Government; and Quentin Skinners article on JohnMilton and the Politics of Slavery (photocopies provided).

If you have time, please also read The Preliminaries, showingPrinciples of Government to Harringtons Commonwealth ofOceana.


(a) How did the English republicans interpret theworkings of the Roman constitution, and to whatpurpose? [Focus on Moyle, Democracy Vindicated,

passim and Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana,

esp. pp. 8-42 (The Preliminaries, showing Principles ofGovernment), 60-3, 72-5, 100-114, 149-66, 169-172,206-8, 217-20, 250-52, 275-91; and A System of PoliticsX.11. In the secondary literature, see especially Fink1962; Pocock 1977 and 1975; and Worden 1991generally]

(b) What, according to the English republicans, were thecharacteristics of Roman liberty? [Focus on Nedham,The Discourse of the Excellency of a Free State above aKingly Government; Milton, The Tenure of Kings andMagistrates (1649), and A Defence of the People ofEngland, pp. 71-2, 118-21, 166-70,175-6, 182-4, 186-92;and Harrington, Oceana, pp. 19-21, 229-31. In thesecondary literature, see especially Skinner 2000 and2002; Maddox 2002; Worden 1991 generally].

Bibliographies

(a) Primary

Anon. [William Cavendish and Thomas Hobbes?], Horaesubseciuae: observations and

discourses (London, 1620), Discourse upon thebeginning of Tacitus [EEBO]

Richard Braithwaite, A suruey of history: or, a nursery for gentry(London, 1638), pp.222ff., esp. 263 [EEBO]

Robert Filmer, Patriarcha II.11-18 , in Patriarcha and otherwritings, ed. J. Sommerville

(1991) [also online athttp://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htmJames Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana, ed. J. G. A.Pocock (1994) [EEBO]Peter Heylyn, Augustus (London, 1632) [EEBO]John Milton, The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (1649), inMi

democracia, mito o realidad

Documents