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
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, 17th-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 of
reading 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. Introduction 11. Aristotle on democracy

2. The Senate, the People, and the Forum 12. Roman historical writing and political thought
3. The contio 13. Polybius
4. Public political culture 14. Hellenistic moral philosophy
5. The politics of entertainment 15. Cicero
6. Potestas populi and auctoritas senatus 16. Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy
7. Liberty 17. English republicanism in the 17th century
8. Equality and Justice 18. The American republic
9. Citizenship 19. The French Enlightenment
10. Plato on democracy 20. Review and conclusion

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 concerns
either technical administrative matters or your attendance at seminars. Note that I will not engage in lengthy e-mail conversations with students
about the content of the course. However, you are strongly encouraged to come and see me in person in my office hours, which run
throughout each term, for any type 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 6BT
Office: room 402, History Department (25 Gordon Square)
Office hours: Thursday, 1-2; Friday, 4-5.
External phone: 020 679 2293
Internal phone: 32293
E-mail: v.arena@ucl.ac.uk

Assessment
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 equally
weighted.

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 will
be 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).

2
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 put
your 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 δεμοκρατια’. 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 Polybius’s political theory?
15) Examine the political dimensions of the principal strains of Hellenistic ethics.

3
 16) To what extent does Cicero’s 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 Machiavelli’s 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 students 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 essay
writing 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 unless
you 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 choose
not 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 you
have 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 we
will try to negotiate different dates.

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

4
The unofficial deadline for the first essay is November 15th 2010. I strongly recommend that you submit your first essay by this date so that I
have an opportunity to give you some tutorial feedback before you write your second essay. However, you will not be penalized if you choose
not 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 you
have 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 you
have been granted an extension by the Chair of the Board of Examiners (see below). Please choose your essay question from the list above.

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

For second-year 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 be
submitted 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 item
on its designated secondary bibliography; they are, however, expected to have read the primary designated text(s), either in their entirety or in
the stipulated selections, and have a general familiarity with the secondary scholarship.

5
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 be
found easily using Google or any effective search engine. Because the quality of online versions varies wildly, we would encourage you to use
them only as a last resort for preparation for class discussions, and strongly discourage you from using and referring to such versions in your
coursework. 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 Cicero’s works;
The Internet Classics Archive: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html contains the works of Aristotle and Plato online.

6
 1. Introduction
In the first seminar we shall introduce the principal themes to be
addressed in the next two terms via two routes: first, through an
overview of the characteristics and scope of classical political
theory in general; and second through a summary of the
specific historiographical debate that forms the central problem
of the course: i.e., the hotly debated question as to whether the
politics of the Roman Republic can be accurately or
meaningfully characterised as ‘democratic’.
Seminar requirements
As this is the first seminar, you will not be expected to prepare
and deliver any specific presentations. However, you will need
to have read, and be prepared to contribute to seminar
discussion on, the following items:
John North, introduction to the constitution of the Roman
Republic; and ONE item from section (b) of the bibliography
below (recommended is J. North, ‘Democratic Politics in
Republican Rome’, Past & Present 126 (1990), pp. 3-21 [on
JSTOR]).
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 Bodéüs,
Mossé, Cartledge, and Schofield
7
P. Cartledge, ‘Greek Political Thought: The historical context’, in
C. 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 to
AD 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 and
Roman Political Thought (2000)
D. Hammer, Roman Political Thought and the Modern
Theoretical Imagination (2008)
J. A. O. Larsen, Representative Government in Greek and
Roman 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 the
Roman Republic (2006)
. Ober and C. Hedrick (eds.), Demokratia: A conversation on
democracies 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 Greek
and Roman Political
Thought (2000)
L.J. Samons, What's Wrong with Democracy? From Athenian
Practice to American Worship (2004)
R. Syme, ‘Roman Historians and Renaissance Politics’, in
Society and History in the Renaissance (1960), 3-12 (= Roman
Papers, I, Oxford, 1979, 470-476)

(b) Roman Democracy: the debate
K. Hölkeskamp, Reconstructing the Roman Republic: Ancient
Political Culture and Modern Research (New York, 2010)
J.North, ‘Democratic Politics in Republican Rome’, Past &
Present 126 (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; see
also the criticisms by W. V. Harris in ‘On Defining the
Political Culture of the Roman Republic: Some Comments
on Rosenstein, Williamson, and North’, pp. 288-294, and
North’s 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.
Hölkeskamp 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.), The
Companion to the Greek and Roman Political Thought (2009)
A. M. Ward, ‘How Democratic was the Roman Republic?’, New
England Classical
Journal 31 (2004), pp. 109-119
A. Yakobsen, ‘Petitio and largitio: popular participation in the
centuriate assembly of the
late Republic’, Journal of Roman Studies 82 (1992), pp.
32-52 [J]
Essay question: In what ways have historians disagreed about
the politics of the Roman republic, and why?
***
8
2. The Senate, the People, and the Forum
In this seminar we shall analyse the two main political agents of
the Roman Republic: the Senate and the People. In contrast to
Greek political theory, which would present the political
structures of the Roman Republic in tripartite form (senate,
magistrates, People), Cicero and his contemporaries focused
mainly on these two entities, whose dynamics of interaction are
of essential importance in the analysis of the Roman political
system. For a long time, since Münzer’s influential work at the
beginning of the last century, the senate has been viewed as a
closed circle, access to which was reserved to a few aristocratic
families; while the People, especially in their characterisation as
the urban plebs, have bee pictured as being content to be fed
by the government and entertained by public games. Recently,
these views have been challenged, and new pictures have been
drawn, 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 act
in politics? And what can studies of the space of the Forum
contribute to these questions?
Seminar requirements
1. Before the class, ALL must read Lintott’s chapter on the
senate and Purcell’s study of the plebs’ living conditions in the
first century BC (photocopies provided).
2. Presentation questions:
(a) What social and political rules governed access to
the senate? (consult
Evans 1991; Hopkins and Burton 1983; Ryan 1998; and
Burckhardt 1990)
(b) What was the role of the ‘People’ in the political
system of the late
 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: the
prosopographical Approach’, Aufstieg und Niedergand
der Römischen 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 nobilitas
and 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, 169-196
R.J. Evans, ‘Candidates and competition in consular elections
at Rome between 218 and 49’, Acta classica
Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 34 (1991),
111-36K.
Hopkins and G. Burton, ‘Political succession in the Late
Republic (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
9
P.A. Brunt, ‘The Roman mob’, Past and Present 35 (1966), 23-5
[J]
- ‘Free labour and public works at Rome’, Journal
Roman Studies 70 (1980), 81-100 [J]
D. Cherry, ‘Hunger at Rome in the Late Republic’, Classical
Views 37 (1993), 433-50
W.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, 134-73
J.H. Humphrey (ed.), Literacy in the Roman World, Journal
Roman Archaeology suppl. 3 (1991)
N. Horsfall, The Culture of the Roman Plebs (2003), ch. 5
J.K. Evans, ‘Plebs rustica. The peasantry of classical Italy’,
American Journal Ancient History 5, 1/1980, 19-47
J.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), 644-88
C.R. Whittaker, ‘The poor’, in A. Giardina (ed.), The Romans
(Engl. Tr. 1993), 282-99
Z. Yavetz, ‘Plebs sordida’, Athenaeum 43 (1965), 295-311
- ‘The living conditions of the urban plebs in republican
Rome’, 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 political
theory’, in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.), Deliberative
Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics (1997), 3-
33
S.E. Finer, The History of Government (1997), vol. I
M.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), 454-7
H. Mourizten, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman republic
(2001), ch.2, 18-37
I. 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 und
Epigraphik 21 (1976), 69-72 [J]
T.P. Wiseman, ‘The Circus Flaminius’, Papers British School
Rome 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 Forum
is a clear indication of the democratic nature of the Roman
political system.’ Discuss.
***
3. The Voting Assemblies and Contio
In this class we shall investigate what is commonly regarded as
the central moment of any democracy: the popular assembly.
Roman politics was characterized by different types of
10
assembly: the comitia curiata; the comitia centuriata, the comitia
tributa, and the contio (please note that comitium - singular -
indicates the place of assembly, while comitia - plural - indicates
the assembly of the Roman people summoned in groups). In
the late Roman Republic, mainly, but not exclusively, the last
two forms of assemblies were active. However, while in the
comitia tributa the people's vote was accounted by voting group,
the tribe, in the contio everyone who wished to do so could
gather together and take part in this non-decision making
assembly. It is this latter form of assembly that has been at the
centre of recent scholarly debate, and its political functions have
been emphasised by the supporters of a democratic
interpretation of Roman republican politics. What were the
characteristics of this assembly that seem to suggest a
genuinely democratic element in Rome? And were the comitia
democratic institutions or not?
Class requirements
1. Before the class, ALL of you must read Cicero, de lege
agraria I, II, III (any edition. Please note also the website:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu, which carries an English
translation). The first speech (de lege agraria I) was
delivered before the senate, the second and the third (de
lege agraria II and III) before the people assembled in a
contio. Take note of the differences and similarities that
you find between a speech given in front of the senate
and speeches given on the same issue in front of the
people. And be prepared to discuss these issues.
In addition, you must read the chapter on Roman
assemblies in A. Lintott, The Constitution of the Roman
republic (1999) (provided)

2. In the class, presentations will be given that answers the
following question:
(a) 'Why was the secret ballot introduced, and was it a
democratic measure?' (consult Hall 1990; Hall 1998;
Marshall 1997; Yakobson 1995; Rosenstein 1995;
Nicolet 1980)
(b) Why does contio take such an important place in the
debate about Roman democracy? Is this centrality well
deserved? (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 Cicero’s speches
R.W. Cape, ‘Cicero’s Consular Speeches’, in J.M. May (ed.),
Brill’s Companion to Cicero: Oratory and Rhetoric (2002),
113-58
J. Fogel, Cicero and the ‘ancestoral constituion’. A Study of
Cicero’s contio speeches (diss. 1994)
E.J. Jonkers, Social and Economic Commentary on Cicero’s de
lege agraria orationes tres (1963)
J. Leonhardt, ‘Senat und Volk in Ciceros Reden De lege
11
agraria’, Acta classica Universitatis Scientiarum
Debreceniensis 34/5, 279-92
P. Mackendrick, The Speeches of Cicero: Context, Law,
Rhetoric (1995)
A. Vasaly, Representations: Images of the World in Coceronian
Oratory (1993)
C. Thompson, To the Senate and to the People: Adaptation to
the Senatorial and Popular Audiences in the Parallel
Speeches of Cicero (diss., 1978)
(b) Secondary studies on the Contio
A.J.E. Bell, ‘Cicero and the spectacle of power’, Journal Roman
Studies 87 (1997), 1-22 [J]
E. Fantham, ‘Meeting the people: the orator and the Republican
contio at Rome, L. Calboli Montefusco (ed.), Papers on
Rhetoric III (2000), 95-112
Id., ‘The contexts and occasions of Roman public rhetoric’, in
W.J. Domminik (ed.), Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in
Society and Literature (London, 1999), III-28
Id., Fantham, The Roman World of Cicero’s de oratore (2003)
N. Horsfall, The Culture of the Roman Plebs (2003), ch. 7
F. Metaxaki-Mitrou, ‘Violence in the contio during the Ciceronian
age’, Antiquite classique 54 (1984), 180-7
Morstein-Marx, Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late
Roman Republic (2003), ch.2 (recommended also chs. 6
and 7)
C. Nicolet, The World of the Roman Citizen (Engl. Tr. 1980),
285-9
F. Pina Polo, ‘Procedure and functions of civil and military
contiones in Rome’, Klio 77 (1995), 203-16
J. Tan, ‘Contiones in the Age of Cicero’, Classical Antiquity 27
(2008), 163-201
L. R. Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies, 15 ff.
Fantham, The Roman World of Cicero’s de oratore (2003)
A. Yakobson, ‘The people’s voice and the speakers’ platform:
popular power, persuasion and manipulation in the Roman
Forum’, SCI 23 (2004), 201-212
A. Yakobson, ‘The people’s voice and the speakers’ platform:
popular power, persuasion and manipulation in the Roman
Forum’, SCI 23 (2004), 201-212
P.J.J. Vanderbroeck, Popular Leadership and Collective
Behavior in the Late Roman Republic (ca 80-50
BC)(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), 267-306
Id., ‘’Species libertatis’: voting procedures in the late Republic’,
in M. Austin et al. (eds.), Modus Operandi (1998), 15-30
Id., ‘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 ballot
in 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 Roman
Republic’, Hermes 123 (1995), 426-42
12
Id., Elections and Electioneering in Rome (1999)
Essay questions
Essay questions:
Did the meeting of the contio constitute an authentic democratic
occasion?
Were the laws on the secret ballot motivated by the desire to
increase the citizens’ influence in the political process?
***
4. Public Political Culture
In this seminar we shall analyse the dynamics of Roman
electoral campaigns in the late Republic. The best document
that highlights the techniques of electioneering in this period is
provided by the so-called Commentariolum petitionis, an essay
in an epistolary form addressed to Cicero allegedly by his
brother Quintus in 64 (the year of Cicero's consular election).
Although its authenticity has been called to question, the text
shows a considerable degree of familiarity with the history of the
period, and, as such, can be regarded as a valid source for
electoral campaigning. What were the methods deployed by
Roman politicians to gain political support? What were the
means by which the popular vote was canvassed?
Seminar requirements
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read A short guide to
electioneering : Quintus Cicero's Commentariolum petitionis:
introduction and translation. (Lactor 3, 1968 – any
edition.Please note it is also available in English and Latin on
the Perseus website: www.perseus.tufts.edu); and Morstein-
Marx 1998)

2. Presentation questions:
(a) What can we infer from the practice of bribery about
the nature of the Roman political system? (Consult
Yakobson in Journal of Roman Studies 1992; Gruen
1991; Linderski in Ancient Classical World 1985; Lintott
in Journal of Roman Studies 1990; Wallinga in Revue
Internationale de Droits de l'Antiquité 1994)
(b) What role did violence play in the politics of the late
Republic? (Consult Lintott 1968; Nippel 1995; Sherwin-
White in Journal of Roman Studies 1956; Vanderbroeck
1987)
Bibliographies
(a) Primary texts
A short guide to electioneering: Quintus Cicero's
Commentariolum petitionis : introduction and translation. (Lactor
3, 1968)
(b) The Commentariolum Petitionis and the Political Campaign
P.A. Brunt, ‘Clientela’, in Id. (ed.), The Fall of the Roman
Republic (1988), 382-502
A. Coreill, ‘Political movement: walking and ideology in
Republican Rome’, in D. Fredrick (ed.), The Roman
Gaze (2002), 182-215
G.E.M. de S. Croix, ‘Suffragium: from vote to patronage’, British
Journal of Sociology 5 (1954), 33-48
J. 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
13
F. Millar, ‘Popular politics at Rome in the late Republic’, in I.
Malkin and Z.W. Rubinsohn (eds.), Leaders and Masses
in the Roman World (1995), 91-114
R. Morstein-Marx, ‘Publicity, popularity and patronage in the
Commentariolum petitionis’, Classical Antiquity 17
(1998), 269-88
H. Mourizten, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman republic
(2001), 67-79 and 96-100
D. 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), 289-310
R. 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 rural
poor in the ancient world’, 153-170 and A. Wallace-
Hadrill’s)
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 in
Classical Antiquity and Medieval Italy (1991), 251-67
J. Linderski, ‘Buying the vote: electoral corruption in the Late
Republic’, Ancient World 11 (1985), 87-94
A. Lintott, ‘Electoral bribery in the Roman Republic’, Journal
Roman 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)
W. Nippel, Public Order in Ancient Rome (1995)
A. Sherwin-White, ‘Violence in Roman politics’, Journal Roman
Studies 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 and
Institutions (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 the
Roman people made their voice heard in the late Republic. In
particular, we shall consider the theatre and public games as
important locations of public gathering, where the populus
Romanus could express its opinion on political issues in non-
institutionalized settings. Are the episodes reported in our
sources the product of the heated political climate of the late
Republic? Did these venues really give the opportunity to the
Roman 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 class
we will analyze some political graffiti as preserved in the city of
Pompeii. These constitute a different form of the public
manifestation of political will, the importance and relevance of
which will be discussed in class.
Seminar requirements
14
1. Before the class, ALL must read (a) F. Abbott, ‘The theatre
as 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 Roman
Republic’, in Id. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman
Republic (2004) (photocopy provided), and (c) Cicero, pro
Sestio (photocopy provided)
2. In the class, (a) we shall discuss political graffiti (to be
distributed in class) and (b) a presentation will be given that
answer the following question:
(a) What, If any, were the 'political' dimensions of theatre
and games? (Consult Nicolet 1980; Tatum in Ancient
History Bulletin 1990; Veyne 1992; Horsfall 2003; Abbott
1907; Flower 2004; Slater 1996)
Bibliography
(a) Games
K. Hölkeskamp, ‘Images of power: memory, myth and
monuments in the Roman Republic’, SCI 24 (2005), 249-271
C. Nicolet, The World The World of the Roman Citizen (Engl. Tr.
1980), ch. 9, 343-81
M.G. Morgan, ‘Politics, religion and the games in Rome 200-
150 BC’, Philologus 134 (1990), 14-36
J.B. Payton, ‘The public games of the Romans’, Greece &
Rome 7 (1938), 76-85
G. 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
P. Veyne, Bread and Circus: the Historical Sociology and
Political 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 the
Roman Games (2005)
(b) Theatre
F. Abbott, ‘The theatre as a factor in Roman politics under the
Republic’, 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’, Arctos
19 (1985), 67-73
E. Rawson, ‘Discrimina Ordinum: the lex Iulia Theatralis’, in Id.,
Roman Culture and Society (1991), 508-45
Id., ‘Theatrical life in Republican Rome and Italy’, Papers British
School Rome 53 (1985), 97-113
W.J. Slater, ‘Pantomime Riots’, Classical Antiquity 13 (1994),
120-44
Id. (ed.), Roman Theater and Society (1996)
F.W. Wright, Cicero and the Theater (1931)
(c) Inscriptions and Griffiti
15
A.E. Cooley and M.G.L. Cooley, Pompeii: a Sourcebook (2004)
J.L Franklin, Pompei: the Electoral Programmata, Campaigns
and Politics A.D. 71-79 (1980)
Id., Pompeis difficile est: Studies in the Political Life of Imperial
Pompeii (2001)
H. Mouritsen, Elections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite (1988)
R.A. Stacciolli, Manifesti elettorali nell’antica Pompei (1992)
P. Zanker, Pompeii: Public and Private Life (1998)
Essay question: ‘The games were the only places where the
ordinary Romans could exercise real political pressure’. Discuss.
***
6. Potestas Populi and Auctoritas Senatus
In this seminar we shall investigate the meaning of two
fundamental political concepts of the Late Republic: potestas
populi and auctoritas senatus. The first may be translated as
popular sovereignty, while the latter as authority of the senate.
These translations, however, do not do justice to the
complexities of problems related to these political ideas. While
potestas populi seemed to convey the idea of popular political
power, auctoritas senatus was frequently held to be central to
the ideological construction of the res publica. Did these
concepts have a specific meaning accepted by all members of
Roman society? And if so, what role did they play in the political
battles of the late Republic?
Seminar requirements
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read (a) Cicero, pro Sestio
(any edition – please note you can also access to the text by
the website: www.perseus.tufts.edu); (b) Sallust, Histories (any
edition) and Ps-Sall, Epistula ad Caesarem (Lactor 6, 1970 or
any other edition available), taking notes on political concepts,
such as auctoritas senatus, potestas populi,
optimates/popuares and any other you may encounter.

2. Presentation questions:
(a) How far is it possible to assess the meaning of the
concept of potestas populi and its use in the political
conflicts of the first century BC? (Consult Earl 1967,
1961; Mackie 1992; Wiseman 1994; Wirszubski 1950)
(b) What role did the concept of auctoritas senatus play
in Cicero’s political thought and in the political battles
fought 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 Classical
Edition
Sallust, 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 Römischen Welt, I,1
(1972), 668-731
J.P.V.D. Balsdon, ‘Auctoritas, dignitas, otium’, Classical
Quarterly 1960, 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 Ancient
History IX (1994), 771 ff.
J. Hellegouarc'h, Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis
politiques sous la
16
République (1963)
N. Mackie, ‘Popularis ideology and popular politics at Rome in
the first century BC’,
Rheinisches Museum 135 (1992), 49-73
C. Nicolet (ed), “Demokratia” et “aristokratia”, mots grecs et
réalité romaines (1983)
E. Remy, ‘Dignitas cum otio’, Musee Belge, 32 (1928), 125 ff.
L. Ross Taylor, ‘Forerunners of the Gracchi’, Journal Roman
Studies, 52 (1962), 19-27
[J]
- Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (1949)
R. Syme, Sallust (1964)
C. Wirszubski, ‘Cicero’s 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), 327-367
N. Wood, Cicero’s Social and Political Thought (1988)
Essay question: What was ‘potestas populi’ and what role did it
play 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 essential
concept at the centre of Roman civic and political identity:
‘Other people can endure slavery: the assured possession of
the Roman people is liberty’ (Cic., Phil. VI, 19). Although its
centrality in the Roman political arena is widely recognised,
there is no consensus amongst modern historians on the role it
played in the working of politics and, to a certain extent, on its
uses by the Roman politicians of the late Republic. Libertas was
the common ideal invoked by Catiline and his followers; by
Cicero, whom the Catilinarians sentenced to death; by Clodius
who exiled Cicero; and by optimates who supported his return;
and by Caesat as well as his murderers Brutus and Cassius.
Was it then a vague notion just used by politicians to attain their
personal objectives? What did the Roman politicians
accomplish by waving the banner of liberty? What was the
Roman ‘tradition’ of liberty? What relation did it have to the
Greek concept of freedom?
Seminar requirements
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read C. Wirszubski, Libertas
as Political Idea at Rome during the late Republic and early
principate (excerpts) and M.H. Hansen, ‘The ancient Athenian
and the modern view of liberty as a democratic ideal’
(photocopies provided)
2. Presentation questions:
(a) What were the main characteristics of Greek theories
of liberty? (especially relevant are Barnes 1990; Gomme
1962; Hansen 1989 and 1996; Raaflaub 2004)
(b) What were the main characteristics of Roman
theories of liberty? (consult Berg 1997; Brunt 1988; Lind
1986; Wirszbuski 1950 and its review by Momigliano
1951)
Bibliographies
(a) Greek liberty
J. Barnes, ‘Aristotle and Political Liberty’, in Gunther Patzig
(ed.), Aristotle’s ‘Politik’. Aktes des XI Symposium
Aristotelicum (1990), 249-63
Eckstein, ‘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
17
A.W. Gomme, ‘Concepts of freedom’, in More Essays in Greek
History and Literature (1962), 139-55
M.H. Hansen, ‘Was Athens a democracy? Popular rule, liberty
and equality in ancient and modern political thought’, in
Historisk-filosofiske Meddelesener- The Royal Danish
Academy of Science and Letters 59 (1989)
- ‘The ancient Athenian and the modern view of liberty
as a democratic ideal’, in J. Ober and L. Hedrik (eds.),
Demokratia (1996), 91-104
L. Karlsson, ‘The symbols of freedom and democracy in the
bronze 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 Alexander
to Antiochus’, Classical Quarterly 31 (1981), 106-12 [J]
(b) Roman liberty
B. Berg, ‘Cicero’s Palatine home and Clodius’ shrine of liberty:
alternative emblems of the Republic in Cicero’s de domo
sua’, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and
Roman History VIII (1997), 122-43
P.A. Brunt, ‘Libertas in the Republic’, in Id., The Fall of the
Roman Republic (1988), 281-350
F. Cairns and E. Fantham (eds.), Caesar against Liberty?
Perspectives on his
Autocracy (2003) (esp. Introduction, 1-18 and K.
Raaflaub’s contribution, 35-
67)
R.L. Lind, ‘The idea of the Republic and the foundations of
Roman political liberty’, C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin
Literature 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’, the
Classical Journal 45 (1949/50), 390-1
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 Political
Thought (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 best
translates the Greek δεμοκρατια’. Discuss
***
8. Equality and Justice
In this class we shall discuss the concepts of equality and
justice in late Republican Rome. These values have been
traditionally recognised as part of the realm of philosophy,
introduced in Rome by Greek philosophers and, as such,
representing the conceptual framework of works such as
Cicero’s de officiis. However, a close analysis of Roman politics
suggests that these ideas played also a part in the actual
working of late Republican politics. Is it possible to identify the
presence 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, Book
II, 71-88 and III, 20-57, taking notes on Cicero’s ideas on
private property (P. Walcot in GREECE & ROME 22 (1975) in
JStor might be of help) and (b) M. Schofield, ‘Two Stoic
18
approaches to justice’, A. Laks and M. Schofield (eds.), Justice
and Generosity, 191-212 (photocopies provided)
2. In the class, presentations will be given that answer the
following questions:
(a) What were the sources of Cicero’s definitions of
justice and equality? (consult Christensen 1984; Harvey
1965; Fantham 1973; Schofield 1995; Van Zyl 1991;
Wesoly 1989)
(b) ‘How does Cicero’s understanding of equality and
justice serve to protect private property? (consult Annas
1989; Long 1997; Walcot 1975; Ferrary 1995; Long
1995)
(a) Primary text
Cicero, de officiis (esp. II, 71-88 and III, 21-57) [several editions
available – full text also available on the web a
http://www.stoics.com/cicero_book.html]. See also the excellent
introduction in E.M. Atkins and M.T. Griffin (eds.), Cicero, On
Duties (1991) and A.R. Dyck, A Commentary on Cicero,de
officiis (1996)
(b) Secondary studies: Greek equality
J. Christensen, ‘Equality of man and Stoic social thought’, in
Equality and Inequality of a Man in Ancient Thought
(1984), 45-54
C. Georgiadis, ‘Equitable and equity in Aristotle’, in S.
Panagiotou (ed.), Justice, Law and Method in Plato and
Aristotle (1987), 159-72
F.D. Harvey, ‘Two kinds of equality’, Classica et Medievalia 26
(1965), 101 ff.
W. Kullman, ‘Equality in Aristotle’s political thought’, in Equality
and 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), 1-13
P. Schollmeier, ‘Democracy most in accordance with equality’,
Harvard Studies Classical Philology 9 (1988), 205-9
R.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, L’equité chez Cicéron (1972)
A.E. Douglas, ‘Cicero the philosopher’, in Dorey (ed.), Cicero
(1964), ch. 6
E. Fantham, ‘Aequabilitas in Cicero’s political theory and the
Greek tradition of proportional justice’, Classical
Quarterly 23 (1973), 285-990 [J]
J.P. Glucker, ‘Cicero’s philosophical affiliations’, in J. Dillon and
A.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, ‘Aristotle’s theory of distributive justice’, A Companion
to Aristotle’s Politcs (1991), 238-78
E.N. Lee, ‘Plato’s theory of social justice in republic II-IV’, in J.
Anton and A. Prew (eds.), Essays in Ancient Greek
Philosophy (1989), 117-40
19
Y. Nakategowa, ‘ Athenian democracy and the concept of
justice in Pseudo-Xenophon’s
Athenaion Politeia’, Hermes 123 (1995), 28-46
S. Panagiotou (ed.), Justice, Law and Method in Plato and
Aristotle (1987), esp. ‘Equitable and equity in Aristotle’,
159-72
X.G. Santas, ‘Justice and democracy in Plato’s Republic’, O.
Gigon and M.W. Fischer (eds.), Antike Rechts und
Sozialphilosophie (1988), 37-59
L.F. Stally, ‘Justice in Plato’s laws’, in S. Scolicov and L.
Brisson (eds.), Plato’s Laws from Theory to Practice
(2003), 174-85
M. Wesoly, ‘Aristotle’s conception of justice and equality’, Eos
77 (1989), 211-20
(e) Hellenistic and Roman Justice
J. Annas, ‘Cicero on Stoic moral philosophy and private
property’, in M. Griffin and J. Barnes (eds.), Philosophia
Togata I (1989), 151-73
J. L. Ferrary, ‘The Stateman and the law in the political
philosophy of Cicero’, in A. Laks
and M. Schofield (eds.), Justice and Generosity 48-73
A.A. Long, ‘Cicero’s politics in de officiis’, in A. Laks and M.
Schofield (eds.), Justice and Generosity, 213-40
- ‘Stoic philosophers on persons, property ownership
and community’, in R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle and After
(1997), 13-31
- ‘Cicero’s Plato and Aristotle’, in J. Powell, Cicero the
Philosopher (1995), 37-61
J. Roberts, ‘Justice and the Polis’, in C. Rowe and M. Schofield
(eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman
Political 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)
 - ‘Cicero’s definition of res publica’, in J. Powell, Cicero (a) What were the components of Roman citizenship?
the Philosopher, 63-83 (consult Shewin-White 1977; Broughton 1975; Lomas
P. Walcot, ‘Cicero on private property: theory and practice’, 2000; Nicolet 1980; Riesenberg 1992; Dench 2005)
Greece & Rome 22 (1975), 120-8
(b) What made a Roman hero? (consult Bruun 2000;
Eder 1998; Geiger 1995; Larmour 1992; Momigliano
Essay question: Why, from an ideological point of view, was the 1942).
Roman elite so hostile to land distribution?
Bibliographies
***
(a) Primary texts
9. Citizenship
Cic. Pro Archia (tr. by R. Gardner, 1965) Loeb Classical edition
In this seminar we shall discuss the concept of citizenship in [numerous editions
late Republican Rome. In contrast to other ancient city-states, available. See also http://www.perseus.tufts.edu ]
Roman citizenship did not depend on biological descent, but on - Pro Balbo (tr. by Watts, 1923) Loeb Classical edition
a series of successive legal acts. Rome did not lose this feature [numerous
of its policy even in the first century BC when was firmly at the - editions available. See also
centre of an empire. Rome absorbed into Roman citizenship the http://www.perseus.tufts.edu ]
existing city-states, leaving them their own political identity and Plutarch, Life of Coriolanus (tr. by I. Scott-Kilvert, Penguin, 1965)
local constitutions, and producing a dual citizenship. It seems, [numerous
therefore, that the practice of politics regarding the reality of a editions available. See also
Roman citizen in the late Republic was quite different from the http://www.perseus.tufts.edu ]
idealised picture that can be drawn from authors such as - Life of Camillus (tr. by B. Perrin, Loeb Classical edition)
Plutarch. What are the precise characteristics of these two [numerous
pictures? How can we account for such differences? And, editions available. See also
above all, what are the consequences for later views of Rome? http://www.perseus.tufts.edu ]

Seminar requirements
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read (a) Cicero, pro Archia,
taking notes on the issue of citizenship and (b) Plutarch, The
Life of Camillus, paying particular attention to the way in which
a Roman hero is portrayed.
2. Presentation questions:
(b) Secondary studies: Citizenship
K.A. Barber, Rhetori in Cicero’s 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 of
Geoffrey Rickman. (1998), 31-46.

20
E. Dench, Romulus' asylum: Roman identities from the age of
Alexander to the age of Hadrian (2005)
H.C. Gotoff, Cicero’s Elegant Style: an Analysis of the Pro
Archia (1979)
K. Lomas, ‘The polis in Italy. Ethnicity, colonazation and
citizenship in the Western Mediterranean’, in R. L. Brock
and 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,
389-400
M. Morford, ‘The dual ctizenship of the Roman Stoics’, in S.N.
Byrne and E.P. Cueva (eds.), Veritatis Amicitiaeque
Causa (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, 56-84
A.N. Sherwin-White, ‘The Roman citizenship. A survey of its
development into a world franchised’, Aufstieg und
Niedergang der Römischen Welt 1.2 (1977), 23-58
J.E.G. Zetzel, ‘Citizen and commonwealth in de re publica’, in J.
Powell and J. North (eds.), Cicero’s Republic (2001), 83-
98
(c) Roman Heroes
J. Berlioz and J.-L. David, ‘Rhetorique et histoire. L’exemplum
et le modèle de comportement dans le discourse antique
et médiéval’ MEFRA 92 (1980), 15-31
H. van der Blom, Cicero’s 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 Roman
historiography’, in C. Bruun (ed.), The Roman Middle
Republic (2000), 41-68
21
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. Späth (eds.), L’invention des grandes homes
de la Rome antique (2001)W. Eder, ‘M. Furius Camillus’,
Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike 4 (1998), 715-
6
T. Frank, ‘Two historical themes in Roman literature. A. Regulus
and Horace Ode III, 5’, CPh 21 (1926), 311-4
J. Geiger, ‘Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: the choice of heroes’, in B.
Scardigli (ed.), Essays on Plutarch’s Lives (1995), 165-
90
P.J. Holliday, The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration
in the Visual Art (2002)
D.H. Larmour, ‘Making parallels: synkrisis and Plutarch’s
Themistocles and Camillus’, Aufstieg und Niedergang
der Römischen Welt II.33, 6 (1992), 4154-4200
A.D. Lehman, ‘The Coriolanus story in antiquity’, Classical
Journal 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, ‘Plutarch’s life of Coriolanus’, Journalk Roman
Studies 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 citizenship
in assessing the character of Roman politics?
***
 10. Plato on Democracy
In this seminar we shall explore Plato’s analysis and critique of
democracy in his two mature political works, the Republic and
the Laws. Is it the case, as the popular view has it, that Plato
was an uncompromisingly hostile critic of democratic politics?
Or do the recent studies arguing that Plato was more deeply
influenced by Athenian society than he would have cared to
admit prompt a reassessment?
Seminar requirements
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read Plato, Republic books 8 &
9, and Laws book 6, taking notes on Plato’s view of democracy
and 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 the
characteristics of the democratic city, and how do these
feature in his depiction of the ‘democratic man’? (in the
secondary bibliography below, Ober 1998, Scott 2000,
Samaras 2002 and Santas 2001 are especially relevant).
(b) How do the constitutional arrangements depicted by
Plato in the Laws avoid the extremes of ‘licence’ and
despotism? (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
22
- 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]
(b) Secondary studies
J. Annas, An Introduction to Plato’s ‘Republic’ (1981)
C. Farrar, The Origins of Democratic Thinking: The invention of
politics in classical
Athens (1988), ch. 7
R. W. Hall, Plato (1981)
G. Klosko, Plato’s Political Theory (1986)
A. Laks, ‘The Laws’, in C. Rowe and M. Schofield (eds.), The
Cambridge History of
Greek and Roman Political Thought (2000)
- ‘Legislation and Demiurgy: On the relationship
between Plato’s Republic and Laws’, Classical Antiquity
vol. 9 (1990), pp. 209-29
J. Ober, Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: Intellectual
critics of popular rule (1998),
chs. 1 and 4
S. Monoson, Plato’s Democratic Entanglements: Athenian
politics and the practice of
philosophy (2000)
G. R. Morrow, Plato’s Cretan City: A historical interpretation of
the ‘Laws’ (1960; 2nd ed.,
1993)
D. Scott, ‘Plato’s Critique of the Democratic Character’,
Phronesis vol. 45 (2000), pp.
19-37 [I]
T. Samaras, Plato on Democracy (2002)
G. Santas, ‘Plato’s Criticism of the “Democratic Man” in the
Republic’, Journal of Ethics
vol. 5 (2001), pp. 57-71 [I]
R. F. Stalley, An Introduction to Plato’s ‘Laws’ (1983)
N. White, A Companion to Plato’s ‘Republic’ (1979)
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 Aristotle’s analysis of
democratic constitutions in the Politics, and the account of
Athenian democracy in pseudo-Xenophon’s Constitution of
Athens. Traditionally, Aristotle has been held to be as
suspicious of democracy as his teacher Plato, though some
political theorists have more recently pointed to tendencies in
his 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 adopted
polis of Athens. How does Aristotle reveal his political principles
in the self-consciously ‘empirical’ middle books of the Politics,
and what can we discover about the nature of classical
democracy from his highly nuanced analysis? How does this gel
with the analysis of Athens offered by the ‘Old Oligarch’?
Seminar requirements
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read Aristotle, Politics books
III-VI and pseudo-Xenophon’s Constitution of Athens, taking
notes on the characteristics attributed to democratic
constitutions, and the ways in which these are implemented in
the descriptions of Athens.
2. Presentation questions:
(a) What, according to Aristotle in the Politics, are the
benefits and drawbacks of the different kinds of
23
democracy? (base your talk primarily on Politics books
III-VI; in the secondary reading Strauss 1991; Schofield
1999; and Mulgan 1990 and 1991 are especially
relevant).
(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’, but
incorporate the accounts of Athenian politics found in
Hansen 1991/1999; Ober 1989; Ober and Hedrick (eds.)
1986; Thorley 1996)
Bibliographies
(a) Primary texts
Aristotle, Politics, trans. S. Everson (Cambridge, 1988), books
III-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; 2nd ed. 1983); other editions
available
(b) Secondary studies
J. Barnes, ‘Aristotle and Political Liberty’, in G. Patzig (ed.), XL
Symposium
Aristotelicum: Studien zu Politik des Aristoteles (1989)
G. Huxley, ‘On Aristotle’s Best State’, in P. Cartledge and F.
Harvey (eds.), Crux (1985)
C. Johnson, Aristotle’s Theory of the State (1990)
B. S. Strauss, ‘On Aristotle’s Critique of Athenian Democracy’,
in C. Lord and D. K.
 O’Connor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of
Aristotelian Political Science 12. Polybius
(1991)
R. Mulgan, ‘Aristotle and the Value of Political Participation’, In this seminar we shall discuss the analysis of the Roman
Political Theory 18 (1990) Constitution found in the sixth book of Polybius’s Histories.
- ‘Aristotle’s Analysis of Oligarchy and Democracy’, in D. Polybius, a Greek from Achaea, is sometimes regarded as a
Keyt and F. Miller perceptive and generally accurate commentator on Rome,
(eds.), A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics (1991) though detailed attention has also been paid to the
W. R. Newell, ‘Superlative Virtue: The problem of monarchy in sophistication and innovation in his theoretical approach to
Aristotle’s Politics’, in C. politics. As we shall see in later seminars, his concepts of
Lord and D. O’Connor (eds.), Essays on the anacyclosis and ‘mixed constitution’ also proved immensely
Foundations of Aristotelian influential in early-modern constitutionalism and republicanism.
Political Science (1991) But for now we shall ask: on what grounds did Polybius argue
J. Ober, Political Dissent in Democratic Athens (1998), chs. 1 for an overarching model of political evolution and degeneration;
and 6 what was the mixed constitution; and how did the master-
F. Rosen, ‘The Political Context of Aristotle’s Categories of example of Rome fit into this scheme?
Justice’, Phronesis 20
(1975), pp. 228-40 Seminar requirements
C. Rowe, ‘Aims and Methods in Aristotle’s Politics’, Classical
Quarterly vol. 27 (1977), 1. Before the seminar, ALL must read book 6 of Polybius’s
pp. 159-72 [J] Histories (see bibliography below), taking notes on (a) the
M. Schofield, ‘Equality and Hierarchy in Aristotle’s Thought’, in methods and theoretical assumptions Polybius employs, and (b)
Schofield, Saving the the details of his analysis of the Roman constitution.
City: Philosopher-Kings and other classical paradigms
(London, 1999) 2. Presentation questions:
B. S. Strauss, ‘On Aristotle’s Critique of Athenian Democracy’,
in C. Lord and D. (a) Explain what Polybius means by the ‘cycle of political
O’Connor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of revolution’, and discuss its relevance to his attitude
Aristotelian Political Science towards democracy (especially relevant are Walbank
(1991) 1994, 2002; Hahm 1995, 2000)
W. von Leyden, Aristotle on Equality and Justice: His political
argument (1985) (b) ‘For Polybius, the reason the “mixed constitution” is
so successful is not because it results in harmony, but
because it enables creative conflict.’ Discuss, with
Essay question: What, according to Aristotle, are the reference to his analysis of Rome. (consult Lintott 1997;
characteristics of democratic city-states, and how does he Hahm 2000; Walbank 1964, 1998, 2002; von Fritz 1954;
evaluate them? Nicolet 1973, 1987).
***

24
 Bibliographies (eds.), Philosophia Togata (1997)
C. Nicolet, ‘Polybe et les institutions romaines’, in E. Gabba
(a) Primary text (ed.), Polybe (1973)
- ‘Polybe et la constitution de Rome’, in C. Nicolet (ed.),
Polybius, The Histories, book 6 Demokratia et Aristokratia à propos de Caius Gracchus:
mots grecs et réalités romaines (1987)
There are several available translations: J. S. Richardson, ‘Polybius’ view of the Roman Empire’ Papers
of the British School at
- The Histories, trans. W. R. Paton (6 vols., 1966-8), vol. Rome 34 (1979), pp. 1-11
1 F. W. Walbank, Polybius (1972)
- The Rise of the Roman Empire, trans. I Scott-Kilvert - Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and
(1979) reflections (2002), section III
- The Histories, trans. M. Chambers (1966) - ‘Polybius on the Roman Constitution’, Classical
Quarterly vol. 37 (1943), pp. 73-89 [J]
There is also a translation online at: - ‘Polybius and the Roman State’, Greek, Roman, and
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/ Byzantine Studies 5 (1964), pp. 264ff.
Polybius/6*.html - 'Polybius' perceptions of the one and the many’, in I.
Malkin and Z.W.
(b) Secondary studies Rubinson (eds.), Leaders and Masses (1994)
- 'A Greek looks at Rome: Polybius VI revisited’, Scripta
Classica Israelica 17
C. B. Champion, Cultural Politics in Polybius’s Histories (2004) (1998)
P. Derow, ‘Polybius, Rome and the East’, Journal of Roman
Studies 69 (1979) 1-15 [J]
C. W. Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Essay question: What is the role of the mixed constitution in
Rome (1983) Polybius’s political theory?
K. von Fritz, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity:
A critical analysis of ***
Polybius’s political ideas (1954)
D. Hahm, ‘Kings and Constitutions: Hellenistic theories’, in C. 13. Hellenistic moral philosophy
Rowe and M. Schofield
(eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman In this seminar we shall explore the central teachings of three of
Political Thought (2000) the principal schools of Hellenistic philosophy – Stoicism,
- ‘Polybius’ Applied Political Theory’, in A. Laks and M. Epicureanism and Cynicism – and attempt to draw out their
Schofield (eds.), Justice political dimensions. Each of these movements has historically
and Generosity (1995) enjoyed renown for their influential treatments of ethics, and
S. Hornblower (ed.) Greek historiography (1994) they have sometimes been said to prioritise different forms of
A. Lintott, ‘The Theory of the Mixed Constitution at Rome’, in J. individualistic moral reflection over the construction of any
Barnes and M. Griffin grand political vision. From this point of view, the growth of

25
Stoicism and Epicureanism in the Hellenistic era has been seen
to reflect the gradual decline of the classical polis. Yet their
ethical doctrines had immensely important political implications
and influence (not least, as we shall see, on the thought of
Cicero). We shall be looking at the ways in which these were
addressed via theories of citizenship, and the long-running
debate concerning the moral requirement – or otherwise – to
participate in public life.
Seminar requirements
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read the provided selections
from Long and Sedley (eds.), taking note of the specifically
political dimensions of the excerpted texts in relation to the two
presentation questions below. Please also read at least one
item from the secondary literature below.
2. Presentation questions:
(a) ‘For the Stoics, human beings are naturally citizens
of the “cosmic city”’. Explain, with reference to the Stoic
theory of human nature and its ideal of the community of
the wise (consult: Schofield 1991 and 2000; Long 1983;
Cooper 1999; Erskine 1990; Sharples 1996; Striker
1991; Van der Waert 1991)
(b) Should the wise man participate in political life? If so,
why and how? Outline and discuss the answers to these
questions given by the different schools of Hellenistic
philosophy. (Schofield 2000; Moles 2000; Griffin 1986
and 1996; Sedley 1997; Vander Waerdt 1987 and 1991;
Cooper 1999)
Bibliographies
(a) Primary texts
26
A. A. Long and D. N Sedley (eds.), The Hellenistic Philosophers,
Volume 1:
Translations of the Principal sources, with philosophical
commentary (1987), chs. 20-25 (Epicurean ethics), 56-
67 (Stoic ethics), 68-70 (Academic scepticism), and 71-2
(Pyrrhonism)
(b) Secondary studies
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 Cicero’s Letters to his
Friends’, 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-Cazé (eds.), The
Cynics: The Cynic movement in antiquity and its legacy
for Europe (1996)
- Seneca: A philosopher in politics (1976; repr. 1992)
A. A. Long, ‘Roman Philosophy’, in D. Sedley (ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to
Greek and Roman Philosphy (2003)
- ‘Pleasure and Social Utility: The virtues of being
Epicurean’ in H. Flashar and O. Gigon (eds.), Aspects
de la philosophie hellénistique: Neuf exposés suivis de
discussions par I.G. Kidd.. .[et al.] (1986)
 - ‘Greek Ethics after Macintyre and the Stoic Community
of 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 of
Greek 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 Roman
Political 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 of
Roman 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 Ancient
Philosophy vol. 10 (1991), pp.
1-73
P. 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 the
principal strains of Hellenistic ethics.
***
14. Cicero
In this seminar we shall discuss the political writings of Cicero in
the two works he wrote explicitly in imitation of Plato: the de Re
27
Publica and the de Legibus. Like his classical Greek
predecessor, Cicero aimed to incorporate ethical doctrines to
constitutional theory in order to produce an overarching vision
of the best political society. However, as befits a writer who was
not only actively engaged in political affairs, but also deeply
imbued with a sense of the Roman past, Cicero also aimed to
integrate an account of the history of the Roman republic to his
theory, and sought to demonstrate that here was a political
community that exemplified both Greek wisdom and Roman
practical experience. How do these aspects of his writing hold
together in his analysis of the res publica? And how can we
explain his attitude towards the ‘democratic’ element in the
Roman constitution?
Seminar requirements
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read Cicero, De republica and
De legibus (see section (a) of the bibliography below).
2. Presentation questions:
(a) How does Cicero explain the constitutional changes
that occurred in the early history of Rome? (Focus on
book 2 of the de Re Publica; Cornell 2001 is especially
relevant)
(b) What is the role of the ‘people’ (populus) in Cicero’s
account of the Roman republic? (Focus on books 1 and
3 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)
 - 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: Cicero’s definition of res
publica 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.), The
Cambridge History of
Greek and Roman Political Thought (2000)
P. Brunt, ‘Cicero’s Officium in the Civil War’, Journal of Roman
Studies vol. 76 (1986),
pp. 12-32
J. 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 on
Cicero’s political
conceptions in the De re publica’, in W. W. Fortenbaugh
and P. Steinmetz
(eds.), Cicero’s Knowledge of the Peripatos (1989), pp.
77-100
W. Lacey and M. Schofield (eds.), Justice and Generosity:
Studies in Hellenistic Social
and Political Philosophy (1995), essays by Brunt, Long,
and Schofield
P. 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. 33-7
J. Powell (ed.), Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve papers (1995)
28
- ‘The rector rei publicae of Cicero’s De republica’,
Scripta Classica Israelica
vol. 13 (1994), pp. 19-29
J. Powell and J. North (eds.), Cicero’s Republic (2001)
E. Rawson, Cicero (1975)
M. Schofield, ‘Cicero’s 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, ‘Cicero’s Republic and Greek Political Theory’,
Polis vol. 5 (1986), pp. 30-
50
C. Wirszubski, ‘Cicero’s cum dignitate otium: A reconsideration’,
Journal of Roman
Studies vol. 51 (1961), pp. 1-13
N. Wood, Cicero’s Social and Political Thought (1988)
Essay question: To what extent does Cicero’s political theory in
the ‘De republica’ and ‘De legibus’ constitute a distinctively
Roman reworking of the vision of Plato?
***
15. Roman Historical Writing and Political Thought
In this seminar we shall consider the views of Sallust, Livy and
Dionysius of Halicarnassus on the Roman political system.
They lived very close to the period under investigation (and in
the case of Sallust, at least, we are in the privileged position of
dealing with an author who was contemporary to some of the
events he narrates and himself directly involved into politics)
and wrote historical works. However, although they did not use
the criteria of Greek political philosophy to explain the subject
they were writing about, they present in their accounts their own
comments and explanations based on their own contemporary
experience, and insert speeches, which very often embody
current political ideas. How can we detect in these works the
relevant features for an analysis of the Roman political system?
What are the differences between these authors? And what
consequences do their pictures have for later views of Rome?
Seminar requirements
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read (a) Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, 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 these
passages might tell us of the Roman political system.
2. Presentation questions:
(a) What features of Roman politics were emphasised in
the accounts of Sallust? (consult Drummond 1995,
Dunkle 1971, Earl 1961, Scanlon 1980; Wiedemann
2000)
(b) What features of Roman politics were emphasised in
the account presented by Livy and Dionysius of
Halicarnassus? (consult Walsh 1971; Edlund 1976; Fox,
1993; Gabba 1991, Mitchell 1990, Jaeger 1997; Luce
1977; 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. by
F. 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)
(b) Secondary studies
29
T. A. Dorey (ed.), The Latin Historians (1966), chs. by Badian
and Walsh
- (ed.), Livy (1971)
A. Drummond, Law, Politics and Power: Sallust and the
execution of the Catilinarian
Conspirators (1995)
J. R. Dunkle, ‘The Rhetorical Tyrant in Roman Historiography:
Sallust, Livy and Tacitus’,
Classical World vol. 65 (1971), pp. 12-20
D. C. Earl, The Political Thought of Sallust (1961)
I. M. Edlund, ‘Dionysos of Halicarnassos: Liberty and
democracy in Rome’, Classical
Bulletin vol. 53 (1976), pp. 27-31
C. Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome
(1983), ch. 3
M. 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, Livy’s Written Rome (1997)
D. Kapust, ‘Skinner, Pettit and Livy: The conflict of the orders
and 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 of
Historiography (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 the
past’, 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 Roman
State (1990)
T. F. Scanlon, The Influence of Thucydides on Sallust (1980)
R. J. H. Shutt, ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus’, Greece & Rome,
vol. 4 (1935), pp. 139-150
R. 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: Four
studies (1988)
T. E. J., Wiedemann, ‘Reflections of Roman Political Thought in
Latin Historical Writing’,
in C. Rowe and M. Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge
History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (2000)
- ‘Sallust’s Jugurtha: Concord, discord, and the
digressions’, Greece & Rome vol. 40 (1993), pp. 48-56
[J]
Essay question: How do the accounts of Roman politics
presented by Livy, Sallust, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus
compare, and how would you account for the differences?
***
16. Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy
In this seminar we will discuss Machiavelli’s famous historical
commentary 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 of
which concerned the kinds of political conditions in which liberty
could flourish. But what exactly was the liberty of the republic?
And what, in his view, was the relationship between Roman
liberty and its putatively ‘popular’ (or democratic) institutions?
Seminar requirements
30
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read at least book 1 of
Machiavelli’s Discourses, and the chapter on Machiavelli by
Skinner (photocopies provided).
2. Presentation questions:
(a) How, according to Machiavelli, was Roman liberty
maintained? (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 Machiavelli’s
contention that ‘government by the populace is better
than government by princes’ (Disc. 1.58)? (focus esp. on
Disc. 1.1-3, 1.46-60, 3.29-30, 3.34-5).
Bibliographies
(a) Primary text
Niccolò 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 at
http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy_.htm
(b) Secondary
A. Oldfield, Citizenship and Community: Civic republicanism
and the modern world
 (1990), ch. 3 G. Bock, Q. Skinner, and M. Viroli (eds.), Machiavelli
H. Baron, ‘Machiavelli the Republican Citizen and Author of The and Republicanism
Prince’, in Baron, In (Cambridge, 1990)
Search of Florentine Humanism (Princeton, 1988), vol. 2 - ‘Machiavelli on the Maintenance of Liberty’, Politics 18
B. Fontana, ‘Sallust and the Politics of Machiavelli’, History of (1983), pp. 3-15, revised in Skinner, Visions of Politics
Political Thought vol. 24 (Cambridge, 2002), vol. 2, ch. 6
(2003), pp. 86-108 [I] M. Viroli, Machiavelli (1998)
I. Hannaford, ‘Machiavelli’s Concept of Virtu in The Prince and - ‘Machiavelli and the Republican Idea of Politics’, in G.
The Discourses Bock, Q. Skinner, and
Reconsidered’, Political Studies vol. 20 (1972), pp. 185- M. Viroli (eds.), Machiavelli and Republicanism
9 (Cambridge, 1990)
A. Grafton and L. Jardine, ‘”Studied for Action: How Gabriel D. J. Wilcox, The Development of Florentine Humanist
Harvey read his Livy’, Past Historiography in the 15th
and Present, no. 129 (1990), pp. 30-78 (for comparative Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1969)
use) [J]
H. Mansfield, Machiavelli’s New Modes and Orders: A study of
the Discourses on Livy Essay question: What, in Machiavelli’s view, made Rome great?
(Ithaca, 1979)
J. McCormick, ‘Machiavelli against Republicanism: On the ***
Cambridge School’s
Guicciardinian Moments’, Political Theory 31 (2003) [I] 17. English Republicanism in the Seventeenth Century
E. Nelson, The Greek Tradition in Republican Thought (2004),
ch. 2 In this seminar we will discuss some of the most important
J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine political English republican writers of the 17th century – John Milton,
thought and the Atlantic Marchamont Nedham, James Harrington and Walter Moyle –
republican tradition (1975; rev. ed., 2003) and consider the important role played by the history of Rome in
P. Rahe, ‘Situating Machiavelli’, in J. Hankins (ed.), their political theory. For these authors, who were writing either
Renaissance Civic Humanism in the midst or the aftermath of a bloody civil war and a failed
(2000) republican constitutional experiment, the workings of the
N. Rubinstein, ‘Machiavelli and Florentine Republican Roman Republic, and equally importantly the manner of its
Experience’, in G. Bock, Q. downfall, provided invaluable lessons that were directly
Skinner, and M. Viroli (eds.), Machiavelli and applicable to contemporary England. We will focus particularly
Republicanism (Cambridge, on the type of liberty that the English republicans perceived to
1990) be at the centre of the Roman system, and explore its historical
S. Shumer, ‘Machiavelli: Republican politics and its corruption’, and political-theoretical implications.
Political Theory vol. 7
(1979), pp. 5-34 [J] Seminar requirements
Q. Skinner, ‘Machiavelli’s Discorsi and the Pre-humanist Origin
of Republican Ideas’, in

31
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read Walter Moyle’s
Democracy Vindicated (photocopies are available in the
departmental office; the text is also online); Marchamont
Nedham’s Discourse of the Excellency of a Free State above a
Kingly Government; and Quentin Skinner’s article on ‘John
Milton and the Politics of Slavery’ (photocopies provided).
If you have time, please also read ‘The Preliminaries, showing
Principles of Government’ to Harrington’s Commonwealth of
Oceana.
2. Presentation questions:
(a) How did the English republicans interpret the
workings of the Roman constitution, and to what
purpose? [Focus on Moyle, Democracy Vindicated,
passim and Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana,
esp. pp. 8-42 (‘The Preliminaries, showing Principles of
Government’), 60-3, 72-5, 100-114, 149-66, 169-172,
206-8, 217-20, 250-52, 275-91; and A System of Politics
X.11. In the secondary literature, see especially Fink
1962; Pocock 1977 and 1975; and Worden 1991
generally]
(b) What, according to the English republicans, were the
characteristics of Roman liberty? [Focus on Nedham,
The Discourse of the Excellency of a Free State above a
Kingly Government; Milton, ‘The Tenure of Kings and
Magistrates’ (1649), and ‘A Defence of the People of
England’, pp. 71-2, 118-21, 166-70,175-6, 182-4, 186-92;
and Harrington, Oceana, pp. 19-21, 229-31. In the
secondary literature, see especially Skinner 2000 and
2002; Maddox 2002; Worden 1991 generally].
Bibliographies
(a) Primary
32
Anon. [William Cavendish and Thomas Hobbes?], Horae
subseciuae: observations and
discourses (London, 1620), ‘Discourse upon the
beginning 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 other
writings, ed. J. Sommerville
(1991) [also online at
http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm
James 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), in
Milton, Political Writings,
ed. M. Dzelainis (1991), pp. 3-48 [EEBO]
Walter Moyle, Democracy Vindicated: An essay on the
Constitution and Government
of the Roman State (c. 1699; republished 1796; French
trans., 1801), in C.
Robbins (ed.), Two English Republican Tracts (1969);
see the text online at
www.constitution.org.moyle/ con_rom.htm
Marchamont Nedham, ‘A Discourse of the Excellency of a Free-
State’, in Nedham, The
Case of the Commonwealth of England Stated (1650),
ed. P. A. Knackel
(1969), part II ch. 5 [EEBO]
(b) Secondary
D. Armitage, A. Himy and Q. Skinner (eds.), Milton and
Republicanism (1995), chapters
by T. Corns (‘Milton and the Characteristics of a Free
Commonwealth’), M. Dzelzainis (‘Milton’s Classical
Republicanism’), B. Worden (‘Milton and Marchamont
Nedham’)
Z. S. Fink, The Classical Republicans: An essay in the recovery 22 (2001), pp. 270-299 [ingenta]
of a pattern of thought L. Ward, The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary
in seventeenth-century England (1962) America (2004)
M. A. Goldie, ‘The Civil Religion of James Harrington’, in A. D. Wootton (ed.), Republicanism, Liberty and Commercial
Pagden (ed.), The Society, 1649-1776 (1994),
Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe chs. by Goldsmith, Rahe, and intro by Wootton
(1987) B. Worden ‘Milton’s Republicanism and the Tyranny of Heaven’,
D. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic: Poetry, rhetoric and in G. Bock, Q. Skinner
politics 1627-1660 and M. Viroli (eds.), Machiavelli and Republicanism
(1999) (1990)
M. Peltonen, Classical Humanism and Republicanism in English - ‘English Republicanism’, in J. H. Burns (ed.), The
Political Thought, Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700
1570-1640 (1995) (1991)
J. G. A. Pocock, ‘Introduction’, to The Political Works of James - ‘John Milton and Oliver Cromwell’, in I. Gentles, J.
Harrington (1977), pp. 1- Morrill and B. Worden (eds.) Soldiers, Writers and
152 Statesmen of the English Revolution (1998), pp. 243-64
E. Nelson, The Greek Tradition in Republican Thought (2004),
ch. 3
P. Rahe, ‘The Classical Republicanism of John Milton’, History Essay question: ‘What united the republicans of 17th century
of Political Thought 25 England was a distinctive theory of liberty.’ Discuss
(2004), pp. 243-75 [I]
G. Remer, ‘James Harrington’s New Deliberative Rhetoric: .***
Reflection of an anticlassical
republican’, History of Political Thought 16 (1995) [I] 18. The American Republic
J. Scott, Algernon Sidney and the English Republic (1988), chs.
2, 6, 12 In this seminar we will discuss The Federalist (1787-8), a series
- Commonwealth principles : republican writing of the of extended newspaper articles written by James Madison,
English revolution (2004) Alexander Hamilton and John Jay to justify the recently framed
Q. Skinner, Liberty Before Liberalism (1998) [cf. review by P. American Constitution. As Madison, Hamilton and Jay
Rahe in The Review of explained, the constitution of the federal American republic had
Politics vol. 62 (2000), pp. 395-98] been devised in accordance with reason but also ‘experience’: it
- ‘John Milton and the Politics of Slavery’, in Skinner, had, in other words, been to some extent framed in conscious
Visions of Politics, (2002), vol. 2 imitation of its classical forerunners – most notably, the Roman
- ‘Classical liberty and the coming of the English Civil republic. But at the same time, the founders of the Constitution
War’, in Q. Skinner and believed that they had advanced beyond all previously existing
M. Van Gelderen (eds.), Republicanism: A shared forms of government: they had, as Madison put it in Federalist
European heritage (2002), vol. 1 no. 10, made ‘valuable improvements … on the popular models
W. Walker, ‘Paradise Lost and the forms of government’, both ancient and modern.’ One of the central problems
History of Political Thought vol. addressed by the Federalist, then, concerns the manner in

33
which such ‘popular’ (i.e. democratic) politics are incorporated
in the Constitution. We shall explore this, and look particularly at
the ways in which the historical example of the Roman Republic
provided a paradigm for the analysis and resolution of the
problems of democratic politics.
Seminar requirements
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read The Federalist, nos. 1, 10,
14, 34, 37, 38, 93, 47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 63, 67, 67, 70, 72, 77; and
Hampsher-Monk 1992 (photocopies of both are held in the
departmental office).
2. Presentation questions:
(a) What is the role of the Roman republic in the political
theory of The Federalist? [Focus on esp. The Federalist
nos. 38, 34, 63, 70, 72; in the secondary literature, see
especially Richard 1994, Sellers 1994, Chinard 1940,
Gibson 2000, Rahe 1994 and 1997, and Pocock 1971].
(b) How democratic was the American Constitution as it
was explained in the Federalist ? [Focus on esp. The
Federalist nos. 10, 14, 37, 47-51, 54, 63, 67, 78; in the
secondary literature, see especially Hanson 1985 and
1988 and Dahl 2001].
Bibliographies
(a) Primary
J. Madison, A. Hamilton, and J. Jay, The Federalist, ed. T. Ball
(2003)
- The Federalist Papers, ed. I. Kramnick (1987)
- The Federalist, ed. J. E. Cooke (1961)
(b) Secondary
34
G. Chinard, ‘Polybius and the American Constitution’, Journal of
the History of ideas vol.
1 (1940), pp. 38-58 [J]
J. Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical
Imagination (1992), chs. 5-12
B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution
(1967)
L. Banning, ‘Jeffersonian Ideology Revisited: Liberal and
classical ideas in the new American republic’, William and Mary
Quarterly vol. 43 (1986), pp. 2-19 [J]
- The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the
Founding of the Federal Republic (1995)
M. M. Edling, A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of
the U.S. Constitution
and the making of the American state (2003)
D. F. Epstein, The Political Theory of ‘The Federalist’ (1984)
M. Forsyth, M. Keens-Soper and J. Hoffman (eds.), The
Political Classics: Hamilton to
Mill (1993), pp. 9-43
A. Gibson, ‘Ancients, Moderns and Americans: The
Republicanism-Liberalism debate
revisited’, History of Political Thought vol. 21 (2000), pp.
261-307 [I]
I. Hampsher–Monk, ‘“Publius”: The Federalist’, in Hampsher-
Monk, Modern Political
Thought: Major political thinkers from Hobbes to Marx
(1992), pp. 197-260
R. Hanson, The Democratic Imagination in America:
Conversations with our past (1985)
P. Higonnet, Sister Republics: The origins of French and
American republicanism (1988)
M. Hulliung, Citizens and Citoyens: Republicans and liberals in
America and France
(2002)
W. Kristol, ‘The Problem of the Separation of Powers: Federalist
47-51’, in C. R. Kesler
(ed.) Saving the Revolution: The Federalist Papers and
the American Founding (1987), pp. 100-130
M. Malmud, Ancient Rome and Modern America, 2009
B. Manin, ‘Checks, Balances and Boundaries: The separation of
powers in the
constitutional debate of 1787’, in B. Fontana (ed.), The
Invention of the Modern Republic (1994), pp. 27-62
R. K. Matthews, If Men Were Angels: James Madison and the
heartless empire of
reason (1995)
E. Nelson, The Greek Tradition in Republican Thought (2004),
ch. 6
P. S. Onuf, ‘State, Sovereignty and the Making of the
Constitution’, in T. Ball and J. G. A.
Pocock (eds.), Conceptual Change and the Constitution
(1988), pp. 78-98
J. G. A. Pocock, ‘Political Thought in the English-Speaking
Atlantic, 1760-1790’, in J. G.
A. Pocock, G. J. Schochet and L. G. Schwoerer (eds.),
The Varieties of
British Political Thought, 1500-1800 (1993), pp. 246-317
- ‘Civic Humanism and its role in Anglo-American
Thought’, in Pocock, Politics, Language, and Time (1971)
P. Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical
Republicanism and the American
Revolution (1992)
- Republics, Ancient and Modern, vol. III. Inventions of
prudence: Constituting
the American Regime (1994)
- ‘Cicero and American Republicanism’, Ciceroniana,
new series vol. 8 (1994),
pp. 63-78
- ‘Thomas Jefferson's Machiavellian Moment’, in G. L.
McDowell and S. L. Noble (eds.), Reason and
Republicanism: Thomas Jefferson's Legacy of Liberty
(1997), pp. 53-84
M. Reinhold, Classica Americana: The Greek and Roman
heritage in the United States
(1984)
C. Richard, The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome,
and the American
Enlightenment (1994)
35
D.T. Rodgers, ‘Republicanism: The career of a concept’,
Journal of American History
vol. 79 (1992), pp. 11-38 [J]
M. N. S. Sellers, American Republicanism: Roman ideology in
the United States
Constitution (1994)
G. S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1991)
- The Creation of the American Republic, 1767-1787
(1969)
D. Wootton, ‘Liberty, Metaphor, and Mechanism: the Origins of
Modern
Constitutionalism’, preliminary version on
www.constitution.org, full version in
D. Wormersley (ed.), Liberty and American Experience
in the Eighteenth Century (2006)
- (ed.), Republicanism, Liberty and Commercial Society,
1649-1776 (1994),
introduction and chs. by Rahe and Sher
J. Zvesper, ‘The Madisonian Systems’, Western Political
Quarterly vol. 37 (1984), pp.
236-256
Essay question: To what extent, according to the ‘Federalist
Papers’, did the constitution of the American Republic imitate
its Roman predecessor?
***
19. The French Enlightenment
In this seminar we will discuss French republicanism in its most
famous formulation in the writings of Jean-JaClassical
Quartelyues Rousseau, and its subsequent liberal critique in the
writing of Benjamin Constant. For Rousseau, as for the English
republicans of the seventeenth century, and the American
republicans of the eighteenth, the Roman republic provided a
crucial historical paradigm for contemporary politics; indeed, his
detailed dissection of the constitution of the republic in The
Social Contract indicates that it was a major source for his
political theory. For Constant, ancient republics were in many
senses admirable political achievements, yet to argue for their
contemporary imitation was to misunderstand the vital
differences between antiquity and modernity; his critique of
Rousseau, and also of the republican Mably, hinged on the
crucial distinction between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ forms of
liberty. The conflict between republicanism and liberalism in
French political discourse, and particularly its role in the
revolution of 1789, arguably persists to the present day: what
was the role of the Roman republic in this historical dispute?
Seminar requirements
1. Before the seminar, ALL must read the provided excerpts
from Rousseau, The Social Contract, and Constant, The Spirit
of Conquest and Usurpation and their Relation to European
Civilization.
2. Presentation questions:
(a) What is the role of the Roman republic in the political
theory of Rousseau? [in the secondary literature, see
especially Hulliung 2002, Neidleman 2001, Livesey 2001,
Mason 1989, Viroli 1989, and Wright 1997 (for
comparative material on Mably)].
(b) On what grounds did Benjamin Constant criticise
those who had sought to revive ‘ancient liberty’? [in the
secondary literature, see especially Holmes 1984, Pitt
2001, Dunn 1990, Siedentop 1979, Welch 1984].
Bibliographies
(a) Primary texts
Montesquieu, Considerations on the Greatness of the Romans
and their Decline, trans.
36
D. Lowenthal (1965)
Jean-JaClassical Quartelyues Rousseau,The Social Contract
and other Later Political Writings, ed. V.
Gourevitch (Cambridge, 1997)
Benjamin Constant, Political Writings, ed. B. Fontana
(Cambridge, 1988), part 2
(b) Secondary studies
K. M. Baker, ‘Fixing the French Constitution’, in K. M. Baker,
Inventing the French
Revolution: Essays on French political culture in the
eighteenth century
(1990), pp. 252-305
I. Berlin, ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, in Berlin, Four Essays on
Liberty (1969), pp. 118-72
J. Dunn, ‘Liberty as a Substantive Political Value’, in Dunn,
Interpreting Political
Responsibility: Essays 1981-1989 (1990), pp. 61-84
G. Dodge, Benjamin Constant’s Philosophy of Liberalism: A
study in politics and religion
(1980)
C. Fauré, ‘Rights or virtues: women and the Republic’, in Q.
Skinner and M. Van
Gelderen (eds.), Republicanism: A shared European
heritage (2002), vol. II
F. Furet, ‘The French Revolution or Pure Democracy’, in C.
Lucas (ed.), Rewriting the
French Revolution (1991), pp. 33-45
- ‘French Historians and the Reconstruction of the
Republican Tradition, 1800-1848’, in B. Fontana (ed.),
The Invention of the Modern Republic (1994), pp. 173-
91
- ‘Rousseau and the French Revolution’, in C. Orwin and
N. Tarcov, The Legacy of Rousseau (1997), pp. 168-82
S. Holmes, Benjamin Constant and the Making of Modern
Liberalism (1984)
G. A. Kelly, The Humane Comedy: Constant, ToClassical
Quartelyueville and French liberalism (1992)
J. Livesey, Making democracy in the French Revolution (2001) 20. Review and conclusion
J. H. Mason, ‘Individuals in Society: Rousseau’s republican
vision’, History of Political
Thought vol. 10 (1989), pp. 89-112 Bibliography
S. Mason, ‘Livy and Montesquieu’, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Livy and
his Influence (1971), pp. J.North, ‘Democratic Politics in Republican Rome’, Past &
118-58 Present 126 (1990), pp. 3-21
R. Myers, ‘Montesquieu on the Causes of Roman Greatness’, [J]
History of Political - ‘Politics and Aristocracy in the Roman Republic’,
Thought 16 (1995), pp. 37-47 [I] Classical Philology 85 (1990),
J. Neidleman, The General Will is Citizenship: Inquiries into pp. 277-287 (a concise version of the article above; see
French political thought also the criticisms by W. V. Harris in ‘On Defining the
(2001) Political Culture of the Roman Republic: Some Comments
A. Pitt, ‘The Religion of the Moderns: Freedom and authenticity on Rosenstein, Williamson, and North’, pp. 288-294, and
in Constant’s De la North’s reply, pp. 297-98) [J]
Religion’, History of Political Thought vol. 21 (2000), pp. F. Millar, ‘The Political Character of the Classical Roman
67-87 [I] Republic, 200-151 B.C.,’
M. Hulliung, Citizens and Citoyens: Republicans and liberals in Journal of Roman Studies vol. 74 (1984), pp. 1-19 [J]
America and France - The Crowd in the Late Republic (1998) [cf. review by K.
(2002) Hölkeskamp in Scripta Classica Israelica (2000)]
H. Rosenblatt, Rousseau and Geneva (1997) - The Roman Republic in Political Thought (2002)
L. Siedentop, ‘Two Liberal Traditions’, in A. Ryan (ed.), The H. Mouritsen, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic
Idea of Freedom (1979), pp. (2001)
153-74 A. M. Ward, ‘How Democratic was the Roman Republic?’, New
F. Venturi, Utopia and Reform in the Enlightenment (1971) England Classical
M. Viroli, ‘Republics and Politics in Machiavelli and Rousseau’, Journal 31 (2004), pp. 109-119
History of Political A. Yakobsen, ‘Petitio and largitio: popular participation in the
Thought vol. 10 (1989) centuriate assembly of the
C. B. Welch, Liberty and Utility: The French ideologues and the late Republic’, Journal of Roman Studies 82 (1992), pp.
transformation of 32-52 [J]
liberalism (1984)
J. K. Wright, A Classical Republican in Eighteenth-century There is no essay question for this topic.
France: The political thought
of Mably (1997)
***
Essay question: Compare the visions of liberty presented by
Rousseau and Constant, and account for their differences. Extensions
***

37
Extensions to the above deadlines can only be granted by
the Chair of the Board of Examiners on the recommendation
of the Departmental Tutor. He is only likely to do so in cases of
serious illness, for which you must provide medical certification, or
bereavement. In particular, it is normal to expect up to two weeks’
illness in the course of the two teaching semesters and
applications for extensions on medical grounds received in the
last two weeks of the second term, where the illness was clearly
of less than two weeks’ duration, will not normally be granted.
Students wishing to apply for an extension should complete
a form (available from the Academic Office) and make an
appointment to see the Departmental Tutor, no later than the
Friday before the deadline. After this date, only bereavements
and serious illnesses that occurred on the day of the deadline, or
in the weekend before it, will be considered valid grounds for an
extension.
You should aim to get your essays in well before the deadlines
listed above, not least because of delays caused by faults with
computers, printers, photocopiers etc. Do not expect everything
to work smoothly. You are expected to plan accordingly. If
printing at home, make sure you have a spare ink/toner cartridge
for your printer. Last-minute equipment or transport problems are
not considered valid grounds for an extension.
Penalties
Late submission
Unless you have been granted an extension, any essay submitted
after the relevant deadline listed above will be penalised as
follows:
Up to 24 hours late: 5 mark deduction
Between 24 hours and one week late: 15 mark deduction
38
Students are advised to submit essays even if they will receive a
late-submission penalty. Failure to submit all the required
assessed coursework will result in a final result for the course of
‘incomplete’. UCL regulations require that a student completes the
assessment for all course units taken during their degree
programme in order to graduate.
Work submitted more than one week late will receive a mark
of 0.
If you find yourself in the position of submitting an essay more
than one week late, without having been granted an extension,
you must contact the Departmental Tutor, Dr Antonio Sennis
(a.sennis@ucl.ac.uk) or the Undergraduate Administrator, Cari
Tuhey (c.tuhey@ucl.ac.uk), so that they can explain the
implications.
Penalties are not applied by the teacher marking the essay, but
by the Chair of the Board of Examiners, and are included in the
calculation of the final overall mark for the course. You will be
notified of this mark in June.
Overlength work
Assessed work must not exceed the required word count by more
than 10%.
Any essay found after submission to have exceeded the word
limit by more than 10% will be penalized as follows:
Between 10% and 20%: 10 mark deduction
More than 20%: A mark of 0
Submission Procedures
You must submit an electronic copy and two hard copies of all
assessed pieces of coursework.
1. Electronic Submission
Electronic submission of all assessed coursework via Moodle is
compulsory so you must enrol on Moodle for all History courses
you are taking this year, even if the course tutor is not using
Moodle as a teaching aid. If you are asked for an enrolment
key, this will be ‘pizza’. Please note that this is case-sensitive.
Electronic submission of work via Moodle is done by uploading
a file. The process works in a similar way to sending an
attachment by email.
1. You should save the main text and footnotes of your
essay and your bibliography as two separate files.
You must not upload the bibliography file to Moodle.
2. Log in to Moodle and open the page of the course
for which you are going to submit a piece of coursework.
3. On the left-hand side, there will be a box entitled
'Activities'. Click on the 'Turnitin Assignments' link in
this box.
4. A table will appear, listing all of the pieces of assessed
coursework required for the module.
5. In the 'Name' column, click on the title of the piece of
coursework you want to submit.
6. A description of the assignment will appear. Along the
top of the screen, there will be two tabs: ‘Summary’ and
‘My Submissions’. Click on ‘My Submissions’.
7. Enter a brief version of the title of your essay in the
‘Submission Title’ box.
8. Click the ‘Browse’ button alongside the ‘File to Submit’
box and select your file from the relevant location on
the computer. When you click 'Open', the file name will
appear in the empty box.
39
9. Read the ‘Declaration of Ownership’ and tick the box to
confirm you have read and understood it.
10. Click the ‘Add Submission’ button at the bottom of the
page. You will briefly see a ‘Synchronising Data’
message.
11. When this message disappears, you should be returned
to the ‘My Submissions’ page. If the screen goes blank,
refresh the page by clicking on the ‘Summary’ tab and
then again on the ‘My Submissions’ tab.
12. On the ‘My Submissions’ page, in the ‘Submission’
column, it should say ‘Status: Submission successfully
uploaded to Turnitin’. You must print a copy of this
page to attach to your hard copy submission.
13. You will also receive an email confirmation to your UCL
account. You might want to keep this for future
reference.
Hard copies of coursework should be submitted to the
departmental Reception. These must be accompanied by
a) the printout of the page confirming your electronic
submission – see point 12 above. If you forgot to print this page
when you submitted the essay, it is always possible to return to
the ‘My Submissions’ page.
b) a completed departmental cover sheet (available in
the undergraduate common room and the corridor outside room
G.06) on which you state the module code, the course teacher,
your name, the title of your essay, and the word count.
Complete the cover sheet with a ball-point pen and attach it to
your essay with a paper clip. Please do not staple it.
The cover sheet also requires your signature. When you sign
the cover sheet, you are confirming the following:
1. That you have read and understood the UCL History
Department regulations concerning the submission of
assessed work.
2. That the coursework is your own work and that any
references made to other authors are properly
acknowledged.
Essays, while based upon what you have read, heard
and discussed, must be entirely your own work. It is
very important that you avoid plagiarism, i.e. the
presentation of another person’s thoughts or words as
though they were your own. Plagiarism is a form of
cheating, and is regarded by the College as a serious
offence, which can lead to a student failing a course or
courses, or even expulsion from College.
Any quotation from the published or unpublished works
of other persons must be clearly identified as such by
being placed inside quotation marks and students
should identify their sources as accurately and fully as
possible.
Please see the History Department Study Skills
booklet for further guidance on avoiding
plagiarism and referencing. (Students not registered
in the History Department may obtain a copy from the
Departmental Reception or download one from the
History Department webpages.) If you have any doubt
about what constitutes plagiarism, please ask one of
your teachers or the Depatmental Tutor for advice.
Recourse to the services of “ghost-writing”
agencies or of outside word-processing agencies
which offer correction/improvement of English is
strictly forbidden and students who make use of
40
the services of such agencies render themselves
liable for an academic penalty.
You should note that the Department uses a
sophisticated detection system (TurnItIn) to scan
assessed coursework for evidence of plagiarism.
This system gives access to billions of sources
worldwide, including websites and journals, as well
as work previously submitted to the Department, UCL
and other universities.
3. That the word count stated on the cover sheet is
accurate.
You must state the precise word count of your essay,
including all the text in your footnotes/endnotes,
even if they are just references. You are not
required to include the bibliography, the title of the
essay or any headers/footers in the word count. To
perform an accurate word count, you should highlight
the the text of the essay from the first word of the
introduction to the last word of the conclusion and
ensure that ‘Include footnotes/endnotes’ is ticked in
the word count dialogue box.
No student will be permitted to submit any essay
which exceeds the word limit stated in course
documentation by more than 10%. Any such essay
will not be accepted for submission but immediately
returned to the student to be shortened. If the process
of shortening the courseword results in submission
after the relevant departmental deadline, the normal
 penalties for late submission will apply – see below.
Any essay found after submission to have an
inaccurate word count stated on the cover sheet
and to have exceeded the permitted length by
more than 10% but less than 20% will be liable for
a penalty deduction of 10 marks. Any essay which
exceeds the word limit by more than 20% will be
given a mark of 0.
4. That the main text and footnotes/endnotes of the hard
copy of the coursework are identical to those
submitted electronically to Turnitin via Moodle.
Electronic submission of all assessed coursework to
Turnitin via Moodle prior to the submission of the hard
copies is compulsory.
All parts of the cover sheet and both copies of the essay will
be date-stamped on receipt. The third copy of the cover sheet
will be returned to you as proof that the essay was submitted.
This should be retained in a safe place.
Please note that assessed coursework must be date-
stamped in order to receive a mark. Without this, it will receive
a mark of zero. Course teachers are unable to date-stamp essays.
Under no circumstances should you hand an assessed essay
directly to the teacher, put it under the door of the Reception or
the teacher’s office, or fax or e-mail it to the teacher. If there is a
compelling reason which prevents you from being able to submit
an essay in the normal way, you must contact the Undergraduate
Administrator, Cari Tuhey, in the first instance.
41
History Department Marking Criteria
Note: These guidelines are derived mainly from the History
Benchmarking Statement, approved by the Quality Assurance
Agency. They show the expected standard required for each
mark band in terms of the following aspects of performance:
structure and focus; quality of argument and expression; range
of knowledge.
The actual mark awarded will reflect the degree to which the
qualities required for the award of a particular class are present
.
First Class (70+)
Structure and focus
 Engages closely with the question throughout, showing a
mature appreciation of its wider implications.
 The structure of the argument is lucid and allows for the
development of a coherent and cogent argument.
 Factual evidence and descriptive material is used to
support the writer's argument, and is both concise and
relevant.
Quality of Argument and expression
 The writing will be fluent, coherent and accurate.
 The writing will go well beyond the effective paraphrasing
of the ideas of other historians. It will show that the writer
has a good conceptual command of the historical and,
where relevant, historiographical issues under discussion.
 The work will display originality and imagination, as well
as analytical skills of a high order.
  The work will demonstrate that the writer can move
between generalizations and detailed discussion
confidently.
Range of knowledge
 The answer demonstrates in-depth reading and critical
analysis of the texts, secondary literature and (where
relevant) contemporary sources.
 The answer demonstrates that the writer has a
comprehensive knowledge of the subject and a good
understanding of the historical period under discussion.
 The writer will demonstrate an ability to evaluate the
nature and status of the information at their disposal and
identify contradictions and attempt a resolution.
Upper Second Class (60-69)
Structure and focus
 Work which displays an understanding of the question, an
appreciation of some of its wider implications and tries
seriously to engage with the question.
 The structure of the answer will facilitate the clear
development of the writer's argument. But towards the
lower end of this mark band the candidate will not be able
to sustain a consistently analytical approach.
 The writer will deploy relevant evidence to support the
argument. But towards the lower end of this mark band,
the writer may not explain the full implications of the
evidence cited.
Quality of Argument and expression
42
 The answer will be clear and generally accurate, and will
demonstrate an appreciation of the technical vocabulary
used by historians.
 The answer will deploy the ideas of other historians and
try to move beyond them. It will also show some
appreciation of the extent to which historical explanations
are contested.
 The answer may not demonstrate real originality or
imagination, but the writer will present ideas with some
degree of intellectual independence, and show an ability
to reflect on the past and its interpretations.
Range of knowledge
 The answer will display an extensive, but sometimes
uneven, range of knowledge. It will demonstrate evidence
of considerable reading.
 The answer will demonstrate a sense of the nature
of historical development.
 The writer will demonstrate an ability to move between
generalizations and detailed discussions, although there
may be a tendency towards either over-generalised or an
over-particularised response to the question.
 The writer will reflect on the nature of the evidence and
sources available to them, and attempt to use it critically.
 The answer will demonstrate a secure understanding of
the historical period under discussion.
Lower Second Class (50-59)
Structure and focus
  The work will display some understanding of the question,
but it may lack a sustained focus and only a limited
understanding of the question's wider implications.
 The structure of the work may be determined largely by
the material available to the writer, rather than by the
demands of the question. Ideas may be stated, rather
than fully developed.
 The writing may include descriptive and factual material,
but without the kind
of critical reflection characteristic of answers in higher
mark bands.
Quality of Argument and expression
 The writing will be sufficiently accurate to convey the
writer’s meaning, but it may lack fluency and command of
the scholarly idioms used by historians. It may be clumsy
in places.
 The writing will show some understanding of historians’
ideas. But it may not reflect critically upon them. The
problematic nature of historical explanations may not be
fully understood.
 The answer is unlikely to show any intentional originality,
and may tend towards the assertion of essentially
derivative ideas.
Range of knowledge
 The answer will show significant knowledge, but it may be
limited or patchy. It will be sound, but may contain some
inaccuracies. The range of reading will be limited.
 The answer will show only limited awareness of historical
development.
43
 The writer may show a proneness to present too much
narrative or descriptive material, and may present
information without reference to the precise requirements
of the question.
 Information may be presented uncritically and there will
be little attempt to evaluate its status or significance.
 The answer will demonstrate some appreciation of the
nature of the historical period under discussion.
Third Class (40-49)
Structure and focus
 Work that displays little understanding of the question and
the writer may tend to write indiscriminately around it.
 The answer will have a structure, but it may be
underdeveloped, and the argument may be incomplete
and developed in a haphazard and undisciplined manner.
 Some descriptive material will be deployed, but without
any critical reflection on its significance or relevance.
Quality of Argument and expression
 The writing may not always be grammatical, and it may
lack the sophisticated vocabulary or construction
needed to sustain a complex historical argument. In
places it may lack clarity and felicity of expression.
 There will be little appreciation of the contested and
problematic nature of historical explanations.
 The answer will show no intentional originality of
approach.
Range of knowledge
  There will be sufficient knowledge to frame a basic
answer, but it will be patchy and limited. There are likely
to be some inaccuracies.
 There will be some understanding of historical
development, but it will be underdeveloped, and the ideas
of historians and others may be muddled or
misunderstood.
 There will be an argument, but the writer may be prone to
excessive narrative, and the argument may be signposted
by bald assertions rather than informed generalizations.
 Information will be employed uncritically as if it was
always self-explanatory.
 The answer will demonstrate only a rudimentary
appreciation of the historical period under discussion.
Referral (35-39)
Structure and focus
 Work that displays very limited understanding of the
question and in many places displays a tendency to write
indiscriminately around it.
 The answer will have a weak structure, that is poorly
developed. There is only a limited and somewhat
incoherent argument.
 Only a limited amount of descriptive material will be
deployed, usually without any critical reflection on its
significance or relevance.
Quality of Argument and expression
44
 The writing will frequently be ungrammatical, and will not
be such as is required to sustain a complex historical
argument. It will often lack clarity and felicity of expression.
 There will be almost no appreciation of the contested and
problematic nature of historical explanations.
 The answer will show no intentional originality of
approach.
Range of knowledge
 There will only be sufficient knowledge to frame a very
basic answer. It will contain many inaccuracies.
 There will be only a limited understanding of historical
development.
 There will be only very limited evidence of an argument.
 Information will be employed uncritically and as if it was
always self-explanatory.
 The answer will demonstrate only a very rudimentary and
extremely limited appreciation of the historical period
under discussion.
Fail (0-34)
Structure and focus
 Work that displays little or no real understanding of the
question.
 The answer will have a weak structure, which is poorly
developed. There is no coherent argument.
 Only a very limited amount of descriptive material will be
deployed, without any critical reflection on its significance
or relevance. Some of it will be irrelevant.
Quality of Argument and expression
 The writing will be ungrammatical. Ideas will sometimes
be presented in note form.
 There will be no appreciation of the contested and
problematic nature of historical explanations.
 The answer will show no intentional originality of
approach.
Range of knowledge
 There will not be sufficient knowledge to frame even a
basic answer.
 There will be no real understanding of historical
development.
 There will be little if any evidence of an argument.
 It will contain little relevant information.
 The answer will demonstrate no real appreciation of the
historical period under
discussion
Feedback and Essay Tutorials
If you submit a piece of coursework by an official or unofficial
deadline, you will normally receive feedback within one month
of that deadline. If you submit an essay late, you will still be
entitled to feedback, but this may not happen within the same
timeframe.
Marked essays will be discussed in individual meetings with
your teacher. It is very important that you attend these meetings,
as they provide an invaluable opportunity for you to be given
individual feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of your
written work. They will be an opportunity for you to think about
45
and be guided by your teacher on how to improve your essay-
writing skills and your historical analysis.
In order to benefit as much as possible from these discussions,
you should do the following:
 always keep a copy of your essay and read it
through before coming to the meeting
 make a note of any questions that you would like to
ask, e.g. “I didn’t understand what Colley was
arguing in the conclusion to her book” or “I wasn’t
sure if this point went in the conclusion or the
introduction” or “ I really just didn’t know what else
to write about once I had covered aspects X and Y
of this topic”
 take notes of the replies to these questions and
think about them afterwards
 when you come to write your next essay, look over
these notes and think about how to apply the
suggestions for improvement to your next piece of
written work.
Plagiarism
Essays, while based upon what you have read, heard and
discussed, must be entirely your own work. It is very important
that you avoid plagiarism, i.e. the presentation of another person’s
thoughts or words as though they were your own. Plagiarism is a
form of cheating, and is regarded by the College as a serious
offence, which can lead to a student failing a course or courses,
or even deregistration.
Any quotation from the published or unpublished works of other
persons must be clearly identified as such by being placed inside
quotation marks and students should identify their sources as
accurately and fully as possible.
If, at any point, you have any doubt about what constitutes
plagiarism, please do not hesitate to ask your course teacher,
your Personal Tutor, or the Departmental Tutor. There is also
further guidance on referencing and avoiding plagiarism on the
History Department website.
Recourse to the services of “ghost-writing” agencies or of
outside word-processing agencies which offer
correction/improvement of English is strictly forbidden and
students who make use of the services of such agencies render
themselves liable for an academic penalty.

46