PS 831 Roman Political Thought

8/18/2019 PS 831 Roman Political Thought

1/10

PS 831: Roman Political Thought

Spring 2013

Monday, 3:30-5:30

Daniel Kapust

Associate ProfessorDepartment of Political Science

311 North Hall

[email protected]

Office Hours: Monday, 9:30-11:30 or by appointment

I. Scope and Purpose

Why devote a seminar to Roman political thought? On the face of it, such a focus might

seem odd; after all, 20th century political theory and philosophy generally focused on Greek

political thinkers – we may think of Arendt, Strauss, or MacIntyre, to name but a few. Indeed,

Dean Hammer suggests that he wrote his own recent book on Roman political thought in

response to a question he was asked: “What ever happened to the Romans?” Not only have the

Romans been strikingly absent from 20th century political theory and philosophy, Roman

political thinkers – such as Cicero or Seneca – are often viewed as derivative of their Greek

predecessors, be they Hellenic or Hellenistic.

This was not always the case: Roman thought was of great importance through the 18th

century, evident in figures such as Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, and

Madison. And focusing on Roman political thought seems less strange when viewed through

other disciplinary lenses: scholars in English, history, the Romance languages, theater, and other

fields did not lose interest in the Romans in the same way that political theorists and

philosophers did.

Yet Roman political thought has been undergoing something of a revival in recent years,

due in part to increased interest in republicanism among political theorists and philosophers

(evident in the work of figures such as Quentin Skinner and Philip Pettit), and also due to

increased interest in rhetoric and the rhetorical tradition. Beyond republicanism and rhetoric, the

Romans would seem to be increasingly relevant to our own politics: after all, Rome was an

imperial republic faced with apparent trade-offs between liberty and security.

Increasingly, then, work on Roman writers focuses on them less as sources for – or in

conversation with – later writers, and more as rich resources for political theorizing. We will take

the writers we encounter as figures worth studying in their own right, though we will, of course,

pay attention to issues of reception and influence. The majority of the writers we encounter will

be Romans writing in Latin: the exceptions are Polybius, a Greek who spent time in Rome and

wrote for a Greek audience, and Plutarch, a Greek living under Roman rule. We will read texts

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/10

that fit in the (somewhat narrow) confines of traditional philosophical genres – Cicero’s

dialogues, and Seneca’s essays. But we will also read texts from genres that are not philosophical

in a narrow sense: works of history, poetry, oratory, and philosophical confession. In the course

of studying these texts, participants in the seminar will gain a deep understanding of the Roman

ethical, social, and political tradition from the 2nd century B.C.E. to the 5th century C.E. Students

will write and present seminar papers engaging with political theory, philosophy, and classical

scholarship that are suitable for development into conference papers and ultimately articles or

dissertation chapters.

II. Course Requirements

Students enrolled in the course for credit will write a staged seminar paper. The paper,

memos, and the in-class presentations on May 2 and 9, will be worth 75% of the course

grade.The goal is to produce a paper that can be presented at a conference and eventually be

suitable for publication. You will, in short, be preparing your own contribution to scholarship on

Roman political, social, or ethical thought.

The paper will be broken up into 5 stages:

1. Meeting with me to discuss the topic and a preliminary bibliography. To be completed

no later than Monday, February 17.

2. A 10-12 page annotated bibliography, to be turned in to me or placed in my

departmental mailbox by Friday, March 14.

3. A detailed outline of the paper (3-5 pages), to be turned in to me or placed in my

departmental mailbox on or before Friday, April 4.

4. The final seminar paper (25-35 pages), to be turned in to me or placed in my

departmental mailbox no later than Friday, March 25.

5. Two short memos (i.e. between 250 and 500 words), to be turned in to me or placed in

my mailbox by Monday, 5/8).

A. The first memo is to be in response to my comments on your paper. You

should, in this memo, outline what you take the core of my concerns to be, and

how you would go about addressing them. This memo is, in essence, analogous to

the memos you will be writing in response to referee reports when you send papers out for review.

B. The second memo is to be in response to comments made on your presentation.

You should, in this memo, try to synthesize these comments, and outline how you

would go about addressing them. This memo is, in essence, analogous to what

many try to do after presenting papers at conferences.


3/10

You will receive a grade for the paper as a whole, and not for the individual components,

each of which is designed to help you produce a stronger paper. In order to receive credit for the

paper, however, you need to complete each of the components.

The last two days of the course will be reserved for presentations of seminar papers. You

should view this as, in essence, a practice conference presentation, and will be allotted 15minutes to present your paper. We will then have 10-15 minutes of class discussion of the

papers. The goal of this exercise is to familiarize you with the basics of presenting at

conferences, to provide further feedback on your papers, and to further enrich the mutual

learning experience of the seminar by incorporating peer feedback. The paper itself should be

viewed as a future conference paper, and eventual publication.

In addition to the seminar paper and presentation, participation will be worth 25% of the

course grade. This involves closely and carefully reading the assigned material, and participating

in seminar discussion. It also requires each participant to lead discussion once during the

semester. Days available are marked with the following symbol: (!).

Auditors will be expected to do all the readings and to lead one discussion during the

semester.

III. Incompletes and Academic Dishonesty

Incompletes for this course will only be granted under extraordinary circumstances.

Academic dishonesty will not be tolerated, and will be subject to severe penalties.

IV. Texts

I have ordered 11 books for this course, each of which is required.

1. Cicero, On the Ideal Orator , translated by James M. May and Jakob Wisse (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2001)

2. Cicero, The Republic and The Laws, translated by Niall Rudd (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1998)

3. Cicero, On Duties, translated by M.T. Griffin and E.M. Atkins (Cambridge: Cambridge


4. Seneca, Moral and Political Essays, edited by John M. cooper and J.F. Procope (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1995)

5. Sallust, Catiline’s Conspiracy, The Jugurthine War, Histories, translated by William Batstone

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)


4/10

6. Livy, The History of Rome Books I-V , translated by Valerie Warrior (Indianapolis: Hackett,

2006)

7. Tacitus, Agricola, Germany, Dialogue on Orators, translated by Herbert Benario

(Indianapolis: Hackett, 2006)

8. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, translated by G.M.A. Grube (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983)

9. Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, translated by Martin Ferguson Smith (Indianapolis:

Hackett, 2001)

10. Augustine, Political Writings, translated by Michael W. Tkacz and Douglas Kries

(Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994)

11. Plutarch, Moralia, Vol. X, translated by Harold North Flower (Cambridge: Harvard


V. Recommended Reading

Listed below is a small number of monographs, essays, and edited volumes that are

particularly useful for general reading on Roman political thought; a selection of more specific

sources will be provided with each week’s readings. This list is very much incomplete, and

reflective of my own scholarly predilections (as are the works I note for the specific readings).

The general list is also very heavily weighted toward the late Republic and early Principate.

Arena, V. Libertas and the Practice of Politics (Cambridge, 2012)

Balot, R., ed., A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought (Malden, 2009)

Baraz, J., A Written Republic (Princeton, 2012)Brunt, P.A. “ Libertas in the Republic,” in The Fall of the Roman Republic and Other Related

Essays (Oxford, 1988) (THE WHOLE VOLUME IS OF GREAT USE)

Connolly, J. The State of Speech (Princeton, 2007)

Eckstein, A. Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome (Berkeley, 2006)

Edwards, C. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, 1993)

Galinsky, K. Augustan Culture (Princeton, 1998)

Garnsey, P. and R. Saller The Early Principate: Augustus to Trajan (Oxford, 1982)

Griffin, M. “Philosophy, Politics, and Politicians at Rome,” in Philosophia Togata (Oxford,

1989) (THE WHOLE VOLUME IS WORTH ATTENTION)

Hammer, D. Roman Political Thought and the Modern Theoretical Imagination (Oklahoma City,

2008)

Harris, W.V. War and Imperialism in Republican Rome (Oxford, 1979)

Kapust, D. Republicanism, Rhetoric, and Roman Political Thought (Cambridge, 2011)

Kaster, R. Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome (Oxford, 2005)

Kraus, C. and Woodman, A.J., Latin Historians (Oxford, 1997)


5/10

MacKendrick, P. and K.L. Singh, The Philosophical Books of Cicero (Duckworth, 1989)

Millar, F. The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic (Michigan, 1998)

Morford, M The Roman Philosophers (Routledge, 2002)

Morstein-Marx, R. Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge,

2004)

Murphy, C. Are we Rome? (Houghton Mifflin, 2007)

Nederman, C.J. “Rhetoric, Reason, and Republic: Republicanisms – Ancient, Medieval, and

Modern,” in Hankins, ed., Renaissance Civic Humanism (Cambridge, 2000)

Nicolet, C. The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome (Berkeley, 1980)

Nussbaum, M. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (Princeton,

1994)

Powell, J.G.F., ed. Cicero the Philosopher (Oxford, 1995)

Raaflaub, K. “Aristocracy and Freedom of Speech in the Greco-Roman World,” in Sluiter and

Rosen, eds., Free Speech in Classical Antiquity (Leiden, 2004)

Roller, Constructing Autocracy (Princeton, 2001)Rowe, C. and M. Schofield, eds. The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought

(Cambridge, 2005)

Sullivan, J.P Literature and Politics in the Age of Nero (Ithaca, 1985)

Syme, R. The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939)

Wallace-Hadrill, A. “ Mutatio morum: The Idea of a Cultural Revolution,” in Habinek and

Schiesaro, eds, The Roman Cultural Revolution (Cambridge, 1998)

Wirszubski, C. Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome (Cambridge, 1950)

Wiseman, T.P. Remembering the Roman People (Oxford, 2009)

VI. Schedule of Readings and Seminars

1/27: Setting the Stage

Reading: Polybius, Histories Book VI (To be available via Learn@UW)

Hammer, Roman Political Thought and the Modern Theoretical

Imagination, Chapter 1

Kapust, Republicanism, Rhetoric, and Roman Political Thought , Chapter 1

Recommended: Murphy, Are We Rome?

Walbank, Polybius

Eckstein, Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius Baronowski, D., Polybius and Roman Imperialism

2/3: The Rhetorical Republic (!)

Reading: Cicero, On the Ideal Orator (selections TBA)


6/10

Recommended: May, ed., Brills Companion to Cicero: Oratory and Rhetoric

Steele, Roman Oratory

Fantham, The Roman World of Cicero’s De Oratore

Remer, “The Classical Orator as Political Representative,” Journal

of Politics 72.4 (2010)

Alexander, “Oratory, Rhetoric, and Politics in the Republic,” in

Dominik and Hall eds., Companion to Roman Rhetoric

Goodwin, J. “Cicero’s Authority,” Philosophy and Rhetoric (2001)

Stem, R. “Cicero as Orator and Philosopher: The Value of the Pro

Murena for Ciceronian Political Thought,” Review of Politics

(2006)

Remer, G. “Political Oratory and Conversation: Cicero versus

Deliberative Democracy,” Political Theory (1999)

Garsten, B., Saving Persuasion (Cicero chapter specifically)

2/10: The Republic in and through History (!)

Reading: Cicero, On the Republic, On the Laws

Recommended: Powell, ed., Cicero the Philosopher

Nicgorski, ed., Cicero’s Practical Philosophy

Wood, Cicero’s Social and Political Thought

Schofield, “Cicero’s Definition of Res publica,” in Schofield,

Saving the City

Cornell, “Rome: The History of an Anachronism,” in Mohlo,

Raaflaub, and Emlen, eds., City States in Classical Antiquity and Medieval Italy

Powell, J.G.F. and J.A. North, eds., Cicero’s Republic

Fantham, E. “ Aequabilitas in Cicero’s Political Theory, and the

Greek Tradition of Proportional Justice,” Classical Philology

(1973)

Asmis, E. “A New Kind of Model: Cicero's Roman Constitution in

De Republica,” American Journal of Philology (2005)

Atkins, J., Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason

2/17: Re-authorizing the Republic

Reading: Cicero, On Duties

Recommended: Long, “Cicero’s Politics in De Officiis,” in Laks and Schofield,

eds., Justice and Generosity

Gill, “Panaetius on the Virtue of Being Yourself,” in Bulloch,

Gruen, Long, and Stewart, eds., Images and Ideologies


7/10

Gill, C. “Personhood and Personality: The Four-Personae Theory

in Cicero, De Officiis,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy

(1988)

Nicgorski, W. “Cicero’s Paradoxes and his Idea of Utility,”

Political Theory (1984)

Kapust, D. “Cicero on Decorum and the Morality of Rhetoric,”

European Journal of Political Theory (2011)

2/24: The Republic: Crisis (!)

Reading: Sallust, War with Catiline

Sallust, War with Jugurtha

Recommended: Wallace-Hadrill, A. “ Mutatio morum: the idea of a cultural

revolution,” in Habinek and Schiesaro, eds., The Roman Cultural

RevolutionFontana, B. “Sallust and the Politics of Machiavelli,” History of

Political Thought (2003)

Levene, D. “Sallust’s Catiline and Cato the Censor,” The Classical

Quarterly (2000)

Boyd, B.W. “Virtus Effeminata and Sallust’s Sempronia,”

Transactions of the American Philological Association (1987)

Stewart, D. “Sallust and Fortuna,” History and Theory (1968)

Syme, R., Sallust

Wiedemann, T. “Sallust’s ‘Jugurtha’: Concord, Discord, and the

Digressions,” Greece and Rome (1993)Batstone, W.V. “The Antithesis of Virtue: Sallust’s Synkrisis and

the Crisis of the Late Republic,” Classical Antiquity (1988)

Konstan, D. “Clemency as a Virtue,” Classical Philology (2005)

Yavetz, Z. “The Res Gestae and Augustus’ Public Image,” in

Millar and Segal, eds., Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects

Feldherr, A. Spectacle and Society in Livy’s History

3/3: The Republic: Alternatives (!)

Reading: Lucretius, On the Nature of Things (selections)

Recommended: Clay, D., Lucretius and Epicurus

Gale, M., ed., Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Lucretius

Gillespie, S., and P. Hardie, eds., The Cambridge Companion to

Lucretius

Asmis, E., “Rhetoric an Reason in Lucretius,” American Journal of

Philology (1983)


8/10

Jones, H., The Epicurean Tradition

Lehoux, D., Morrison, A.D., and A. Sharrock, eds., Lucretius:

Poetry, Philosophy, Science

3/10: Augustan Rome: Defects and Remedies (!)

Reading: Livy, From the Founding of Rome, Books I through V

Recommended: Vergil, Aeneid , Book VI

Vergil, Eclogue IV

Brown, “Livy’s Sabine Women and the Ideal of Concordia,”

Transactions of the American Philological Association 125 (1995)

Chaplin, Livy’s Exemplary History

Konstan, D., “Narrative and Ideology in Livy: Book I,” Classical

Antiquity (1986)

Ogilvie, R.M. A Commentary on Livy Books 1-5 Syme, R. “Livy and Augustus,” Harvard Studies in Classical

Philology (1959)

Walsh, P.G., Livy

Luce, T.J., Livy: The Composition of his History

3/24: Stoicism and the Early Principate (!)

Reading: Seneca, On Anger , On Mercy, On the Private Life

Recommended: Bartsch, S., 2009, “Senecan metaphor and Stoic self-instruction,”

in eds. S. Bartsch and D. Wray, Seneca and the Self , Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 188–217. (THE WHOLE VOLUME

IS WORTH ATTENTION)

Griffin, M., 1992, Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics 2nd edn.,

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Inwood, B. 2005, Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome,

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Long, A. A., 2003, “2006, “Seneca on the self: why now?,” in A.

A. Long, From Epicurus to Epictetus: Studies in Hellenistic and

Roman Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 360–376.

3/31: Rethinking Public Life

Reading: Tacitus, Dialogue on Orators, Agricola, Germania

Pliny, Panegyric to Trajan (To be available via Learn@UW)

Recommended: Ahl, “The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome,” The American Journal of Philology (1984)


9/10

Connolly, J., “Fear and Freedom: A New Interpretation of Pliny’s

Panegyricus,” Ordine e sovversione nel mondo grece e roman, ed.

Gianpaolo UrsoBartsch, S. Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak

from Nero to Hadrian

Boesche, R. “The Politics of Pretence: Tacitus and the PoliticalTheory of Despotism,” History of Political Thought (1987)

Roche, P., ed., Pliny’s Praise

Pagan, V., ed., Companion to Tacitus (KAPUST ON TACITUS

AND POLITICAL THEORY, AMONG OTHER CHAPTERS)Syme, R., Tacitus (2 volumes)

Saxonhouse, A. “Tacitus’s Dialogue on Oratory: Political Activity

under a Tyrant,” Political Theory (1975)Goldberg, S., “Appreciating Aper: The Defense of Modernity in

Tacitus’ Dialogus de Oratoribus,” Classical Quarterly (1999)

Riggsby, A. “Pliny on Cicero and Oratory: Self-Fashioning in the

Public Eye,” The American Journal of Philology (1995)Fantham, E. “Imitation and Decline: Rhetorical Theory and

Practice in the First Century after Christ,” Classical Philology

(1978)

4/7: Plutarch (!)

Reading: Selected essays from Moralia Volume 10

Recommended: Aalders, G., Plutarch’s Political Thought

Mossman, J., ed., Plutarch and his Intellectual World

Gill, C., The Structured Self Lamberton, R., Plutarch

4/14: Marcus Aurelius (!)

Reading: Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Recommended: Asmis, E., 1989. ‘The Stoicism of Marcus Aurelius.’ Austieg und

Niedergang der Römischen Welt II.36.3: 2228–2252.

Brunt, P. A., 1974. ‘Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations.’

Journal of Roman Studies, 64(1): 1–20.

Cooper, J. M., 2004. ‘Moral Theory and Moral Improvement:Marcus Aurelius’, in Cooper, Knowledge, Nature and the Good

(Princeton), 335–368.

Hadot, P., tr. M. Chase, 1998. The Inner Citadel: The Meditations

of Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Annas, J., The Morality of Happiness

Rutherford, R.B., The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: A Study


10/10

4/21: Augustine (!)

Reading: Augustine, Political Writings

Recommended: NOTE: There is an extraordinary amount of scholarship on

Augustine (who was both remarkably prolific and is remarkablyinfluential); the following list is very much minimal, and geared

towards collections.

Brown, P., Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1967, updated

version in 2000)

Deane, The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine

Evans, G.R., Augustine on Evil

Holt, Laura, “A Survey of Recent Work on Augustine,” Heythrop

Journal: A Bimonthly Review of Philosophy and Theology (2008)

Markus, R.A., ed., Augustine: A Collection of Critical Essays Matthews, G., ed., The Augustinian Tradition

Stump, E. and N. Kretzman, eds., The Cambridge Companion to

Augustine

Wetzel, J. Augustine and the Limits of Virtue

Pasnau, R., ed., The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy

Armstrong, A.H., ed., The Cambridge History of Later Greek and

Early Medieval Philosophy

4/28: Presentations (to be held on the Terrace or at Memorial Union)

5/5: Presentations (to be held on the Terrace or at Memorial Union)

PS 831 Roman Political Thought

Documents

Transcript of PS 831 Roman Political Thought