Suchergebnisse

Als Beitrag zu einer gegen den ideengeschichtlichen Historismus gerichteten, methodischen Spekulation in der politischen Theorie rekonstruiert der Autor Machiavellis ideenpolitische Auslassungsstrategie gegen Augustus und den Principat als Parallelordnung. Den Gründen für diese selektive Bezugnahme des berühmten Florentiner Politiktheoretikers auf die römische Antike nachzugehen bedeutet, nicht explizite Darlegungen, sondern die Implikationen von Auslassungen zur Quelle ideengeschichtlicher Interpretationen zu machen. Dies erinnert an die tiefenhermeneutische Methodik von Leo Strauss mit ihrer Unterscheidung zwischen esoterischen Gehalten und exoterischer Darstellung. Gleichwohl besteht der Unterschied darin, nicht die antiliberale und antimoderne Geschichtsphilosophie von Strauss zu thematisieren, sondern eine spekulative Methodik zu skizzieren, anhand derer interessante und für den gegenwartsanalytischen Ertrag politischer Theorie wichtige Fragen gestellt werden können. Die Ausführungen beginnen mit einer Bestandsaufnahme von Machiavellis Vernachlässigung und Verächtlichmachung des Augustus in seinen ansonsten vielfältigen Bezugnahmen auf die römische Geschichte. Die von Herfried Münkler vorgenommene Auflösung des scheinbaren Widerspruches zwischen Machiavellis "Principe" und seinen "Discorsi" ermöglicht es anschließend, einen Grund für diese Abneigung des Florentiners gegen den ersten römischen Kaiser zu vermuten. Im Sinne der skizzierten Methodik ergibt sich von hieraus wiederum eine Pointierung der "res publica restituta" von Augustinus und deren Ablehnung durch Machiavelli. (ICI2)

The Social War (90-88 BCE) was perhaps the most destructive conflict to occur in Italy besides Hannibal's invasion one hundred years earlier. H. Mouritsen has criticized scholarship about the Social War for reproducing an understanding of the reasons and results of that war constructed from a nineteenth-century nationalist perspective, and for accepting uncritically the narrative of the first-century CE historian Appian, the only intact narrative of the war to survive from antiquity. I attempt to address these critiques by employing twenty-first-century models of nations and nation-state formation as comparative material for the political and social changes that occurred in Italy during and after the Social War, and make an argument that the foundation narratives of the second half of the first century BCE can provide evidence for contemporary ideas about Rome's Italian allies and their place in Rome's government and empire. This dissertation is divided into two parts of two chapters each. The first part discusses the idea of "Italy" and its development over time, both geographically and politically, and introduces Kymlicka's model of the nation-building state as a comparative model to judge Roman Italy against. I support this comparative model with Smith's criticisms of "modernist" nationalist thought, i.e. the position that the nation is inherently modern. The second part consists of a reading of three foundation narratives, those of Cicero, Livy, and Ovid. I read these foundation narratives as justifications of their contemporary political circumstances. I also examine the poetry of Propertius, and argue that Propertius does not portray a regional, Umbrian identity as an alternative to a Roman or Italian identity. I conclude that the nation-building institutions of Roman Italy reached their developed forms during the rule of Augustus, that Italian identity formed in this same period, and that the three foundation narratives are evidence for that Italian identity in a developmental phase.

"The Roman Principate was defined by its embrace of a central paradox - the ruling order strenuously advertised continuity with the past, even as the emperor's monarchical power represented a fundamental breach with the traditions of the "free" Republic it had replaced. Drawing on the evidence of coins, public monuments, and literary texts ranging from Tacitus and Pliny the Younger to Frontinus and Silius Italicus, this study traces a series of six crucial moments in which the memory of the Republic intruded upon Roman public discourse in the period from the fall of Nero to the height of Trajan's power. During these years, remembering the Republic was anything but a remote and antiquarian undertaking. It was instead a vital cultural process, through which emperors and their subjects attempted to navigate many of the fault lines that ran through Roman Imperial culture"--Provided by publisher