Suchergebnisse

Republicanism, Rhetoric, and Roman Political Thought develops readings of Rome's three most important Latin historians - Sallust, Livy and Tacitus - in light of contemporary discussions of republicanism and rhetoric. Drawing on recent scholarship as well as other classical writers and later political thinkers, this book develops interpretations of the three historians' writings centering on their treatments of liberty, rhetoric, and social and political conflict. Sallust is interpreted as an antagonistic republican, for whom elite conflict serves as an outlet and channel for the antagonisms of political life. Livy is interpreted as a consensualist republican, for whom character and its observation helps to maintain the body politic. Tacitus is interpreted as being centrally concerned with the development of prudence and as a subtle critic of imperial rule

"Republicanism, Rhetoric, and Roman Political Thought develops readings of Rome's three most important Latin historians - Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus - in light of contemporary discussions of republicanism and rhetoric. Drawing on recent scholarship as well as other classical writers and later political thinkers, this book develops interpretations of the three historians' writings centering on their treatments of liberty, rhetoric, and social and political conflict. Sallust is interpreted as an antagonistic republican, for whom elite conflict serves as an outlet and channel for the antagonisms of political life. Livy is interpreted as a consensualist republican, for whom character and its observation helps to maintain the body politic. Tacitus is interpreted as being centrally concerned with the development of prudence and as a subtle critic of imperial rule"--

Neorepublican treatments of Hobbes argue that his conception of liberty was deliberately developed to counter a revived and Roman-rooted republican theory of liberty. In doing so, Hobbes rejects republican liberty, and, with it, Roman republicanism. We dispute this narrative and argue that rather than rejecting Roman liberty, per se, Hobbes identifies and attacks a language of liberty, Roman in character, often abused by ambitious persons. This is possible because Roman liberty—and, by extension, Hobbes's relationship to it—is more complex than neorepublican authors have allowed. Drawing on Roman sources, along with Hobbes's major works, we argue that Hobbes's theory of liberty owes much to his engagement with Roman sources, and that this theory speaks to the egalitarian elements in his political thought.