108 Salzman, M.R. 2013. ‘Structuring Time: Festivals, Holidays and the Calendar.’ In Erdkamp, P., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome. Cambridge, 478–496.
109 Schanzer, E. 1968. ‘Hercules and his Load.’ The Review of English Studies 19: 51–53.
110 Schlögl, R. 2004. ‘Vergesellschaftung unter Anwesenden. Zur kommunikativen Form des Politischen in der vormodernen Stadt.’ In Schlögl, R., ed. Interaktion und Herrschaft. Dier Politik der frühneuzeitlichen Stadt. Constance, 9–60.
111 Schuppert, G.F. 2008. Politische Kultur. Baden-Baden.
112 Sharpe, K. 1999. ‘Representations and Negotiations: Texts, Images, and Authority in Early Modern England.’ The Historical Journal 42.3: 853–881.
113 Smith, C., and Covino, R. eds. 2011. Praise and Blame in Roman Republican Rhetoric. Swansea.
114 Steel, C., and Van der Blom, H. eds. 2013. Community and Communication. Oratory and Politics in Republican Rome. Oxford.
115 Stein-Hölkeskamp, E., and Hölkeskamp, K.-J. 2018. Ethos – Ehre – Exzellenz. Antike Eliten im Vergleich. Göttingen.
116 Stollberg-Rilinger, B. 2000. ‘Zeremoniell, Ritual, Symbol. Neue Forschungen zur symbolischen Kommunikation in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit.’ Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 27: 389–405.
117 Stollberg-Rilinger, B. 2001. ‘Einleitung.’ In Stollberg-Rilinger, B., ed. 2001. Vormoderne politische Verfahren. Berlin, 9–23.
118 Stollberg-Rilinger, B. 2004. ‘Symbolische Kommunikation in der Vormoderne. Begriffe – Thesen – Forschungsperspektiven.’ Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 31: 489–527. Stollberg-Rilinger, B. 2005. ‘Was heisst Kulturgeschichte des Politischen? Einleitung.’ In Stollberg-Rilinger, B., ed. Was heisst Kulturgeschichte des Politischen? Berlin, 9–24.
119 Sumi, G.S. 2005. Ceremony and Power. Performing Politics in Rome between Republic and Empire. Ann Arbor, MI.
120 Syme, R. 1939. The Roman Revolution. Oxford (reprinted 1952, 1971).
121 Syme, R. 1986. The Augustan Aristocracy. Oxford.
122 Trexler, R.C. 1980. Public Life in Renaissance Florence. Ithaca; London.
123 Van der Blom, H. 2016. Oratory and Political Career in the Late Roman Republic. Cambridge.
124 Van der Blom, H., Gray, C., Steel, C., eds. 2018. Institutions and Ideology in Republican Rome. Speech, Audience and Decision. Cambridge.
125 Yakobson, A. 2006. ‘Popular Power in the Roman Republic.’ In Rosenstein, N. and Morstein-Marx, R., eds. A Companion to the Roman Republic. Malden, MA; London, 383–400.
126 Ziolkowski, A. 2013. ‘Civic rituals and political spaces in republican and imperial Rome.’ In Erdkamp, P., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome. Cambridge, 389–409.
PART I Modern Reading
Introduction
The study of the political culture of the Roman Republic not only entails the investigation of the Republic’s political institutions, its civic and religious rituals and its set of values and ideas (cf. Introduction to this volume). It is also a distinct form of historical enquiry, which acknowledges that the nature of Roman political culture has a changing history in itself. The parameters of this history, we argue, constitute the interpretative models that unavoidably act as the essential frame of reference in order to understand the object of our enquiry. Since the reception of the past is neither entirely passive (something akin to tradition), nor entirely active (something akin to appropriation), but rather interactive (Harloe 2010), it follows that the shifting interpretations of this political system are an integral part of the task of the historian who wishes to investigate its nature. As meaning is not only forged at the time of origin by the intentions of contemporary agents and the forces then in play, but also by the constant dialectical relation between that past and those who encounter it later, consequently the successive ways in which early modern and modern political thinkers and actors engaged with the Roman political culture of the Republic becomes an intrinsic part of its nature. As Catharine Edwards put it, discussing the ruins of the city: ‘In Rome more than anywhere else perhaps we are brought face to face with the fact that an unmediated encounter with antiquity can never be realized’ (2008: 359). The chapters in this section, therefore, explore the most salient adaptations and reinterpretations of those moments to which the Roman political system has been variously subjected at key historical junctures.
The first important moment was constituted by the work of Machiavelli, and especially his Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, which he wrote at the beginning of the sixteenth century in Renaissance Florence (see Chapter 2, Balot and Gilmore). In early modern Europe, alongside Plutarch, Livy was the main ancient source for Roman Republican history and this had important implications for contemporary and subsequent understanding of its political culture (Millar 2002). However, crucially, it was not so much the Rome of these ancient authors that later generations came to know, but rather, as Balot and Gilmore show, Machiavelli’s re-elaboration of Livy’s Republic, which exercised a great influence on the encounters with Rome of later generations.
The ‘Machiavellian moment’ (to use John Pocock’s notable title), centred on the notions of civic virtue, active citizenry and liberty, came to represent a coherent republican tradition, which looked back to ancient Rome as a source of inspiration. This found its expression not only in the civic humanism of Renaissance Italy, in cities such as Venice, Florence and Rome, but also in Switzerland, the Dutch Republic and Poland (van Gelderen 1993; 1955; Bailyn 1967; Fink 1962 [1945]; Wood 1969; Pocock 1975; Skinner 1978, 1998; for a different role for ancient Rome in early modern Spain, see Lupher 2006).
At a time when classical texts were not only at the core of elite education, but were also translated into the vernacular (Burke 1966; Jensen 2012; Peltonen 2013), Roman Republican culture provided contemporaries with the language in which to articulate their political claims and inform their political visions, as well as the exempla through which to negotiate their political and ethical stance in the contemporary world. At a time of political upheavals, fostered by a widespread sense of continuity with the past, it also provided a constitutional model, which, differently interpreted by different agents at different times, was either rejected or followed, a glorious past that had the power to legitimate even the most revolutionary acts (Chapters 3, 4 and 5; on Rome as a repository of errors, see Duffalo 2018).
However, particularly in the anglophone world, but also to various degrees in Europe, this Republican tradition of political thinking began gradually to be absorbed by the account of western liberal modernity, which heralded the notions of a liberalism based on social contract and individual rights (Laborde 2013). As the fundamental concept of Republican political liberty came to be subsumed by ideas of civilisation, nation and ultimately empire, the historical focus on Republican Rome came to be progressively displaced by a growing interest in a united Rome, the centre of an empire and custodian of national religion, tradition, language and constitution. In the revolution of 1848, Theodor Mommsen stood for a free and united Germany and, once forced into exile in Switzerland, in his The History of Rome he transferred the political conflicts and ideals of his time to the Roman Senate. ‘Rome became a place where the struggles of the Frankfurt national parliament were re-enacted and where people fought for the liberal demands of the German bourgeoisie’ (Chapter 6, p. 85, Rebenich). (For an interesting reading of the role of Republicanism in the political discourse of rosismo between 1828 and 1852 in Argentina, see Myers 1995.) In Italy, too, there was great political turmoil (Riall 2009) and, while in 1848 Rome became briefly a Republic, in 1871 it was selected as the capital of the kingdom of Italy, the latter united in 1861 (on the role of classical culture in the period,