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 2. The Senate, the People, and the Forum 3. The contio 4. Public political culture 5. The politics of entertainment 6. Potestas populi and auctoritas senatus 7. Liberty 8. Equality and Justice 9. Citizenship 10. Plato on democracy

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Aristotle on democracy Roman historical writing and political thought Polybius Hellenistic moral philosophy Cicero Machiavellis Discourses on Livy English republicanism in the 17th century The American republic The French Enlightenment Review and conclusion

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).

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 . 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 Polybiuss political theory? 15) Examine the political dimensions of the principal strains of Hellenistic ethics.

16) To what extent does Ciceros 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 Machiavellis 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):

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.

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 Ciceros works; The Internet Classics Archive: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html contains the works of Aristotle and Plato online.

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 Bods, Moss, Cartledge, and Schofield

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)

2. The Senate, the People, and the Forum (b) Roman Democracy: the debate K. Hlkeskamp, 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 Norths 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. Hlkeskamp 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? *** 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 Mnzers 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 Lintotts chapter on the senate and Purcells 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 Rmischen 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), 42838

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), 333

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

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)

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

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)

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 Ciceros 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.

(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 Ciceros speches R.W. Cape, Ciceros Consular Speeches, in J.M. May (ed.), Brills Companion to Cicero: Oratory and Rhetoric (2002), 113-58 J. Fogel, Cicero and the ancestoral constituion. A Study of Ciceros contio speeches (diss. 1994) E.J. Jonkers, Social and Economic Commentary on Ciceros de lege agraria orationes tres (1963) J. Leonhardt, Senat und Volk in Ciceros Reden De lege

11

Fantham, The Roman World of Ciceros de oratore (2003) A. Yakobson, The peoples voice and the speakers platform: popular power, persuasion and manipulation in the Roman Forum, SCI 23 (2004), 201-212 A. Yakobson, The peoples 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.

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 MorsteinMarx 1998)

(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

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'Antiquit 1994) (b) What role did violence play in the politics of the late Republic? (Consult Lintott 1968; Nippel 1995; SherwinWhite 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

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. WallaceHadrills) 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)

13

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 noninstitutionalized 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

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. Hlkeskamp, 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 200150 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

14

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)

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 nellantica 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. ***

(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)

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.

(c) Inscriptions and Griffiti

15

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 Ciceros 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 Rmischen 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

Rpublique (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 ralit 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, Ciceros 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, Ciceros 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.

16

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.), Aristotles 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

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, Ciceros Palatine home and Clodius shrine of liberty: alternative emblems of the Republic in Ciceros 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. Raaflaubs contribution, 3567) 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

17

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 . 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 Ciceros 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?

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 Ciceros definitions of justice and equality? (consult Christensen 1984; Harvey 1965; Fantham 1973; Schofield 1995; Van Zyl 1991; Wesoly 1989) (b) How does Ciceros 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

Class requirements 1. Before the class, ALL must read (a) Cicero, de officiis, Book II, 71-88 and III, 20-57, taking notes on Ciceros ideas on private property (P. Walcot in GREECE & ROME 22 (1975) in JStor might be of help) and (b) M. Schofield, Two Stoic

18

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 Aristotles political thought, in Equality and Inequality of a Man in Ancient Thought (1984), 3144 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, Lequit chez Cicron (1972) A.E. Douglas, Cicero the philosopher, in Dorey (ed.), Cicero (1964), ch. 6 E. Fantham, Aequabilitas in Ciceros political theory and the Greek tradition of proportional justice, Classical Quarterly 23 (1973), 285-990 [J] J.P. Glucker, Ciceros 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, Aristotles theory of distributive justice, A Companion to Aristotles Politcs (1991), 238-78 E.N. Lee, Platos theory of social justice in republic II-IV, in J. Anton and A. Prew (eds.), Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy (1989), 117-40

Y. Nakategowa, Athenian democracy and the concept of justice in Pseudo-Xenophons 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 Platos Republic, O. Gigon and M.W. Fischer (eds.), Antike Rechts und Sozialphilosophie (1988), 37-59 L.F. Stally, Justice in Platos laws, in S. Scolicov and L. Brisson (eds.), Platos Laws from Theory to Practice (2003), 174-85 M. Wesoly, Aristotles 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, Ciceros 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 - Ciceros 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)

19

- Ciceros definition of res publica, in J. Powell, Cicero the Philosopher, 63-83 P. Walcot, Cicero on private property: theory and practice, Greece & Rome 22 (1975), 120-8 Essay question: Why, from an ideological point of view, was the Roman elite so hostile to land distribution? ***

(a) What were the components of Roman citizenship? (consult Shewin-White 1977; Broughton 1975; Lomas 2000; Nicolet 1980; Riesenberg 1992; Dench 2005) (b) What made a Roman hero? (consult Bruun 2000; Eder 1998; Geiger 1995; Larmour 1992; Momigliano 1942). Bibliographies (a) Primary texts

9. Citizenship In this seminar we shall discuss the concept of citizenship in late Republican Rome. In contrast to other ancient city-states, Roman citizenship did not depend on biological descent, but on a series of successive legal acts. Rome did not lose this feature of its policy even in the first century BC when was firmly at the centre of an empire. Rome absorbed into Roman citizenship the existing city-states, leaving them their own political identity and local constitutions, and producing a dual citizenship. It seems, therefore, that the practice of politics regarding the reality of a Roman citizen in the late Republic was quite different from the idealised picture that can be drawn from authors such as Plutarch. What are the precise characteristics of these two pictures? How can we account for such differences? And, above all, what are the consequences for later views of Rome? 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: Cic. Pro Archia (tr. by R. Gardner, 1965) Loeb Classical edition [numerous editions available. See also http://www.perseus.tufts.edu ] Pro Balbo (tr. by Watts, 1923) Loeb Classical edition [numerous editions available. See also http://www.perseus.tufts.edu ] Plutarch, Life of Coriolanus (tr. by I. Scott-Kilvert, Penguin, 1965) [numerous editions available. See also http://www.perseus.tufts.edu ] - Life of Camillus (tr. by B. Perrin, Loeb Classical edition) [numerous editions available. See also http://www.perseus.tufts.edu ] (b) Secondary studies: Citizenship K.A. Barber, Rhetori in Ciceros 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, Ciceros 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 Rmischen Welt 1.2 (1977), 23-58 J.E.G. Zetzel, Citizen and commonwealth in de re publica, in J. Powell and J. North (eds.), Ciceros Republic (2001), 8398 (c) Roman Heroes J. Berlioz and J.-L. David, Rhetorique et histoire. Lexemplum et le modle de comportement dans le discourse antique et mdival MEFRA 92 (1980), 15-31 H. van der Blom, Ciceros 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

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. Spth (eds.), Linvention des grandes homes de la Rome antique (2001)W. Eder, M. Furius Camillus, Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopdie der Antike 4 (1998), 7156 T. Frank, Two historical themes in Roman literature. A. Regulus and Horace Ode III, 5, CPh 21 (1926), 311-4 J. Geiger, Plutarchs Parallel Lives: the choice of heroes, in B. Scardigli (ed.), Essays on Plutarchs Lives (1995), 16590 P.J. Holliday, The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the Visual Art (2002) D.H. Larmour, Making parallels: synkrisis and Plutarchs Themistocles and Camillus, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rmischen 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, Plutarchs 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? ***

21

10. Plato on Democracy In this seminar we shall explore Platos 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 Platos 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

- 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 Platos 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, Platos 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 Platos 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, Platos Democratic Entanglements: Athenian politics and the practice of philosophy (2000) G. R. Morrow, Platos Cretan City: A historical interpretation of the Laws (1960; 2nd ed., 1993) D. Scott, Platos Critique of the Democratic Character, Phronesis vol. 45 (2000), pp. 19-37 [I] T. Samaras, Plato on Democracy (2002) G. Santas, Platos Criticism of the Democratic Man in the Republic, Journal of Ethics vol. 5 (2001), pp. 57-71 [I] R. F. Stalley, An Introduction to Platos Laws (1983) N. White, A Companion to Platos Republic (1979)

22

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 Aristotles analysis of democratic constitutions in the Politics, and the account of Athenian democracy in pseudo-Xenophons 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-Xenophons 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

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 Aristotles Best State, in P. Cartledge and F. Harvey (eds.), Crux (1985) C. Johnson, Aristotles Theory of the State (1990) B. S. Strauss, On Aristotles Critique of Athenian Democracy, in C. Lord and D. K.

23

OConnor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science (1991) R. Mulgan, Aristotle and the Value of Political Participation, Political Theory 18 (1990) - Aristotles Analysis of Oligarchy and Democracy, in D. Keyt and F. Miller (eds.), A Companion to Aristotles Politics (1991) W. R. Newell, Superlative Virtue: The problem of monarchy in Aristotles Politics, in C. Lord and D. OConnor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science (1991) J. Ober, Political Dissent in Democratic Athens (1998), chs. 1 and 6 F. Rosen, The Political Context of Aristotles Categories of Justice, Phronesis 20 (1975), pp. 228-40 C. Rowe, Aims and Methods in Aristotles Politics, Classical Quarterly vol. 27 (1977), pp. 159-72 [J] M. Schofield, Equality and Hierarchy in Aristotles Thought, in Schofield, Saving the City: Philosopher-Kings and other classical paradigms (London, 1999) B. S. Strauss, On Aristotles Critique of Athenian Democracy, in C. Lord and D. OConnor (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of Aristotelian Political Science (1991) W. von Leyden, Aristotle on Equality and Justice: His political argument (1985) Essay question: What, according to Aristotle, are the characteristics of democratic city-states, and how does he evaluate them? ***

12. Polybius In this seminar we shall discuss the analysis of the Roman Constitution found in the sixth book of Polybiuss Histories. Polybius, a Greek from Achaea, is sometimes regarded as a perceptive and generally accurate commentator on Rome, though detailed attention has also been paid to the sophistication and innovation in his theoretical approach to politics. As we shall see in later seminars, his concepts of anacyclosis and mixed constitution also proved immensely influential in early-modern constitutionalism and republicanism. But for now we shall ask: on what grounds did Polybius argue for an overarching model of political evolution and degeneration; what was the mixed constitution; and how did the masterexample of Rome fit into this scheme? Seminar requirements 1. Before the seminar, ALL must read book 6 of Polybiuss Histories (see bibliography below), taking notes on (a) the methods and theoretical assumptions Polybius employs, and (b) the details of his analysis of the Roman constitution. 2. Presentation questions: (a) Explain what Polybius means by the cycle of political revolution, and discuss its relevance to his attitude towards democracy (especially relevant are Walbank 1994, 2002; Hahm 1995, 2000) (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 reference to his analysis of Rome. (consult Lintott 1997; Hahm 2000; Walbank 1964, 1998, 2002; von Fritz 1954; Nicolet 1973, 1987).

24

Bibliographies (a) Primary text Polybius, The Histories, book 6 There are several available translations: - The Histories, trans. W. R. Paton (6 vols., 1966-8), vol. 1 - The Rise of the Roman Empire, trans. I Scott-Kilvert (1979) - The Histories, trans. M. Chambers (1966) There is also a translation online at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/ Polybius/6*.html (b) Secondary studies C. B. Champion, Cultural Politics in Polybiuss Histories (2004) 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 Rome (1983) K. von Fritz, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity: A critical analysis of Polybiuss political ideas (1954) D. Hahm, Kings and Constitutions: Hellenistic theories, in C. Rowe and M. Schofield (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (2000) - Polybius Applied Political Theory, in A. Laks and M. Schofield (eds.), Justice and Generosity (1995) S. Hornblower (ed.) Greek historiography (1994) A. Lintott, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution at Rome, in J. Barnes and M. Griffin

(eds.), Philosophia Togata (1997) C. Nicolet, Polybe et les institutions romaines, in E. Gabba (ed.), Polybe (1973) - Polybe et la constitution de Rome, in C. Nicolet (ed.), Demokratia et Aristokratia propos de Caius Gracchus: mots grecs et ralits romaines (1987) J. S. Richardson, Polybius view of the Roman Empire Papers of the British School at Rome 34 (1979), pp. 1-11 F. W. Walbank, Polybius (1972) - Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and reflections (2002), section III - Polybius on the Roman Constitution, Classical Quarterly vol. 37 (1943), pp. 73-89 [J] - Polybius and the Roman State, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 5 (1964), pp. 264ff. - 'Polybius' perceptions of the one and the many, in I. Malkin and Z.W. Rubinson (eds.), Leaders and Masses (1994) - 'A Greek looks at Rome: Polybius VI revisited, Scripta Classica Israelica 17 (1998) Essay question: What is the role of the mixed constitution in Polybiuss political theory? *** 13. Hellenistic moral philosophy In this seminar we shall explore the central teachings of three of the principal schools of Hellenistic philosophy Stoicism, Epicureanism and Cynicism and attempt to draw out their political dimensions. Each of these movements has historically enjoyed renown for their influential treatments of ethics, and they have sometimes been said to prioritise different forms of individualistic moral reflection over the construction of any 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

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), 5667 (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 Ciceros 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-Caz (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 hellnistique: Neuf exposs suivis de discussions par I.G. Kidd.. .[et al.] (1986)

26

- 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. ***

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 Ciceros 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

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 Cicero, On the Commonwealth and On the Laws, trans. J. Zetzel (Cambridge, 1999)

27

- 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: Ciceros 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, Ciceros 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 Ciceros political conceptions in the De re publica, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and P. Steinmetz (eds.), Ciceros 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)

- The rector rei publicae of Ciceros De republica, Scripta Classica Israelica vol. 13 (1994), pp. 19-29 J. Powell and J. North (eds.), Ciceros Republic (2001) E. Rawson, Cicero (1975) M. Schofield, Ciceros 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, Ciceros Republic and Greek Political Theory, Polis vol. 5 (1986), pp. 3050 C. Wirszubski, Ciceros cum dignitate otium: A reconsideration, Journal of Roman Studies vol. 51 (1961), pp. 1-13 N. Wood, Ciceros Social and Political Thought (1988) Essay question: To what extent does Ciceros 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

28

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

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, Livys 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)

29

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) - Sallusts 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. Machiavellis Discourses on Livy In this seminar we will discuss Machiavellis 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

1. Before the seminar, ALL must read at least book 1 of Machiavellis 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, 1.2845, 2.1-3, 3.3, 3.49). (b) How does Roman history support Machiavellis 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 Niccol 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

30

(1990), ch. 3 H. Baron, Machiavelli the Republican Citizen and Author of The Prince, in Baron, In Search of Florentine Humanism (Princeton, 1988), vol. 2 B. Fontana, Sallust and the Politics of Machiavelli, History of Political Thought vol. 24 (2003), pp. 86-108 [I] I. Hannaford, Machiavellis Concept of Virtu in The Prince and The Discourses Reconsidered, Political Studies vol. 20 (1972), pp. 1859 A. Grafton and L. Jardine, Studied for Action: How Gabriel Harvey read his Livy, Past and Present, no. 129 (1990), pp. 30-78 (for comparative use) [J] H. Mansfield, Machiavellis New Modes and Orders: A study of the Discourses on Livy (Ithaca, 1979) J. McCormick, Machiavelli against Republicanism: On the Cambridge Schools Guicciardinian Moments, Political Theory 31 (2003) [I] E. Nelson, The Greek Tradition in Republican Thought (2004), ch. 2 J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition (1975; rev. ed., 2003) P. Rahe, Situating Machiavelli, in J. Hankins (ed.), Renaissance Civic Humanism (2000) N. Rubinstein, Machiavelli and Florentine Republican Experience, in G. Bock, Q. Skinner, and M. Viroli (eds.), Machiavelli and Republicanism (Cambridge, 1990) S. Shumer, Machiavelli: Republican politics and its corruption, Political Theory vol. 7 (1979), pp. 5-34 [J] Q. Skinner, Machiavellis Discorsi and the Pre-humanist Origin of Republican Ideas, in

G. Bock, Q. Skinner, and M. Viroli (eds.), Machiavelli and Republicanism (Cambridge, 1990) - Machiavelli on the Maintenance of Liberty, Politics 18 (1983), pp. 3-15, revised in Skinner, Visions of Politics (Cambridge, 2002), vol. 2, ch. 6 M. Viroli, Machiavelli (1998) - Machiavelli and the Republican Idea of Politics, in G. Bock, Q. Skinner, and M. Viroli (eds.), Machiavelli and Republicanism (Cambridge, 1990) D. J. Wilcox, The Development of Florentine Humanist Historiography in the 15th Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1969) Essay question: What, in Machiavellis view, made Rome great? *** 17. English Republicanism in the Seventeenth Century In this seminar we will discuss some of the most important English republican writers of the 17th century John Milton, Marchamont Nedham, James Harrington and Walter Moyle and consider the important role played by the history of Rome in their political theory. For these authors, who were writing either in the midst or the aftermath of a bloody civil war and a failed republican constitutional experiment, the workings of the Roman Republic, and equally importantly the manner of its downfall, provided invaluable lessons that were directly applicable to contemporary England. We will focus particularly on the type of liberty that the English republicans perceived to be at the centre of the Roman system, and explore its historical and political-theoretical implications. Seminar requirements

31

1. Before the seminar, ALL must read Walter Moyles Democracy Vindicated (photocopies are available in the departmental office; the text is also online); Marchamont Nedhams Discourse of the Excellency of a Free State above a Kingly Government; and Quentin Skinners 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 Harringtons 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

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 FreeState, 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 (Miltons Classical Republicanism), B. Worden (Milton and Marchamont Nedham)

32

Z. S. Fink, The Classical Republicans: An essay in the recovery of a pattern of thought in seventeenth-century England (1962) M. A. Goldie, The Civil Religion of James Harrington, in A. Pagden (ed.), The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe (1987) D. Norbrook, Writing the English Republic: Poetry, rhetoric and politics 1627-1660 (1999) M. Peltonen, Classical Humanism and Republicanism in English Political Thought, 1570-1640 (1995) J. G. A. Pocock, Introduction, to The Political Works of James Harrington (1977), pp. 1152 E. Nelson, The Greek Tradition in Republican Thought (2004), ch. 3 P. Rahe, The Classical Republicanism of John Milton, History of Political Thought 25 (2004), pp. 243-75 [I] G. Remer, James Harringtons New Deliberative Rhetoric: Reflection of an anticlassical republican, History of Political Thought 16 (1995) [I] J. Scott, Algernon Sidney and the English Republic (1988), chs. 2, 6, 12 - Commonwealth principles : republican writing of the English revolution (2004) Q. Skinner, Liberty Before Liberalism (1998) [cf. review by P. Rahe in The Review of Politics vol. 62 (2000), pp. 395-98] - John Milton and the Politics of Slavery, in Skinner, Visions of Politics, (2002), vol. 2 - Classical liberty and the coming of the English Civil War, in Q. Skinner and M. Van Gelderen (eds.), Republicanism: A shared European heritage (2002), vol. 1 W. Walker, Paradise Lost and the forms of government, History of Political Thought vol.

22 (2001), pp. 270-299 [ingenta] L. Ward, The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America (2004) D. Wootton (ed.), Republicanism, Liberty and Commercial Society, 1649-1776 (1994), chs. by Goldsmith, Rahe, and intro by Wootton B. Worden Miltons Republicanism and the Tyranny of Heaven, in G. Bock, Q. Skinner and M. Viroli (eds.), Machiavelli and Republicanism (1990) - English Republicanism, in J. H. Burns (ed.), The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700 (1991) - John Milton and Oliver Cromwell, in I. Gentles, J. Morrill and B. Worden (eds.) Soldiers, Writers and Statesmen of the English Revolution (1998), pp. 243-64 Essay question: What united the republicans of 17th century England was a distinctive theory of liberty. Discuss .*** 18. The American Republic In this seminar we will discuss The Federalist (1787-8), a series of extended newspaper articles written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay to justify the recently framed American Constitution. As Madison, Hamilton and Jay explained, the constitution of the federal American republic had been devised in accordance with reason but also experience: it had, in other words, been to some extent framed in conscious imitation of its classical forerunners most notably, the Roman republic. But at the same time, the founders of the Constitution believed that they had advanced beyond all previously existing forms of government: they had, as Madison put it in Federalist no. 10, made valuable improvements on the popular models both ancient and modern. One of the central problems 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

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. HampsherMonk, Publius: The Federalist, in HampsherMonk, 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

34

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)

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

35

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.

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 Constants Philosophy of Liberalism: A study in politics and religion (1980) C. Faur, 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. 17391 - 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)

36

J. Livesey, Making democracy in the French Revolution (2001) J. H. Mason, Individuals in Society: Rousseaus republican vision, History of Political Thought vol. 10 (1989), pp. 89-112 S. Mason, Livy and Montesquieu, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Livy and his Influence (1971), pp. 118-58 R. Myers, Montesquieu on the Causes of Roman Greatness, History of Political Thought 16 (1995), pp. 37-47 [I] J. Neidleman, The General Will is Citizenship: Inquiries into French political thought (2001) A. Pitt, The Religion of the Moderns: Freedom and authenticity in Constants De la Religion, History of Political Thought vol. 21 (2000), pp. 67-87 [I] M. Hulliung, Citizens and Citoyens: Republicans and liberals in America and France (2002) H. Rosenblatt, Rousseau and Geneva (1997) L. Siedentop, Two Liberal Traditions, in A. Ryan (ed.), The Idea of Freedom (1979), pp. 153-74 F. Venturi, Utopia and Reform in the Enlightenment (1971) M. Viroli, Republics and Politics in Machiavelli and Rousseau, History of Political Thought vol. 10 (1989) C. B. Welch, Liberty and Utility: The French ideologues and the transformation of liberalism (1984) J. K. Wright, A Classical Republican in Eighteenth-century France: The political thought of Mably (1997) Essay question: Compare the visions of liberty presented by Rousseau and Constant, and account for their differences. ***

20. Review and conclusion Bibliography 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 Norths 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. Hlkeskamp in Scripta Classica Israelica (2000)] - The Roman Republic in Political Thought (2002) H. Mouritsen, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic (2001) 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] There is no essay question for this topic. *** 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

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.

38

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.

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:

39

1.

2.

That you have read and understood the UCL History Department regulations concerning the submission of assessed work. 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 persons 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

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

40

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 datestamped 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 teachers 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.

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.

41

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.

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.

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.

Lower Second Class (50-59) Structure and focus

Quality of Argument and expression

42

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.

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 will be sufficiently accurate to convey the writers 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.

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 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.

Range of knowledge

43

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.

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.

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.

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

44

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.

and be guided by your teacher on how to improve your essaywriting 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 didnt understand what Colley was arguing in the conclusion to her book or I wasnt sure if this point went in the conclusion or the introduction or I really just didnt 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 persons 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

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

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