Arbitrium and potestas in Ancient Rome: On Quentin Skinner's Liberty as Independence

Somewhere in Germany, some time in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, a scholar bends over his desk, consulting ancient Greek and Roman sources and weaving these strands of classical information into his own text. This chapter presents the hippological connections between scholars and horsemen. It argues that these men's work with the horse served to legitimate and validate their respective occupations. In their familiarity with ancient sources, and in their activities as translators of foreign-language texts, physicians such as Gregor Zechendorf and Peter Offenbach are acting like humanist scholars. The propagation, maintenance, and training of horses characteristic especially of the elite entailed a multitude of tasks and thus a multitude of people to perform them. The chapter discusses about riders who trained the horses, especially because, like the humanists and scholars discussed in the first section, they seem to be another profession in transition. Keywords: Germany; Gregor Zechendorf; horsemen; Peter Offenbach; scholars

Ancient Greek and Roman sources usually depict India as a fabulous land. By broadening the range of sources to examine, this article shows a less exoticising image of India. It is necessary to shed light on the place from which those fabulous literary constructions originate: the forest. This article makes such an effort by connecting testimonies from historiography and magic. In the first section, it looks at forests and forest-dwellers as described by Megasthenes, Pliny the Elder and in the Periplus of the Red Sea. A second line of inquiry investigates products from Indian forests as ingredients in Graeco-Roman Magical Papyri and gemstones. Their exotic provenance is interpreted here as a mere geographical feature rather than an amplification of the ritual power of an item. Greek and Graeco-Roman cultures were well accustomed to several products from India and to forest people living in the Western Ghats.

My essay examines some ancient evidence for the treatment of half-siblings, and for interactions among half-siblings, in several elite families of the mid- to late Roman Republic. I observe that our ancient Greek and Roman sources on these families at times acknowledge half-sibling relationships, and occasionally testify that parents treated their offspring from different marriages differently. But I argue that these sources make, and that elite Roman families of this era ultimately made, little distinction between half-siblings and fullsiblings. I will focus on several selected families from the second and first centuries bce, whose interpersonal interactions attract notice from a variety of ancient Greek and Roman writers. My concluding discussion will consider the limitations and strengths of this, selective and anecdotal, body of evidence, most of it much later than the events it purports to describe: for investigating halfsiblings in elite republican Roman families, as well as for illuminating “the ancient Roman family” itself. I will ponder, too, how this evidence problematizes scholarly efforts to view the ancient Roman family as typifying a larger, trans-historical Mediterranean pattern. Finally, I will reflect on how and why elite Republican Roman familial dynamics involving the treatment of half-siblings complicate our understanding of elite Roman kinship, and underscore the socially contingent nature of kinship generally.

Greco-Roman culture classified a great variety of gems. Authors such as Theophrastus, Plutarch and Pliny the Elder dealt with the subject. To know which gems were most highly valued in ancient Rome, it is essential to consult book 37 of Pliny the Elder. Book 37 of Pliny’s Natural History is one of the few accounts on precious stones, gems and amber that collects information from various sources of antiquity, which in many cases have survived only thanks to Pliny’s transcription. He catalogued the most prestigious gems, and discussed their origin, their exploitation techniques, their properties and their etymology. This corpus collects a total of 240 different variants of gems, of which, in 93 cases, its place of origin is known. In order to know to what extent the words of Pliny reflect the reality of the Roman market, we have analyzed as examples ten catalogs of modern collections of gems from various places and compared them with Pliny’s comments. This analysis confirms the fact that the urban Roman elites valued precious stones extracted from the territories beyond the Roman Empire, especially those of the East. The ten catalogues contain more than 4000 different gems and glasses. It compares the information in Pliny’s book on gems with ten current catalogs of various museums, adding more than 4000 analyzed copies. Both of these sources similar results and therefore confirms the interest of the Romans for these productions.

Reviewed by: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Agora: Ancient Greek and Roman Humour Ian C. Storey (bio) R. Drew Griffith and Robert B. Marks. A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Agora: Ancient Greek and Roman Humour. Legacy. 2007. vi, 234. $29.95 In this lively volume the authors advance two essential theses: that the ancients 'didn't take themselves too seriously,' and that ancient humour was based on character rather than situation. For the first, this book is a useful corrective to a too-sober and reverent view of the 'classics,' but I take issue with the second, especially with the limited scope of the material discussed. The subtitle says it all: this book is about 'humour,' defined as 'what we find funny.' But 'funny' includes more than just 'humour.' I have always found useful Norwood's (Greek Comedy) distinction concerning the incongruous: when the intellect is the function employed, wit results; when it is the imagination, fun results; when it is the emotions, humour results. And it is humour, especially humour of character, that dominates this book. Imagination (the wonderful fantasies of Old Comedy and Lucian) does not get much attention, although to be fair the authors do cite briefly the mock-epic Battle of the Frogs & Mice and quote at length Apuleius's marvellous episode of Lucius and the wine-skins (Metamorphoses 2.31-3.10). Nor is there much about the iambic tradition, either of the early poets (surely Archilochus should loom large in a study of ancient humour) or of to onomasti komoidein (to make fun of by name in comedy). Chapters 5-9 are essentially a collection of comic types around which the humour of character is developed: parasite, flatterer, alazon, informer, quack, 'egghead' (the best translation of scholastikos?), loner, glutton, cook, and - for women - the shrew, the gossip, the slut, etc. Here we encounter [End Page 483] one of the major stumbling blocks of this study, that the material discussed ranges all over the ancient world, from both Greek and Roman sources (not until page 185 are we alerted to the difference between these two cultures), and the reader is not told what genre is involved (serious epic, self-referential comedy, Roman prose novel, etc.). In chapter 3 ('A Funny World') we jump from St Augustine to Homer's Iliad to Catullus to anecdotes about Diogenes, without being given the basic information about the authors cited to locate them in their historical and literary context. One of the co-authors describes this volume as 'a textbook on ancient humour,' but to be effective it would need to be amplified substantially and constantly with background information. A study of humour in Greek antiquity should rest on two pillars: Aristophanes (or Old Comedy more generally) and Lucian. These form a useful pair for teaching ancient comedy: Greek city-state versus Roman imperial period, verse versus prose, watched versus read, 'primary' versus 'secondary' (to borrow terms from epic). We do get considerable material from Aristophanes, but a rather sanitized Aristophanes, for there is no discussion of either the imaginative fantasy that underpins his comedy or of the personal humour that the ancients saw as the quintessence of Old Comedy. Most attention is given to Clouds, a partial revision (never staged) of a not particularly funny play. Lucian does not even appear in the index - a startling omission, since required reading for students of ancient humour should include his Dialogues of the Gods and his 'True' History. It is probably not accidental that these two, along with Martial (another inexplicable absence), are the principal exponents of wit in ancient literature. A revealing comment gives the game away: '[T]he Greeks were unable to think, "there but for the grace of God, go I."' But see Sophocles' Ajax 121-6. This distressing social correctness shows in my Latin students' distaste for Martial ('he is insulting people') and - mirabile dictu - drama students who prefer Menander to Aristophanes. The reader will learn a great deal from this book, especially about the etymology of key words: humour as a medical term, zany (from an Italian clown), the proper meaning of eiron (ironist), joke (skoptein) from...

The private sphere is the locus of social transactions in civil society. The public sphere is the locus of social transactions that create, maintain, and transform the rules of the game that define society itself. The public sphere includes running for office, toppling a government, voting in elections, engaging in political information-gathering and exchange, and participating in collective action. Models of rational choice in the private sphere are predicated on the notionthat agents treat choices as instrumentalin achieving their private ends, be they self-regarding, other-regarding, or dictated by purely moral concerns. Behavior in the public sphere, by contrast, is largely noninstrumental because it is non-consequential: individuals as voters in large elections or participants in large collective actions have a vanishingly small effect on outcomes. We call agents whose behavior in the public sphere is non-consequential canonical participants. This paper extends the rational actor model to the behavior of canonical participants in the public sphere by locating such behavior in a multi-dimensional taxonomy of rational choice. We apply this model to explain why collective action is generally motivated by violations of principles of procedural justice and rarely motivated by the statisticaldistributionof social outcomes, such as poverty rates, growthrates, or coefficients of social inequality or intergenerational mobility.

Many of modern legal concepts have their roots in the jurisprudence of Ancient Rome. The concept of novation is one of them. That is why it is vitally important to analyze the main provisions concerning novation that were stated in ancient first-hand sources in order to improve modern theory on that matter. The concept of novation is one of the classic issues in the realm of law of obligations. Thus much attention was paid to it, and especially to the treatment of novation in Ancient Rome. The problem of novation was addressed in the writings of such scholars as Yu. Baron, K. von Czyhlarz, H. Dernburg, D. V. Dozhdyev, D. D. Hrimm, J. A. Pokrovs’kyy, B. Windscheid, and others. The main objective of the paper is to provide an overview of the main provisions stated in ancient Roman first-hand sources on the matter of novation and to suggest some practical implications that might be entailed from those provisions. In Ancient Rome novation is deemed to be a substitution of one obligation with another, or, in other words, a transformation of debt into some new obligation. The conclusion is made that both the primary and the new obligation had to be unilateral. Thus the author states that bilateral obligation was not able to be turned into unilateral one through the novation. Also the elements of the novation are defined. They are: (a) the existence and validity of the former obligation; (b) the existence and validity of the new obligation; (c) the difference between the former and the new obligation; (d) clearly an undoubtedly expressed intention of the parties to renew the obligation. Special attention is paid to the problem of novation under some special condition. The legal consequences of invalidity of the former or new obligation are also discussed. Despite the seeming similarity of the definitions of novation in Antient Rome and in modern jurisprudence, the Roman concept of novation was much broader, especially because it encompassed the substitution of parties and the transformation of the obligation due to commencement of action.

Ancient Roman feasting dates back more than 2000 years, but perceptions of that society continue to fascinate. The association of banquets with ancient Rome immediately summons up perceptions, in many modern minds, of excess and decadence. The source of these perceptions is something of a puzzle — a historiographical puzzle.1 ‘How do we know?’ or ‘How do we think we know?’ are questions which will resonate throughout this book, but let us confront them here. A full analysis of why artists and writers in modern periods have chosen one aspect or another of Roman society as the basis for their work, and the sources which they used, would require a large separate study. It suffices here to remind ourselves that all creative work is an artefact of its own times. Some work follows ancient sources more closely than does other work, but even the ancient sources are a reflection of particular preoccupations of the artist/writer or of his own times. This chapter analyses the sources of some modern perceptions of ancient Roman culture and argues for the importance of history in understanding and representing banquets. Food and drink are here a window on to larger problems of historiography.

Following the Symposium on distribution of the Illyrians (4th to 2nd centuries B.C., Sarajevo, 1964), the view that the northern border of the Illyrians ran along the line even much southerner than the Sava (nn.2-8) has been firmly established in our archeology; this attitude has been extended to the Illyrian tribes in Roman times (n.7). At the same time, historians of the pre-Roman and Roman periods in the Balkans still hold the view of predominantly Illyrian origins of the tribes from Lower Pannonia, between the Danube and the lower course of the Sava river (n.9), based on contemporary historiographic epigraphic and linguistic evidence. Therefore, the author dwelled on the issue whether the Illyrian name, and in which meaning, may be applied to the inhabitants of Lower Pannonia in the Roman times as well. According to ancient literary sources (Strabo and Apian) it follows that the Pannonian tribes in the ancient times were deemed to be Illyrian (pp. 2-3). Furthermore in mythology, the Pannonios was the descendant of Illyrians (App. Illyr. 2; cf. Papazoglu 1969, 265 n. 233), which points to the common awareness of being part of Lower Pannonia and other Illyrian tribes. Important evidence for this issue is deemed to be anthroponyms as well; Pannonian names in the research to date have shown to be different from Illyrian (p. 7 with note). The author gives the examples of names Dassius and Liccaius, epigraphically confirmed with Breuck and Amantino (6, note 30, and p. 7 with note), which she considers to have originated from Illyrian territory proper; that is proved by a wax tablet from Dacia, where the words Dassius Verzonis, Pirusta ex Kavieretio and Liccaius Epicadi were written (tab. cer. VI; cf. p. 8). As is well known, parts of the Illyrian population from southern Dalmatia were relocated to work in Dacia mines; that this is the case here as well is proved by referring to an Illyrian ethnic, Pirust, as well as the name of the village. On account of the closeness in spiritual and cultural spheres, the awareness of the common mythical forefather, similarities or sameness in anthroponyms, there is no justification, at least regarding the Roman times, for distinguishing the inhabitants of Pannonia from (other) Illyrians, even if the issue of their ethnical connection or identicalness is not considered.

This paper explores Philip Pettit's concept of liberty as non-domination, a significant contribution to contemporary political theory emphasizing freedom from arbitrary power rather than merely the absence of interference. In an increasingly plural and complex world, there is a pressing need for a broader understanding of liberty that addresses the political adversities faced by diverse societies. Pettit’s theory provides a robust framework for assessing political freedom by proposing that true liberty entails the absence of domination, supported by democratic mechanisms that disperse and make power accountable. The primary objective of this text is to analyze Pettit’s complete works alongside contributions from ten prominent commentators and debaters, examining the strengths and potential shortcomings of his theory. The analysis aims to demonstrate how Pettit’s concept of non-domination can be superior to other notions of liberty or how integrating different perspectives might reinforce his ideas. Methodologically, the paper conducts a thorough examination of Pettit's seminal works. It includes critical analysis from scholars like Quentin Skinner, Richard Dagger, and Cécile Laborde. Each author's agreement or disagreement with Pettit is analyzed in detail, providing a comprehensive view of the ongoing discourse. In conclusion, Pettit's concept of liberty as non-domination proves to be a compelling framework for understanding and advancing political freedom. This approach necessitates transparency, accountability, and participation within democratic institutions, ensuring liberty is safeguarded against both existing and potential forms of arbitrary power. Through this detailed examination, the paper underscores the relevance and applicability of Pettit's ideas in addressing contemporary political challenges.

Scholarship on the history of advertising has dedicated only a limited attention to all centuries preceding 1700, even though sources and data for a history of ancient and medieval advertising are consistent. Since the birth of writing, in the Mediterranean basin as well as in Asia, different forms of branding emerge. Their original function, showing the origin of a product, was quickly subject to a process of differentiation. Ancient sources also show an embeddedness of oral and written advertising - advertising became such a crucial component of daily life that it also became a topic of public discourse and poetry. In Roman times, advertising also became an object of juridical regulations - while a further process of differentiation took place in the Middle Ages. The invention of print, finally, allowed a quicker reproduction and distribution of posters, flyers etc. - in forms which had already been practiced for thousands of years in other parts of the world, particularly China.

The debate over natural and civil rights was a furious, ubiquitous exchange that dominated public discourse in the 1790s. Much was at stake in defining personal liberties and public duties: the configuration of the body politic and the direction of the modern state. One particular conflict that prevailed in the ensuing battle was a struggle between the family and the self-contained individual as the image and, more importantly, the site of political authority. From the essays of Sir Robert Filmer and John Locke on patriarchalism and government to the treatises on the social contract by Algernon Sidney, James Harrington, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, the exploration of the individual’s relation to the state maintained a vibrant momentum that peaked in the excitement of the French Revolution. By the 1790s, the notion of liberty was either safely protected in the “inherited rights” of Burke’s design or boldly redistributed to the “individual inalienable rights” advocated by Paine. One conception of rights was meant to contain the franchise, the other to extend it.

The article is devoted to references to ancient history in the scientific works and university lectures of V.O. Klyuchevsky when he considered issues of a source study. Noted is the use of V.O. Klyuchevsky's experience in comparing texts accumulated by specialists in ancient history as he points out significant differences in the source base of Greco-Roman and Russian history. The main rules (techniques) for working with ancient sources identified by Klyuchevsky were restoration and interpretation of the ancient text, determination of the author's point of view, interpretation of the meaning inherent in the text. He noted that historical criticism acquired a masterful skill precisely in the analysis of the works of ancient authors. The main difference between the sources on the medieval history of Rus' and the ancient narrative tradition is according to V.O. Klyuchevsky that the written monuments of the ancient world, on which historical criticism developed its techniques, are all marked by individuality, are works of personal creativity, while the sources on Russian history before the 17th century are “impersonal works of writing”, that is, chronicles and acts. The author of the article comes to the conclusion that the model for Klyuchevsky's development of source study techniques for studying medieval Russian texts was the methods of working with ancient Greek and Roman sources, methods of their criticism and interpretation, as they had developed by the second half of the 19th century. When creating the scientific history of Russia, V.O. Klyuchevsky relied not only on the works of his predecessors in Russian history, but also on the methodology of studying general, especially ancient history.

For sheer bloody-minded greed and unscrupulous acquisitiveness, the Romans had no equal in the ancient world, and they would have had little to learn on that score from modern "possessive individualism." To someone who does not take the predatory impulses of contemporary capitalism and modern imperialism for granted as a universal law of nature—and maybe even for those who do—this insatiable rapacity is the most striking thing about the ancient Romans. By the time the republican era drew to a close, giving way to an imperial state (conventionally dated from the foundation of the Principate under Augustus Caesar in 27 B.C.), the Roman ruling class had amassed private fortunes of staggering proportions, by means of exploitation and corruption at home (from their landed estates and urban slum tenements, usury, trading in property, government contracts, etc.) and even more spectacularly by the systematic plunder of their expanding Empire. The administration of the Empire provided the Roman aristocracy with unprecedented opportunities for looting and extortion. To hold proconsular office was a sure means of lining the pocket—and for the most prominent Roman oligarchs to consolidate their personal power by acquiring what increasingly amounted to private armies.This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

This paper examines three main terms: otium (leisure), suburbium (suburb) and villa suburbana (suburban villa). I mostly used ancient literary sources from this period for the examination. I wanted to point out what the ancient Romans had thought about city and countryside through these terms. It is important to note that the sources I selected are referring to the contemporary elitist concept of this theme. It is difficult to separate the many meanings of these terms. I handled the terms in this paper in the following way. The suburbium was the suburban realm of the ancient city, Rome. Its development reached approximately 40-50 kilometres from the city centre. The otium was the cultivated form of leisure, which the Roman elite pursued for example in their elegant country villas. The villa suburbana could be a lavish leisuring spot or have another social, economical and land-using interests, too. But these terms were very subjective, flexible and always changed. They have exact definition neither in the ancient Roman thought and nor among the modern scholars. The selected literary sources do not make a clear distinction between these terms, either. Because of this fact I can state that these terms always depended on the contemporary individuals who wrote down their estimates or ideas in the survived pieces of Roman literature.