Triumphal Arch of Orange
Antiquity has served as a model for modern times in many ways, in art and architecture as well as in science, scholarship, and politics. Yet antiquity is not a clear-cut entity, no fact in itself, but rather a cultural code – one that admits of myriad applications and whose meaning and functions can only be understood within the specific settings in which it has been appropriated. It is possible to identify certain cycles and developments in the way antiquity has been reformulated that are bound up with nuclei of tradition, but these have themselves produced accretions that have in turn influenced subsequent uses of the model of antiquity. Instead of a simple process of reception, it makes more sense to speak of complex and dynamic adaptations and appropriations along the lines of cultural transfer. This can be seen equally well in both republican discourses and the various forms of monarchical representation, as well as in more recent attempts at “empire”-building.
Antiquity and its Appropriation: A Sketch of the Problem
“Quid est enim aliud omnis historia, quam Romana laus?”1 With this question Francesco Petrarca (1304–1374) expressed the character of early Italian humanism. The rediscovery of antiquity and the retreat from the tenebrae (“darkness”) of the medium tempus (“Middle Age”) became the programme of the Renaissance,2 thus inaugurating an epoch that, beginning with the definitive division of history into three periods in Christoph Cellarius’s (1638–1707) Historia Universalis, would be called modernity.3 To put it in a slightly exaggerated form: modernity was defined against the background of antiquity, and without reference to the model of antiquity there would be no modernity.
But what is the “model of antiquity?” How can the processes of reception and transfer that underpin this concept be adequately described?4 Approaches taken from the aesthetics of reception offer some guidance. The goal of this perspective, which is at home especially in literary studies, is to shift the focus away from the work itself and onto its readers and other recipients, placing perceptions and appropriations of works of art at the centre of attention.5 Quite similarly, recent studies in the field of cultural transfer no longer primarily investigate the culturemes of a base culture; rather they assume that what is adopted from one culture by another results from appropriative exigencies and that these exigencies determine the form of a given adaptation.6
Analogously, one can say that antiquity is appropriated reciprocally and dynamically in different settings. It functions, however, as a model, as a construct of the past, and always with reference to contemporary reality. Nevertheless, the various historical actors are not always aware that what has been transferred is indeed a construct. On the contrary, the model constructed has a retrospective effect, reshaping past realities and therewith modifying bodies of knowledge. We thus speak of “appropriation” and “reformulation”, in which the highly fragmentary elements of antiquity that are available in texts, images, and material remains are assimilated to specific argumentative exigencies, giving rise to “hybrid” forms.7 And we call the various “settings” in which antiquity is charged with new meaning “Aneignungssituationen” (“settings of appropriation”), thus foregrounding “Momente der Konstituierung” (“foundational moments”) and the “Neben- und Gegeneinander verschiedener, gleichzeitig abrufbarer Verwendungen.”8 In this way appropriation is embedded in its specific contexts; it has the force of a model because in political debate it is normative and functions as an ideal.
Of course, the appropriation of a model does not occur simply with direct reference to antiquity. Instead, it is always influenced by earlier processes of appropriation as well. Prior interpretations of antiquity lie between it and the present like nuclei of tradition (Traditionskerne), thus predetermining readings and impeding – without the recipients necessarily recognizing it – direct access to ancient texts. These nuclei of tradition are reformulated in contemporary understandings of antiquity and act, so to speak, as a template or a lens that makes antiquity decipherable and interpretable to that later age. In the process, layers are added to these nuclei of tradition that are determined not only by various contemporary discourses but also via specific social and political elements as well as by the peculiarities of the various genres in which they appear.9
Antiquity as well as the past in general, it must be accepted, remains in principle inaccessible. Only across numerous layers of reception and appropriation can it be comprehended and appropriated anew. Thus, as a model, it is continuously endowed with new substance and always results in new representations of ancient phenomena. Nevertheless, these phenomena possessed paradigmatic significance, in the form of a cultural code, throughout all of early modernity and far into more recent history, and this despite the at times bitterly waged querelle des anciens et des modernes of the late 17th century.10 In general, Rome was a more important point of reference than Greece, especially in political history, although philhellenism was an extremely influential intellectual and political movement.11
The Model of Antiquity and the Concept of Empire since the Middle Ages
Antiquity (and especially Rome) doubtless enjoyed special significance in the context of claims to universal rule. The concept of empire was heavily informed by the idea that the Roman Empire lived on in the Romano-German Empire. Rome therefore served as a frame of reference for universal power in both the secular and the spiritual realms, a state of affairs that was to last, with manifold variations from age to age, from 800 to 1806. Rome’s eschatological function also played an essential role, as Rome counted as the last of the four world monarchies due to appear before the Last Judgment.12 It is because of the link made to the Roman emperors (Caesars) in the Middle Ages and modern times that the rulers of Rome are called Kaiser in German13 – an appellation that is not exactly pertinent.14
In the mid-12th century, the related concept of a translatio imperii arose, that is of a “transfer of the empire” to the Franks,15 and the name Sacrum Imperium Romanum (“Holy Roman Empire”) remained relevant until the end of the Old Empire (Altes Reich). Indeed, the alleged continuity of the Kaisers from antiquity to modern times ensured that the Old Empire occupied the most distinguished position in Europe.16 Meanwhile, the name “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” no longer functioned as a claim to political or legal positions.17 Instead, it expressed the inseparability of the Roman Empire and the German nation.18
Triumphal Arch Celebrating the Marriage of Leopold II (1747–1792) and Maria Ludovica (1745–1792), 1765 / Triumphal arch, Innsbruck, from the south, colour photograph, 2007, photographer: Innsbrucker; source: Wikimedia Commons
Although the idea of Rome tended to lose its importance, it nevertheless remained an essential component of imperial self-portrayal, as can be seen in the epitaph on Maximilian I’s (1459–1519) cenotaph in the Hofkirche in Innsbruck. The title used for him there makes direct reference to the rulers of ancient Rome: IMPERATORI CAES(ARI) MAXIMILIANO PIO FOELICI | AUG(USTO) PRINCIPI.19 The same can still be found in the 18th century, for example in the self-portrayal of Joseph II (1741–1790) and Maria Theresa (1717–1780) , clearly visible in the triumphal arch in Innsbruck. Removed from the military context proper to its architectural type, the Roman triumphal arch was erected in 1765 to commemorate the wedding of Archduke Leopold (later Emperor Leopold II, 1747–1792 ) to the Spanish princess Maria Ludovica (1745–1972) . The inscriptions on the arch naming Leopold’s brother, the future Joseph II, and his mother Maria Theresa also reveal a conscious link to Roman imperial titles: IMP(ERATOR) CAES(AR) | IOSEPHUS II | AUGUSTUS, and M(ARIA) THERESIA | AUGUSTA. Although its political significance was rather slight, the idea of Rome continued to be of special importance for the self-representation and the insistently claimed pre-eminence of the Kaiser of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (variously adapted to the needs of the times, of course).
The kings of France also sought to forge links to Roman imperial dignity, especially when it came to substantiating claims to the imperial crown. A “new Rome” was supposed to arise in France under Francis I (1494–1547) , the expression of which can be seen in the numerous citations of antiquity in the architecture and decoration of the Grande Galerie in the Palace of Fontainebleau.20 Such imperial gestures, which made systematic use of the model of antiquity, reached new heights under Henry IV (1553–1610) and Louis XIV (1638–1715) .21
Moving on to England, the idea of an Augustan Age played an important role beginning in 1660 with the reign of Charles II (1630–1685) . The spectrum of this new Augustan era was manifold. To be sure it suggested imperial grandeur, a notion whose significance grew especially in the 18th century, but another important aspect was the belief that a highpoint of civilisation had been reached that had not been seen since the reign of the emperor Augustus (63 BC–14) .22 Imperial trappings and the adoption of an ancient terminology were also standard in the tsardom of the 18th century, as can be seen in Peter I’s (1672–1725) assumption of the title of emperor.23
The Italian Humanist Alternative to the Concept of Empire
Humanism introduced a decidedly anti-imperial reflex into the model of antiquity. With marked consistency, the humanists dealt primarily with the Roman republic and developed a keen interest in Roman historiography. Their engagement with Roman history led them to the notion that Rome had been the most perfect culture ever and that it owed its longevity above all to the extraordinary virtue of its great men.24 This model – especially with regard to early modern republicanism – would manifest an extreme persistence.
Fundamental republican outlooks on antiquity, which would become a decisive template for later reformulations, were developed particularly in Renaissance Florence. Here, as everywhere in Italy, the written and material remains of antiquity were present as a direct inheritance, and this is where the first buds of humanism blossomed – enriched as well by the flow of Greek scholars emigrating from Constantinople in the wake of the Ottoman conquest.25 Especially in the context of the struggle with Milan in the 14th and 15th centuries, the Florentine citizenry, as evidenced for example by the writings of Leonardo Bruni (1369–1444) , sought to legitimate its antiquity and independence via its Etruscan and Roman past.26
The Italian politician and writer Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) had responsibility for the internal administration and military of the republic of Florence, as well as for various diplomatic missions. Unjustly imprisoned in 1513 and later released, he spent his time after the end of his political career writing his main work Il principe (1513, published 1532). In this work, he attempts to describe the conditions of successful politics, while approaching the question from an empirical and systematic standpoint, as opposed to metaphysics-based Christian state theory. Instead of Christian virtues, Machiavelli emphasizes the ability of the ruler to obtain and retain power as the main prerequisite of long-lasting rule. Therefore, when the state is in jeopardy, the ruler is justified in dispensing with moral norms in order to maintain the state. / Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527), lithography from a contemporary etching, 1905, unknown artist; source: Müller-Baden, Emanuel (Hg.): Bibliothek des allgemeinen und praktischen Wissens zum Studium und Selbstunterricht in den hauptsächlichsten Wissenszweigen und Sprachen, Berlin 1905, vol. 5, Seite 67; Wikimedia Commons
The “civic humanism” that developed in Florence in the course of the conflict with Milan (although stemming from medieval and corporate roots) was guided by the model of the Roman republic.27 Like their predecessors, Francesco Guicciardini (1483–1540) and Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) used the example of Rome as a template to describe the crises of their own time, especially the Franco-Habsburg duel for control of Italy and the power struggle between the Signoria and the House of Medici that so marked the 16th century.28 Machiavelli in particular saw republican Rome – subscribing wholly to Marcus Tullius Cicero’s (106–43 BC) notion of historia magistra vitae (“history is the teacher of life”) – as a wellspring of practical guidelines for political action. And therefore it was an ideal whose emulation could help to overcome the crisis of the Florentine political system.29 Machiavelli’s Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (“Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy”) are thus much more than a simple commentary on Livy; indeed they offer an analysis of the Roman Republic intended to be used as a guide to its imitation.30
In Machiavelli’s work, Sparta and republican Rome appear above all as examples of a successful mixed constitution in the sense described by the Greek historian Polybios (200–120 BC) , who had been rediscovered by Leonardo Bruni. According to Polybios, both regimes received their stability from the prudent combination of the constitutional forms of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, each of which entailed the representation of a different social class,31 as well as from a superior military.32 Machiavelli thus made use of a particular Greek interpretation of Rome’s ascent, one that was composed in the 2nd century BC in order to explain Greek inferiority and that had itself already gone through manifold processes of reception and appropriation in antiquity.33
In Machiavelli as well as in the work of many other Italian authors of the day, Rome and Sparta could serve as models for a kind of order, embodying stability at home and expansion and rule abroad, that was perceived as both an aspirational ideal and a historical reality.34 Machiavelli’s Discorsi in particular provided a template for republican readings of Titus Livy (59 BC–17) and Polybios, and they also facilitated constructions of the model of antiquity north of the Alps , as the following considerations will show.35
Reformation, Wars of Religion, and the Search for Political Order
Argumentative strategies relating to antiquity and (at least) potentially directed against ruling monarchs gained urgency as confessional rifts opened between sovereigns and portions of their subjects in the wake of the Reformation . Both the Calvinist Monarchomachs (“opposers of the monarchy”) in France and the Dutch Revolt produced numerous writings on the right of resistance. Furthermore, they developed an imagery of freedom that had a considerable influence on the following centuries. For example, John Calvin (1509–1564) and Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560) accorded an active right of resistance only to certain officials whom they compared to the Spartan ephors, the Attic demarchs, and the Roman tribunes of the plebs.36 However, the treatise Vindiciae contra tyrannos (1579), published in Basel after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, praised tyrannicide on the part of private citizens in extreme cases as long as they, like Marcus Junius Brutus (85–42 BC) , Marcus Porcius Cato (95–46 BC) and Cicero, acted in the defence of liberty.37 The debate over the right of resistance was thus closely connected with these figures; the very pseudonym of the still unidentified author of the Vindiciae,38 Stephanus Junius Brutus, is a reference to the model of the Roman republic.39
Above: Silver denarius of Marcus Junius Brutus, obverse and reverse, Macedonia, minted 43–42 BC, colour photograph, no date, unknown photographer; source: British Museum / Below: Renaissance medal commemorating Lorenzino de Medici’s assassination of his cousin Alessandro, Brutus EID MAR type, cap of liberty between two daggers, VIII.ID.IAN, obverse and reverse, struck 1537, colour photograph, 2011, photographer: Andrew McCabe
In particular the younger Brutus and the assassination of Gaius Julius Caesar (100–44 BC) also became emblems and models for resistance and liberty elsewhere, as can be seen in a medal of Lorenzino de’ Medici (1514–1548) that, in imitation of the well-known Brutus coin , portrayed his assassination of Alessandro de’ Medici (1510–1537) as a tyrannicide.40 In the Holy Roman Empire estates were also able to prosecute their fight for “German freedom” (Teutsche Libertät) against Charles V (1500–1558) with the aid of the same patterns of legitimation. Thus the pamphlet Sendschrifften der Königlichen Maiestat zu Franckreich (“Messages from His Royal Majesty the King of France”), distributed in the Empire, likewise featured the tyrannicide’s dagger and the pileus (the cap worn by Roman freedmen) along with the caption “Libertas.”41 With unmistakable clarity, the imperial federation’s legitimate resistance to a feared Habsburg tyranny is here equated with the defence of the Roman republic via the assassination of Caesar.
After gaining independence from the Habsburgs the political protagonists and theorists of the young republic tried to discover and publicize the Netherlands’ historical roots and historical continuity. In this regard reference was made to historical figures, in particular to the Batavian prince Claudius Civilis who during the 1st century AD led a revolt of Germanic tribes against Rome with the goal – according to Tacitus – of creating an independent empire in North Western Europe. Rembrandt’s picture that was displayed in Amsterdam’s city hall shows the moment in which the followers of Claudius Civilis solemnly swear loyalty to him. Civilis and his tribe, who were characterized as freedom-loving and heroic, were regarded as the direct ancestors of the Dutch and functioned as a model for the virtues and qualities that Dutch society wished to realise. / Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (1606–1669), The Conspiracy of the Batavians under Claudius Civilis, oil on canvas, 196×309 cm, ca. 1660; source: © Nationalmuseum Stockholm
In addition, both humanism and confessional struggles considerably promoted the genesis of national identities. In the Netherlands , which had been fighting for their independence from Spain since 1568, conceptions of the ancient Batavians played an essential role in the formation of national identity. Similarly, the discovery of Cornelius Tacitus’ (ca. 55–120) Germania in the Abbey of Hersfeld in 1450 made the Germanic tribes a key reference point for national identity among German humanists.42
On the other hand, monarchies also made use of references to antiquity. Ever since the Middle Ages, the term “monarchy” had referred to the constitutional theory of Aristotle (384–322 BC) .43 Well into the 17th century, it was also connected to the world monarchy of Rome, and thus it had universalising connotations.44 But although Rome was effectively the model of monarchy par excellence, there were those who retreated from this universal concept grounded in the eschatological understanding of the Roman Empire. Jean Bodin (1529–1596) , for example, did not even consider the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation a monarchy but rather an aristocratic entity.45 According to strict Aristotelian theory, monarchy meant the rule of a single individual, but classical teachings on forms of government were not the only source of legitimation. Of central importance was also the patriarchal justification of monarchy found in the Bible. However significant the designation of the ruler as pater patriae (“father of the country”) may have been, adopted as it was from Cicero and other classical authors, it was also highly charged with the conception of the sovereign as the father of the household as well as with ideas of a cosmic order at the head of which stood God as sole ruler.46
François Blondel (1618–1686), Porte Saint-Denis, Paris, finished 1672, colour photograph, 2011, photographer: Coyau; source: Wikimedia Commons
Moreover, all European dynasties sought to legitimate themselves by means of references to ancient mythology and history. For instance, many royal houses attempted to trace their roots back to antiquity. In addition to a direct descent from Noah and the Trojans, the official historiography of the House of Habsburg also introduced a lineage from the Roman family of the Julii.47 Although in this case antiquity tended to serve as proof of age and prominence and acted as a source of dignity, it seems at the same time to have been a normative frame of reference for the self-portrayal and staging of sovereignty. The triumphal arch in Innsbruck has already been mentioned, and numerous other examples could be adduced. To name one, François Blondel’s (1618–1686) Porte Saint-Denis in honour of Louis XIV of France, which was finished in 1672 and resembles the Arch of Titus, depicts the Sun King in its reliefs in the garb of a Roman military commander.
Peter Scheemakers (1691–1781), William III, Hull, Yorkshire, 1734, colour photograph, 2012, photographer: mira66; source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/21804434@N02/6748227033/.
In general, ancient borrowings play a considerable role especially in the heroic and military aspects of royal imagery. Above all, in the Baroque era equestrian sculptures and artistic depictions of rulers in Roman dress were standard. Examples are Andreas Schlüter’s (ca. 1660–1714) monument to Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg (1620–1688) and Peter Scheemakers’ (1691–1781) gilded equestrian statue of William III of England (1650–1702) . In this context, we must also mention the equation of early modern rulers with the great generals and rulers of antiquity, most notably Alexander the Great (356–323 BC) and Caesar.48 In addition, elements of ancient mythology were adopted. Hercules and Mars were often used as symbolic figures in texts and images to represent the royal virtues of courage and fortitude.49 With Louis XIV of France, Apollo also appeared, playing a central role in the portrayal of the “Sun King”.50 Other references cropped up in the case of female rulers, as can be seen in descriptions of Elizabeth I of England (1533–1603) with recourse to the salutary Astraea.51
It is clear that ancient figures of rulers, heroes, and divinities were distilled into ideal types that designated specific traits and virtues and at times possessed a programmatic character. Obviously, the meaning with which they were endowed had only little to do with the details of the historical record. But that was the source of their effectiveness as models. They were patterns used to prefabricate royal imagery for the transmission of a specific political message to a specific audience.
The late-humanistic Neostoicism developed by Justus Lipsius (1547–1606) also forged links to ancient exemplars, namely to the Roman Stoa, a later continuation of the originally Greek philosophical school represented by Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC–65) and Marcus Aurelius (121–180) . In combination with the increased reception of Tacitus that is also visible in the states re-emerging from the turmoil of the Reformation,52 Neostoicism offered early modern rulers new models of “social discipline” and royal virtues. In the emerging power of Brandenburg-Prussia it even became a guiding ideology of sorts.53 Scholarship has also stressed its influence on the “Oranische Heeresreform” (“military reform of the House of Orange”), which itself was conceived as a continuation of ancient models of military strategy.54
Revolution and Opposition in England
1642 witnessed the outbreak of the Civil War in England and with it the formulation of republican theories that, especially in the 1650s under the Commonwealth, made explicit use of ancient models. Here the theory of the mixed constitution was especially favourable to the adoption of ancient models in the form suggested by Machiavelli. The cooperation between the crown on the one hand and the nobility and commons on the other, the latter represented in the two houses of Parliament, had been portrayed by jurists like John Fortescue (ca. 1394–1476) as a dominium politicum et regale (“constitutional monarchy”) wholly within the understanding of the common law.55 In the context of the conflict that would culminate in the Civil War, however, it was described as a mixed constitution in the Polybian sense.56 In a specific setting of appropriation in which both parties to the conflict sought a balance and at the same time desired to be seen as guardians of the constitution, each made use of a model that seemed apt to find acceptance and to offer a compromise solution to the question of sovereignty.57
With the execution of Charles I (1600–1649) on 30 January 1649 and the abolition of the monarchy that followed swiftly thereafter, the arguments used by the republicans shifted even more decisively toward the model of antiquity. In 1656, James Harrington (1611–1677) in particular made a distinction between the excellence of “ancient prudence”, the political wisdom of antiquity, and that of later times. In Harrington’s mind, the foundation of ancient constitutions lay above all in the prudent mixture of forms of government and the system of checks and balances that resulted from it. Conforming to his Polybian model, Harrington considered above all Rome and Sparta – in addition to the biblical Israel and the Republic of Venice – republican models worth imitating.58 At the same time, this reinterpretation of the English constitution on the model of antiquity enabled the old system of county militias – again relying on Machiavelli’s vision of Sparta and Rome – to be revaluated as a virtue-fostering unity of citizen and soldier. This reinterpretation would go on to be influential in North America as well.59
As both Harrington and Marchamont Nedham (1620–1678) demonstrate, antiquity served as a frame of orientation in an unprecedented political situation, especially since Rome above all emanated a highly desirable aura of success and grandeur. This was only partially the case with Greece; although Sparta still counted as a model, most authors considered the reputedly tumultuous and anarchic Athens to be no model at all.60 The images evoked in the reception of Rome transcended the level of rhetorical ornament and, as ideals rooted in historical reality, were accorded a normative function. At the same time, the valence and interpretation given these images and models were anchored in the present; especially in the English reformulation of antiquity it was Machiavelli’s theses that provided the lens through which antiquity was viewed.61 The same goes for the recourse made to ancient republics in the radical Whig literature of the Restoration, for example in Henry Neville’s (1620–1694) Plato redivivus or Walter Moyle’s (1672–1721) Essay upon the Constitution of the Roman Government.62
Although the model of antiquity retreated entirely behind Christian and teleological patterns of interpretation for the legitimation and justification of the Glorious Revolution of 1688/1689,63 it was soon revivified in its republican aspect with the republication of Harrington’s works in 1700, and it received even greater impetus after 1714. The great theme of the 1720s was the “corruption” of the new moneyed-elite in London and of the reigning Whig oligarchy around Robert Walpole (1676–1745) , which in the series of articles written by John Trenchard (1662–1723) and Thomas Gordon (d. 1750) under the pseudonym Cato64 was depicted as the antithesis of ancient “virtue”.65 The Roman republic could be used as a cautionary tale against the feared degeneration of English liberty if one focused on its demise, as Joseph Addison (1672–1719) did in his tragedy Cato (1713).66 Yet it could also be held up as the example of a good constitution, one from which England should take its bearings. In his Dissertation Upon Parties (1733–1734), Henry St. John Viscount Bolingbroke (1678–1751) proposed to reduce the Roman constitution to its basic ideas and to compare it with the English one as a means of analysing the causes of its rise and fall and guarding against contemporary corruption.67 Of course, Bolingbroke’s portrayal of the Roman constitution, like Harrington’s, is not immune to criticism,68 and no more than in Machiavelli’s time can the Roman model be seen as a blanket model for modern action.
The Revolutions of the Late 18th Century
Publications associated with the American Revolution also reveal a rather critical reception of ancient models.69 And yet it was here, as in France a little later, that antiquity became the ideal par excellence. On the one hand, the British motherland could be portrayed as the decadent and corrupt imperium romanum (see below). On the other hand, republican Rome served as an inexhaustible treasury of republican models, rituals, and symbols. Read through the lens of their English and in part also of their French reception, the ancient authors Polybius, Livy, Plutarch (45–120) and Cicero gave shape to the image of the Roman republic, as did Charles Rollin’s (1661–1741) widely diffused Histoire Romaine (1739–1749, English edition: Roman History, 1739–1750), which relied heavily on Livy.70 The image of the Roman republic was based largely on the paradigms already established in England: a republic with a well-balanced mixed constitution, and a capacity for expansion coupled with imperialist tendencies (see below). The decisive difference, however, was the notion that Rome could be surpassed by the young American republic.71 Nevertheless, the high value that ancient examples were accorded as frames of orientation can be seen even in the critical engagement with ancient constitutional models.
Similar observations can be made for the French Revolution. Certain patterns of perception and reception had already developed in the Enlightenment discourse of the 18th century which portrayed Sparta and Rome in particular as ideal republics and which with their very simplicity encouraged patriotic feeling and active virtue.72 The Revolution’s overcoming of despotism could thus be seen as a new beginning, but also as a return to the idealised values of ancient republics.73 Although what were considered to be ancient constitutions exercised in point of fact little direct influence, the manifold model of antiquity played a substantial role for the self-understanding of the revolutionaries. For example, Camille Desmoulins (1760–1794) used Tiberius (42 BC–37) , Claudius (10 BC–54) , Nero (37–68) , Caligula (12–41) and Domitian (51–96) as foils to emphasise the accomplishments of the republic.74 In his Manifeste des Plébéiens, Gracchus Babeuf (1760–1797) called for a “Vendée plébéienne,” thus evoking the example of the plebeian exodus from Rome.75 Both are clear references to the model nature of Roman antiquity in particular.76 In like manner, the naming of offices in the French republic, for example the introduction of the consulate after 18 Brumaire Year VIII (9 November 1799),77 points to Rome as a frame of reference for the fashioning of a collective ethos.
Jacques-Louis David (1748–1825), Les Licteurs rapportent à Brutus les corps de ses fils, 1789, oil on canvas, 323 x 422 cm, location: Paris, Musée du Louvre; source: © Bildagentur für Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte (bpk), photographer: RMN-GP
Republicanism put a premium on the virtue of the citizen, and numerous ancient authors such as Livy, Tacitus, and Plutarch provided illustrative material. Machiavelli had already emphasised the importance of civic virtue for the preservation or recovery of liberty,78 and for others, such as Bolingbroke, it was less Rome’s constitution than its citizens’ virtue and love of liberty that kept the republican system intact for so long.79 Attempts at turning citizens into exemplary republicans entailed the stylisation of certain ancient figures like Lucius Junius Brutus (ca. 5th century BC) , Cato and Cincinnatus (ca. 5th century BC) as paragons. Thus, in the 18th century, Brutus in particular served as a paradigm of republican virtue, above all in the context of the French Revolution. Voltaire’s (1694–1778) tragedy about the elder Brutus exercised an influence that can hardly be overestimated, although the drama, which premiered in Paris in 1731, had to wait until the Revolution to achieve success.80 Brutus, who was willing to sacrifice his own sons in order to preserve the republic, was effectively held up as an ideal of the republican citizen, as can be seen in Jacques-Louis David’s (1748–1825) large format painting Les Licteurs rapportent à Brutus les corps de ses fils (1789).81
The same applies to the figure of Cato. Addison, for example, interpreted his suicide in Utica as undertaken in the name of freedom, as an example of unconditional dedication to the republic.82 Cato’s stock boomed thereafter particularly in England and North America. Cato’s Letters, by Trenchard and Gordon, became a medium of political opposition, and Addison’s Cato would be George Washington’s (1732–1799) favourite play; he even had it performed for his troops in winter quarters at Valley Forge.83 The story of Cincinnatus, the yeoman farmer who was called from the plough to be dictator and, after performing his duty, returned to the plough, also enjoyed enormous popularity in the USA, especially through comparisons with George Washington (which, incidentally, are reflected in the foundation of the Society of the Cincinnati and the name of the state capital of Ohio).84 Civic virtue, modesty, and immunity from corruption were the distinguishing features of these figures who, even in antiquity, had already had a complex reception history.85
Yet it is precisely models like Cato and Brutus that highlight the virtue-oriented and Stoic aspect of early modern republicanism which clearly distinguishes it from modern liberalism. Romans and Spartans were portrayed above all as idealists, prepared to sacrifice their sons and even their own lives for “freedom” and their “country”. Freedom meant active participation as a zoon politikon, not the absence of constraints or the individual freedom to act.86 Of course, when crafting this paradigm early modern authors integrated specific ancient discourses about virtue into their image of ancient reality, turning them into the model of their own pursuit of virtue.87
The image shows the official seal of the Senate of the United States of America, with the familiar symbols of the liberty cap and the fasces. / Seal of the United States Senate, colour graphic, 2008, image editor: Ipankonin; source: Wikimedia Commons
William Hogarth’s (1697–1764) copper engraving shows the British Whig politician and author John Wilkes (1727–1797) with the pileus, the cap worn by Roman freedmen. / Copper engraving, 1763; source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art New York
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s (1749–1832) watercolour of a liberty tree in Luxemburg also uses the symbol of the liberty cap. / Freiheitsbaum in Luxemburger Landschaft, 1793, watercolour and pen over pencil; source: Goethe-Museum Düsseldorf / Anton-und-Katharina-Kippenberg-Stiftung.
The wearing of togas on the part of orators during the American and the French Revolution, the use of ancient office titles such as consul, senator, etc., and the near omnipresence of the fasces and the Phrygian cap doubtless point as well to an identification with (especially Roman) antiquity that extended far into habitus and praxis – although it must be said that Greek stylistic vocabularies were also received in architecture, art and everyday material culture in both America and Europe.88 The question arises to what extent it is not rather bourgeois appropriative exigencies that were expressed in such cases. Nevertheless, far into the French Republic one can still discern the early modern reflex to measure novelty by the normative yardstick of antiquity, and to recognize in the modern a revival of the ancient. Even in France, the idea of a new beginning was connected with a return to the model of antiquity, and the fading of Christianity as a guideline for the elite of the French Revolution only reinforced this tendency.89
A New Rome and New Empires?
Rom ist an allen Enden die bewußte oder stillschweigende Voraussetzung unseres Anschauens und Denkens; denn wenn wir jetzt in den wesentlichen geistigen Dingen nicht mehr dem einzelnen Volk und Land, sondern der okzidentalen Kultur angehören, so ist dies die Folge davon, daß einst die Welt römisch, universal war und daß diese antike Gesamtkultur in die unserige übergegangen ist. Daß Orient und Okzident zusammengehören, daß sie eine Menschheit bilden, verdankt die Welt Rom und seinem Imperium.90
This passage by Jacob Burckhardt (1818–1897) clearly illustrates the significance that Rome and its empire are accorded in Western thought. It is informed by the conception of Rome as a universal power and guarantor of peace, civilisation, and order. On the one hand, this concept prompted various political entities to make conscious recourse to Rome in order to historically reformulate the political goals and concerns of their own time. It also led them to portray their own rule positively to others – in view of a mandate to bring about civilisation and order that each political entity ascribed to itself – as a continuation of the Imperium Romanum. Besides, it suggested a justification for their rule over foreign peoples. On the other hand, the use of the model of Rome or rather of the Roman Empire also created expectations that have been (and continue to be) pressed upon states and political entities in public discourses. Finally, professional or semi-professional historical accounts, bound as they are to contemporary discourses, consciously or unconsciously impose contemporary models on a historical phenomenon like the Imperium Romanum and, vice versa, turn it into a positive or a negative model for the present.
Familiar formulations like “new Rome,” “second Rome,” “third Rome,” and so forth point in the direction of what has just been said. Significantly, the USA was accorded the status of a “new Rome” quite early, from which in turn a universal claim to creating order was derived for a future American world supremacy. In 1853, the republican Theodor Poesche (1826–1899) , who had emigrated to America from Germany, and the German-American Charles Goepp (1827–1907) published a book by the name of The New Rome: Or The United States of the World. There they explained that the purpose of the USA was to establish a global republic, and they explicitly compared the United States of their time with the fledgling Rome about to spread its wings.91 As the new Rome, therefore, the USA should take up the task of uniting mankind and transcend the outmoded boundaries of the nation-state.92
Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) / Charles-Louis Clérisseau (1721–1820), The Capitol, Richmond, Virginia, photochromic postcard, 1901, photographer: Detroit Photographic Company; source: Wikimedia Commons
Maison Carrée in Nîmes, colour photograph, 2011, photographer: Danichou; source: Wikimedia Commons
The medal “Libertas Americana,” struck in 1783, shows on the obverse (left) the personification of freedom as a goddess together with the freedman’s cap (pileus libertatis), and on the reverse (right) the goddess Minerva, holding a shield over the new-born Hercules to protect him from a lion. Hercules symbolises the newly formed state, whereas the lion obviously stands for England. The freedman’s cap alludes to the familiar Brutus denarius. / Augustin Dupré (1748–1833), Libertas Americana, gilded bronze medal, 1783, design: Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790); source: Princeton University Library.
Perhaps the claim staked for the USA to establish a universal republicanism is rooted in the manifold references to antiquity that were made in North America in the Revolutionary and Ante-Bellum periods. It suffices to think of the use of Roman names like “senate” and “capitol,” or the significance of a classicising architecture that culminates, for example, in the state capitol in Richmond (Virginia) , which imitates the Maison Carrée in Nîmes , a Roman temple.93 Indicative are also the early medals struck in the USA, such as the Libertas Americana (1776) .94
The newly founded USA thus made use of a concept of romanitas in whose tradition it squarely placed itself. Rome provided it not only with a past that could be reformulated, but also with one that could furnish it with legitimation vis-à-vis the European nations. In this case, the Imperium Romanum actually functioned as an anti-model. Representatives of Great Britain were dubbed delusional Roman Caesars, and British rule was associated with the tyranny that Rome had been accused of exercising over its provinces. In domestic American discourses, the Roman Empire and its fall were increasingly used as a template for scenarios of decline that entailed above all a rampant contempt for the Christian faith and a corresponding state of decadence.95 It is all the more remarkable that various discourses outside America have consistently assigned to the USA (and continue to do so today) the role of a new Rome and therewith of a new empire. Officially America denies that it has an empire, although voices at home increasingly approve of the idea and suggest that the USA should evolve into a liberal imperial regime. Nevertheless, the Imperium Romanum continues to be cited primarily as a model of imminent decline.96
The upshot is that the USA remains a power that in domestic political discourse distances itself from the model of the Imperium Romanum but that is thought to act like an empire, with negative and positive connotations, by both critics and supporters alike. The positive connotation points, against the backdrop of contemporary templates, to the nucleus of tradition according to which the Roman Empire was a power that brought order and civilisation to the world. In fact, in one sense especially the model of the Imperium Romanum has been reformulated positively in American political discourse and popular culture, as the empire provided the vehicle for Christianity’s diffusion across the world of (classical) antiquity and its triumph over the emperors of Rome. As a result, Christianity in America has been associated with the victory over Romano-pagan otherness, and thus the war in Europe in the 1940s received a positive ideological charge.97 Altogether, the example of the USA clearly shows that the nucleus of tradition, or the model, of the Imperium Romanum is embedded in radically differing templates and their reformulations.
These days the concept of empire is not only applied to the USA but rather also to Europe, whose coalescing union is discussed with reference to the paradigm of Rome. This is remarkable, considering that at the end of the Second World War Rome and its empire were viewed rather negatively, and precisely in professional circles.98 Nevertheless, the process of unification in Europe offered a template for the positive utilisation of the paradigmatic empire, emphasising its character as a “multiethnic state”.99 Rome is rather consistently viewed in the realm of journalism as a benevolent empire in whose footsteps the world power of a united Europe ought to follow.100
While the USA has fostered an anti-imperial discourse in its political self-understanding since the Revolution, the British Empire, in order to legitimate its own imperial ambitions, forged links to the Imperium Romanum and its oft-mentioned guise as a bringer of order, civilisation, and peace. Indicative of this is the following statement by Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881) , from the year 1859:
“One of the greatest of the Romans, when asked what were his politics, replied, Imperium et libertas. That would not make a bad programme for a British Ministry. It is one from which Her Majesty’s advisers do not shrink.”
This purported quotation of a great Roman is pure fiction,101 but it shows that the Roman Empire was used as a justificatory model for personal ambitions. Thus in North America and then the USA the British Empire’s resemblance to the Imperium Romanum was assessed negatively, but the nucleus of tradition in British self-perception made it a model with positive connotations. It is no coincidence that the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries witnessed the zenith of historical analyses of the Roman Empire. Such studies, however, can also ape the reigning ideologies of contemporary imperial powers, thus providing them in turn with models from history for their political action.102
Italy Draws the Sword of Ancient Rome, Christmas 1911 / Edoardo Matania (1847–1929), L’Italia brandisce la spada dell’antica roma, postcard, 1911, publisher: The Sphere – London; source: University of Minnesota Libraries.
It is not only the British Empire that evinces this intimate interlacing of current political action, historical scholarship that is influenced by it, and examples and arguments for political action culled from antiquity. It can even be witnessed in liberal Italy. Although the universality of the idea of Rome discredited it during the Risorgimento, Roman history, or rather the notion of romanità drawn from it, formed the foundation for the construction of national identity for the state that began to emerge in 1860. Rome thus became the model for providing the manifoldly heterogeneous nation-state of Italy with a template for a common past.103 This construction was taken up by both literati and professional historians,104 and it formed the basis for a further reformulation of the Roman Empire, especially after 1911 . This is the year in which the Italian nation-state celebrated its 50th birthday, but it was also when liberal Italy began to aspire to acquiring territories outside the peninsula.105
Romanità was not only an argument for military intervention in Africa, however. It was also used to derive for Italy a special civilising and cultural role, one that was reassuringly distinguished from oriental decadence and “Gothic” materialism (in the form of Protestantism and socialism / communism). This mentality gave rise to a growing acceptance of liberal Italy’s colonial cravings among the upper and middle classes. What is more, it prepared the way for irredentism and its pursuit of the “natural” borders of Italy. Finally, it facilitated the reconciliation between church and state that would ultimately be realised by Benito Mussolini (1883–1945) .106 Just how powerful the model of Rome and its empire was for the irredentists can be seen in the “occupation” of Fiume (Rijeka) in September of 1919 at the hands of soldiers led by Gabriele D’Annunzio (1863–1938) . In an address to the Italian soldiers in Fiume, whom he called legionari (“legionaries”), D’Annunzio made explicit reference to Rome: “conviene che ciascuno di voi si pianti su i suoi due calcagni robusti e ripeta a fronte alta la parola romana, la parola dei legionari: ‘qui rimarremo ottimamente’.”107
Fascist Italy was thus home not only to a cult of romanità but also to a second concept that grew out of the first: italianità. In the process, Mussolini, who proclaimed the resurrection of the Imperium Romanum, was equated with Augustus.108 Excavations in the centre of Rome and at other archaeological sites like Pompeii were also put into the service of the fascist reformulation of Rome.109 Romanità continued to play a weighty role even after 1945. For the national anthem of the new republic, Goffredo Mamelli’s (1827–1849) Canto degli Italiani (“Song of the Italians”) was chosen. According to the 19th-century text, Italy dons the helmet of Publius Cornelius Scipio (236–183 BC) , the goddess Victory is a slave of Rome, and the brothers of Italy draw up in cohorts to suffer death for the nation.110 The example of Italy vividly shows how the model of the Imperium Romanum could be used on various levels by both a republic and a totalitarian state, having been prepared for such by the relevant fields of scholarship.
As a whole, this implies the manifold possibilities for reformulation bound up in a model like the Imperium Romanum, which in Western civilisation is certainly the most influential one. Ultimately, cultural memory holds fast on the one hand to the connotation of civilisation, peace, and order, on the other to the recollection of the universal (or universalist) and national regime that managed to level cultural differences. Both templates were applicable to contemporary political entities, depending on their political position. As the examples of the USA and the EU show, this historical model continues to be applied today, unfazed by the actual historical facts and structures proper to the Imperium Romanum. Thus the model of Rome and its empire are more alive today than ever.
Ulrich Niggemann / Kai Ruffing, Marburg
Addison, Joseph: Cato: A Tragedy, and Selected Essays, ed. by Christine Dunn et al., Indianapolis, IN 2004.
Babeuf, Gracchus: Textes Choisis, ed. by Claude Mazauric, Paris 1965.
Bodin, Jean: Les six livres de la république, Paris 1577, online: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8626814r [12.09.2013].
Bolingbroke, Henry St. John: Political Writings, ed. by David Armitage, Cambridge 1997.
Brutus, Stephanus Junius: Vindiciae, Contra Tyrannos: sive, De Principis in Populum, Populique in Principem, legitima potestate, Stephano Iunio Bruto auctore, London 1689 [1st ed. Edinburgh 1579], online: http://archive.org/details/vindiciaecontrat00lang [12.09.2013].
Buchez, Philippe-Joseph-Benjamin / Roux-Lavergne, Pierre-Célestin: Histoire parlementaire de la Révolution française, ou Journal des assemblées nationales depuis 1789 jusqu’en 1815: contenant la narration des événements […] précédée d’une introduction sur l’histoire de France jusqu’à la convocation des États-Généraux, Paris 1834–1838, vols. 1–40.
Burckhardt, Jacob: Historische Fragmente, ed. by Emil Dürr, Stuttgart 1957.
idem: Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien: Ein Versuch, 11th ed., Stuttgart 1988.
Dennert, Jürgen (ed.): Beza, Brutus, Hotman: Calvinistische Monarchomachen, Cologne et al. 1968.
Desmoulins, Camille: Le Vieux Cordelier, No. 3: Vivre libre ou mourir!, in: Philippe-Joseph-Benjamin Buchez / Pierre-Célestin Roux-Lavergne: Histoire parlementaire de la Révolution française, ou Journal des assemblées nationales depuis 1789 jusqu’en 1815: contenant la narration des événements […] précédée d’une introduction sur l’histoire de France jusqu’à la convocation des États-Généraux, Paris 1837, vol. 31, pp. 182–196.
Harrington, James: The Commonwealth of Oceana and A System of Politics, ed. by John G.A. Pocock, Cambridge 2003.
Henry II of France: Sendschrifften der Königlichen Maiestat zu Franckreich/ etc. An die Chur und Fürsten/ Stende und Stett des Heyligen Römischen Reichs Teutscher Nation/ darinn sie sich irer yetzigen Kriegsrüstung halben auffs kürtzest erklert: Henricus secundus Francorum rex, vindex libertatis Germaniae et principum captivorum, Marburg 1552, online: http://www.mdz-nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10143279-8 [12.09.2013].
Machiavelli, Niccolò: L’arte della guerra, in: idem: Opere, ed. by Mario Bonfantini, Milan et al. 1963, pp. 495–531.
idem: Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, in: idem: Opere, ed. by Mario Bonfantini, Milan et al. 1963, pp. 87–420.
Nedham, Marchamont: The Excellencie of a Free-State: or, The Right Constitution of a Commonwealth: Wherein all Objections are Answered, and the Best Way to Secure the Peoples Liberties, Discovered: With Some Errors of Government, and Rules of Policie, London 1767 [1st ed. 1656], online: http://archive.org/details/excellencieoffre00nedh [12.09.2013].
Poesche, Theodore / Goepp, Charles: The New Rome: Or The United States of the World, New York 1853, online: http://archive.org/details/newrome00poes [12.09.2013].
Robbins, Caroline (ed.): Two English Republican Tracts, Cambridge 1969.
Rollin, Charles / Jean Baptiste Louis Crevier: The Roman History from the Foundation of Rome to the Battle of Actium, That is, to the End of the Commonwealth, London 1739–1750, vols. 1–16, vol. 1 (1768) online: http://archive.org/details/romanhistoryfrom01roll [12.09.2013].
Trenchard, John / Gordon, Thomas: Cato’s Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects, ed. Ronald Hamowy, Indianapolis, IN 1995, vols. 1–2.
Voltaire: Brutus, tragédie, ed. John Renwick, in: Ulla Kölving (ed.): Les Œuvres complètes de Voltaire / The complete Works of Voltaire, Oxford 1998, vol. 5, pp. 1–308.
Alföldy, Geza: Das Imperium Romanum – ein Vorbild für das vereinte Europa, Basel 1999 (Jacob-Burckhardt-Gespräche auf Castelen 9).
Ayres, Philip: Classical Culture and the Idea of Rome in Eighteenth-Century England, Cambridge 1997.
Bailyn, Bernard: The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 14th ed., Cambridge, MA 1977.
Bandelli, Gino: Il mito di Roma al confine orientale d’Italia: Antichistica e politica nelle “Nuove Province” (1918–1938), in: Beat Näf (ed.): Antike und Altertumswissenschaft in der Zeit von Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus: Kolloquium Universität Zürich 14.–17. Oktober 1998, Mandelbachtal et al. 2001, pp. 125–144 (Texts and Studies in the History of Humanities 1).
Bang, Peter F. et al. (eds.): Tributary Empires in Global History, Basingstoke 2011.
Baron, Hans: The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny, Princeton, NJ 1967.
Bassin, Mark: Geographies of Imperial Identity, in: Dominic Lieven (ed.): The Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 2: Imperial Russia, 1689–1917, Cambridge 2006, pp. 45–63.
Bermbach, Udo: Widerstandsrecht, Souveränität, Kirche und Staat: Frankreich und Spanien im 16. Jahrhundert, in: Iring Fetscher et al. (eds.): Pipers Handbuch der politischen Ideen, vol. 3: Neuzeit: Von den Konfessionskriegen bis zur Aufklärung, Munich 1985, pp. 101–162.
Bernstein, Frank: Der Anfang: Das vermeintliche Kaisertum des Augustus, in: Hartmut Leppin et al. (eds.): Kaisertum im ersten Jahrtausend: Wissenschaftlicher Begleitband zur Landesausstellung “Otto der Große und das Römische Reich: Kaisertum von Antike zum Mittelalter”, Regensburg 2011, pp. 17–54.
Bertelli, Sergio: Piazza Venezia: La creazione di uno spazio rituale per un nuovo Stato-nazione, in: idem (ed.): La chioma della vittoria: Scritti sull’identità degli italiani dall’Unità alla seconda Repubblica, Florence 1997, pp. 170–205.
Bondanella, Peter E.: The Eternal City: Roman Images in the Modern World, Chapel Hill, NC et al. 1987.
Bosworth, Richard: Italy and the Approach of the First World War, London et al. 1983.
idem: Italy and the Wider World 1860–1960, London et al. 1996.
Brauneder, Wilhelm: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, in: Friedrich Jaeger (ed.): Enzyklopädie der Frühen Neuzeit, Stuttgart et al. 2007, vol. 5, col. 317–322.
Brice, Catherine: Le Vittoriano: Monumentalité publique et politique à Rome, Rome 1998 (Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 301).
Brockmann, Thomas: Das Bild des Hauses Habsburg in der dynastischen Historiographie um 1700, in: Christoph Kampmann et al. (eds.): Bourbon – Habsburg – Oranien: Konkurrierende Modelle im dynastischen Europa um 1700, Cologne et al. 2008, pp. 27–57.
Bronfen, Elisabeth et al. (eds.): Hybride Kulturen: Beiträge zur anglo-amerikanischen Multikulturalismusdebatte, Tübingen 1997 (Stauffenburg Discussion 4).
Bücher, Frank: Verargumentierte Geschichte: Exempla Romana im politischen Diskurs der späten römischen Republik, Stuttgart 2006 (HERMES Einzelschriften 96).
Burke, Peter: Ludwig XIV.: Die Inszenierung des Sonnenkönigs, Berlin 1993.
idem: Die Renaissance, Frankfurt am Main 1996.
Burtt, Shelley: Virtue Transformed: Political Argument in England, 1688–1740, Cambridge 1992.
Cagnetta, Mariella: Antichisti e impero fascista, Bari 1979.
Chihaia, Matei: Querelle des anciens et des modernes, in: Friedrich Jaeger (ed.): Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, Stuttgart et al. 2009, vol. 10, col. 588–591.
Christ, Karl: Geschichte der Römischen Kaiserzeit: Von Augustus bis zu Konstantin, 6th ed., Munich 2009.
Cipriani, Giovanni: Republican Ideology and Humanistic Tradition: The Florentine Example, in: Helmut G. Koenigsberger (ed.): Republiken und Republikanismus im Europa der Frühen Neuzeit, Munich 1988 (Schriften des Historischen Kollegs: Kolloquien 11).
Clark, Thomas: “let Cato’s virtues fire”: Cato Uticensis und die amerikanische Revolution, in: Ulrich Niggemann et al. (eds.): Antike als Modell in Nordamerika? Konstruktion und Verargumentierung 1763–1809, Munich 2011, pp. 203–217 (Historische Zeitschrift: Beihefte 55).
Claydon, Tony: William III and the Godly Revolution, Cambridge 1996.
Conticello, Baldassare: Scienze, cultura e cronaca a Pompei nella prima metà del nostro secolo, in: Riccardo Redi: Gli ultimi giorni di Pompei, Naples 1994, pp. 15–25.
Conze, Werner: Monarchie IV: Tradition und Modernität: Verstaatlichung (16.–18. Jahrhundert), in: Otto Brunner et al. (eds.): Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, Stuttgart 1978, vol. 4, pp. 168–189.
Dreitzel, Horst: Monarchiebegriffe in der Fürstengesellschaft: Semantik und Theorie der Einherrschaft in Deutschland von der Reformation bis zum Vormärz, Cologne et al. 1991.
Dreyer, Boris: Polybios, in: Hubert Cancik et al. (eds.): Der Neue Pauly, Leiden 2012, online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/der-neue-pauly/polybios-e1000940 [12.09.2013].
Dunsch, Boris: “Exemplo aliis esse debetis”: Cincinnatus in der antiken Literatur, in: Ulrich Niggemann et al. (eds.): Antike als Modell in Nordamerika? Konstruktion und Verargumentierung 1763–1809, Munich 2011, pp. 219–247 (Historische Zeitschrift: Beihefte 55).
Elm, Veit / Lottes, Günther / Senarclens, Vanessa de: Einleitung, in: idem (eds.): Die Antike der Moderne: Vom Umgang mit der Antike im Europa des 18. Jahrhunderts, Hannover 2009, pp. 7–10 (Aufklärung und Moderne 18).
Erben, Dietrich: Zum Verständnis des Modellbegriffs in der Kunstgeschichte: Das Beispiel des Invalidendoms in Paris und des Petersdoms in Rom, in: Christoph Kampmann et al. (eds.): Bourbon – Habsburg – Oranien: Konkurrierende Modelle im dynastischen Europa um 1700, Cologne et al. 2008, pp. 284–299.
Euben, J. Peter: Corruption, in: Terence Ball et al. (eds.): Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, Cambridge 1989, pp. 220–246.
Ferguson, Niall: Das verleugnete Imperium: Chancen und Risiken amerikanischer Macht, Berlin 2004.
Ferling, John E.: The First of Men: A Life of George Washington, Knoxville, TN 1988.
Fink, Zera S.: The Classical Republicans: An Essay in the Recovery of a Pattern of Thought in Seventeenth-Century England, 2nd ed., New York 1962.
Fried, Johannes: Imperium Romanum: Das römische Reich und der mittelalterliche Reichsgedanke, in: Millennium 3 (2006), pp. 1–42.
Fuhrmann, Manfred / Schmidt, Peter L.: Livius, T. röm. Geschichtsschreiber, 59 v. Chr.–17, in: Hubert Cancik et al. (eds.): Der Neue Pauly, Leiden 2012, online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/der-neue-pauly/livius-e708140 [12.09.2013].
Furtwangler, Albert: Cato at Valley Forge, in: Modern Language Quarterly 41 (1980), pp. 38–53.
Gabba, Emilio: Cesare e Augusto nell’opera storica di Guglielmo Ferrero, in: Karl Christ et al. (eds.): Römische Geschichte und Zeitgeschichte in der deutschen und italienischen Altertumswissenschaft während des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts I. Caesar und Augustus, Como 1989, pp. 277–298 (Biblioteca di Athenaeum 12).
idem: Cesare e Augusto nella storiografia italiana dell’ottocento, in: Karl Christ et al. (eds.): Römische Geschichte und Zeitgeschichte in der deutschen und italienischen Altertumswissenschaft während des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, vol. 1: Caesar und Augustus, Como 1989, pp. 49–70 (Biblioteca di Athenaeum 12).
idem: La “Storia di Roma” di Ruggero Bonghi, in: Karl Christ et al. (eds.): L’Antichità nell’Ottocento in Italia e Germania: Die Antike im 19. Jahrhundert in Italien und Deutschland, Bologna et al. 1988, pp. 179–198 (Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 2).
Garnett, George: Editor’s Introduction, in: idem (ed.): Stephanus Iunius Brutus, the Celt: Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos: or, concerning the legitimate power of a prince over the people, and of the people over a prince, Cambridge 1994, pp. xix–lxxvi.
Gatta, Bruno: Italia irredenta, Udine 2007 (Civiltà del Risorgimento 7).
Gavrilov, Aleksandr: Rußland (RWG), in: Hubert Cancik et al. (eds.): Der Neue Pauly, Leiden 2012, online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/der-neue-pauly/ruland-rwg-e15208430 [25.09.2012].
Giardina, Andrea / Vauchez, André: Il mito di Roma: Da Carlo Magno a Mussolini, Rome et al. 2008.
Goldie, Marc: The Revolution of 1689 and the Structure of Political Argument: An Essay and an Annotated Bibliography of Pamphlets in the Allegiance Controversy, in: Bulletin of Research in the Humanities 83 (1980), pp. 473–564.
Gollwitzer, Heinz: Geschichte des weltpolitischen Denkens, vol. 1: Vom Zeitalter der Entdeckungen bis zum Beginn des Imperialismus, Göttingen 1972.
Goloubeva, Maria: The Glorification of Emperor Leopold I in Image, Spectacle and Text, Mainz 2000 (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz: Abteilung für Universalgeschichte 184).
Gordon, Donald J.: Giannotti, Michelangelo and the Cult of Brutus, in: idem (ed.): Fritz Saxl 1890–1948: A Volume of Memorial Essays from his Friends in England, London et al. 1957, pp. 281–296.
Gribbin, William: Rollin’s Histories and American Republicanism, in: The William and Mary Quarterly: 3rd series 29 (1972), pp. 611–622.
Günther, Sven: Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? Römisches auf russischen Medaillen des 18. Jahrhunderts, in: MünzenRevue 44 (2012) issue 11, pp. 159–164.
Haidacher, Christoph: Maximilians Leben und Taten in 24 Bildern: Die Marmorreliefs am Grabdenkmal des Kaisers mit kunsthistorischen Beschreibungen der Reliefs von Dorothea Diemer, in: Christoph Haidacher et al. (eds.): Maximilian I.: Der Kenotaph in der Hofkirche zu Innsbruck, Wien 2004, pp. 81–87.
Hanses, Mathias: Antikenbilder im “Federalist” / “Anti-Federalist”, in: Ulrich Niggemann et al. (eds.): Antike als Modell in Nordamerika? Konstruktion und Verargumentierung 1763–1809, Munich 2011, pp. 83–110 (Historische Zeitschrift: Beihefte 55).
Hazard, Paul: Die Krise des europäischen Geistes 1680–1715, Hamburg 1939.
Hennequin, Jacques: Henri IV dans ses oraisons funèbres ou la naissance d’une légende, Paris 1977.
Herbert, Robert L.: David, Voltaire, Brutus and the French Revolution: An Essay in Art and Politics, London 1972.
Heun, Werner: Die Antike in den amerikanischen politischen Debatten in der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts, in: Ulrich Niggemann et al. (eds.): Antike als Modell in Nordamerika? Konstruktion und Verargumentierung 1763–1809, Munich 2011, pp. 65–83 (Historische Zeitschrift: Beihefte 55).
Heß, Gilbert (ed.): Graecomania: Der europäische Philhellenismus, Berlin et al. 2009 (Klassizistisch-Romantische Kunst(t)räume 1).
Hirschi, Caspar: Wettkampf der Nationen: Konstruktionen einer deutschen Ehrgemeinschaft an der Wende vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit, Göttingen 2005.
Hösch, Edgar: Die Idee der Translatio Imperii im Moskauer Russland, in: European History Online (EGO), published by the Institute of European History (IEG), Mainz 2010-12-03. URL: http://www.ieg-ego.eu/hoesche-2010-de URN: urn:nbn:de:0159-2010102586 [2013-09-12].
Hughes, Lindsey: Russian Culture in the Eighteenth Century, in: Dominic Lieven (ed.): The Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 2: Imperial Russia, 1689–1917, Cambridge 2006, pp. 67–91.
Hünemörder, Markus: The Society of the Cincinnati: Conspiracy and Distrust in Early America, New York et al. 2006 (European Studies in American History 2).
Hurlet, Frédéric (ed.): Les Empires: Antiquité et Moyen Âge: Analyse comparée, Rennes 2008.
Iser, Wolfgang: Der Lesevorgang, in: Rainer Warning (ed.): Rezeptionsästhetik: Theorie und Praxis, Munich 1994, pp. 253–276.
Jaeger, Friedrich, Neuzeit, in: idem (ed.): Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, Stuttgart et al. 2009, vol. 9, col. 158–181.
Jauß, Hans R.: Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft, in: Rainer Warning (ed.): Rezeptionsästhetik: Theorie und Praxis, Munich 1994, pp. 126–162.
Johnson, James W.: The Meaning of “Augustan”, in: Journal of the History of Ideas 19 (1958), pp. 507–522.
Kersting, Wolfgang: Niccolò Machiavelli, 2nd ed., Munich 1998.
Koenigsberger, Helmut G.: Dominium Regale or Dominium Politicum et Regale: Monarchies and Parliaments in Early Modern Europe, in: idem: Politicians and Virtuosi: Essays in Early Modern History, London 1986, pp. 1–25 (Studies Presented to the International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions 69).
Konstantinou, Evangelos: Graecomania and Philhellenism, in: European History Online (EGO), published by the Leibniz Institute of European History (IEG), Mainz 2012-11-23. URL: http://www.ieg-ego.eu/konstantinoue-2012-en URN: urn:nbn:de:0159-2012112304 [2013-09-12].
Kruse, Wolfgang: Die Französische Revolution, Paderborn 2005.
Kunst, Christiane: Imperium (RWG), in: Hubert Cancik et al. (eds.): Der Neue Pauly, Leiden 2012, online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/der-neue-pauly/imperium-rwg-e1406210 [12.09.2013].
La Penna, Antonio: La rivista Roma e l’Istituto di Studi Romani: Sul culto della romanità nel periodo facista, in: Beat Näf (ed.): Antike und Altertumswissenschaft in der Zeit von Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus: Kolloquium Universität Zürich 14.–17. Oktober 1998, Mandelbachtal et al. 2001, pp. 89–123 (Texts and Studies in the History of Humanities 1).
Leone, Rossella et al. (eds.): Fori Imperiali: Demolizioni e scavi: Fotografie 1924/1940, Rome 2007.
Longmore, Paul K.: The Invention of George Washington, Berkeley, CA 1988.
Losemann, Volker: Sparta (RWG), Hubert Cancik et al. (eds.): Der Neue Pauly, Leiden 2012, online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/der-neue-pauly/sparta-rwg-e15301520 [12.09.2013].
Mattern, Torsten: “noble beyond expression”: Die Antike als Vorbild der US-Architektur, in: Ulrich Niggemann et al. (eds.): Antike als Modell in Nordamerika? Konstruktion und Verargumentierung 1763–1809, Munich 2011, pp. 277–304 (Historische Zeitschrift: Beihefte 55).
Mattingly, David J.: Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire, Princeton, NJ et al. 2011.
Middell, Matthias: Kulturtransfer und Historische Komparatistik – Thesen zu ihrem Verhältnis, in: Comparativ 10 (2000), pp. 7–41.
Momigliano, Arnaldo et al. (eds.): Storia di Roma vol. II: L’impero mediterraneo I, La repubblica imperiale, Turin 1990.
Morley, Neville: The Roman Empire: Roots of Imperialism, London et al. 2010.
Morris, Ian et al. (eds.): The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium, Oxford 2009.
Moser, Florian: Extreme Metal als Medium für Vergangenheitsrepräsentationen: Altertumswissenschaftliche Sujets am Beispiel der Bands Melechesh und Nile, diploma thesis, Innsbruck 2009.
Mossé, Claude: L’Antiquité dans la Révolution française, Paris 1989.
Münch, Paul: Das Jahrhundert des Zwiespalts: Deutsche Geschichte 1600–1700, Stuttgart 1999.
Münch, Paul: Die “Obrigkeit im Vaterstand”: Zu Definition und Kritik des “Landesvaters” während der Frühen Neuzeit, in: Daphnis 11 (1982), pp. 15–140.
Münkler, Herfried: Imperien: Die Logik der Weltherrschaft – vom Alten Rom bis zu den Vereinigten Staaten, Bonn 2005.
idem: Machiavelli: Die Begründung des politischen Denkens der Neuzeit aus der Krise der Republik Florenz, Frankfurt am Main 1982.
idem: Staatsraison und politische Klugheitslehre, in: Iring Fetscher et al. (eds.): Pipers Handbuch der politischen Ideen, vol. 3: Neuzeit: Von den Konfessionskriegen bis zur Aufklärung, Munich 1985, pp. 23–72.
Mutschler, Fritz-Heiner et al. (eds.): Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared, Oxford 2008.
Newmark, Catherine: Neustoizismus, in: Friedrich Jaeger (ed.): Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, Stuttgart et al. 2009, vol. 9, col. 149–152.
Niggemann, Ulrich: Auf der Suche nach einem neuen Modell: James Harrington und die englische Republik, in: Christoph Kampmann et al. (eds.): Neue Modelle im Alten Europa: Traditionsbruch und Innovation als Herausforderung in der Frühen Neuzeit, Cologne et al. 2011, pp. 126–139.
idem: Von einer Oppositionsfigur zum staatstragenden Modell: Cincinnatus in der anglo-amerikanischen Publizistik des 18. Jahrhunderts, in: Ulrich Niggemann et al. (eds.): Antike als Modell in Nordamerika? Konstruktion und Verargumentierung 1763–1809, Munich 2011, pp. 249–273 (Historische Zeitschrift: Beihefte 55).
idem et al. (eds.): Antike als Modell in Nordamerika? Konstruktion und Verargumentierung 1763–1809, Munich 2011 (Historische Zeitschrift: Beihefte 55).
Niggemann, Ulrich / Ruffing, Kai: Einführung, in: Ulrich Niggemann et al. (eds.): Antike als Modell in Nordamerika? Konstruktion und Verargumentierung 1763–1809, Munich 2011, pp. 5–22 (Historische Zeitschrift: Beihefte 55).
Nippel, Wilfried: Mischverfassungstheorie und Verfassungsrealität in Antike und früher Neuzeit, Stuttgart 1980 (Geschichte und Gesellschaft: Bochumer Historische Studien 21).
Nolte, Hans-Heinrich: 1., 2., 3. Reich? – Zum Begriff Imperium, in: idem (ed.): Imperien: Eine vergleichende Studie, Schwalbach 2008, pp. 5–18.
Nonn, Ulrich: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, in: Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 9 (1982), pp. 129–142.
Oestreich, Gerhard: Antiker Geist und moderner Staat bei Justus Lipsius (1547–1606): Der Neustoizismus als politische Bewegung, ed. Nicolette Mout, Göttingen 1989 (Schriftenreihe der Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 38).
idem: Politischer Neustoizismus und Niederländische Bewegung in Europa und besonders in Brandenburg-Preußen, in: idem: Geist und Gestalt des frühmodernen Staates: Ausgewählte Aufsätze, Berlin 1969, pp. 101–156.
Ozouf, Mona: La fête révolutionnaire 1789–1799, Paris 1976.
Papenheim, Martin: Die Helden Roms und die Helden Frankreichs: Die Vaterlandsliebe in Antike und Französischer Revolution, in: Francia 21,2 (1994), pp. 241–244.
Parker, Harold T.: The Cult of Antiquity and the French Revolutionaries: A Study in the Development of the Revolutionary Spirit, New York, NY 1965.
Pawlitzki, Brigitte: Antik wird Mode: Antike im bürgerlichen Alltag des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts, Ruhpolding et al. 2009.
Pesman, Roslyn: Machiavelli, Piero Soderini, and the Republic of 1494–1512, in: John M. Najemy (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, New York 2010, pp. 48–63.
Pocock, John G.A.: Machiavelli and Rome: The Republic as Ideal and as History, in: John M. Najemy (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli, New York 2010, pp. 144–156.
idem: Machiavelli, Harrington and the English Political Ideologies in the Eighteenth Century, in: idem: Politics, Language and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History, London 1972, pp. 104–147.
idem: The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition, 2nd ed., Princeton, NJ 2003.
Polverini, Leandro: L’impero romano – antico e moderno, in: Beat Näf (ed.): Antike und Altertumswissenschaft in der Zeit von Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus: Kolloquium Universität Zürich 14.–17. Oktober 1998, Mandelbachtal et al. 2001, pp. 145–161 (Texts and Studies in the History of Humanities 1).
idem (ed.): Gaetano de Sanctis: La Guerra sociale, Florence 1976.
Posener, Alan: Imperium der Zukunft: Warum Europa Weltmacht werden muss, Munich 2007.
Raab, Felix: The English Face of Machiavelli: A Changing Interpretation 1500–1700, London et al. 1965.
Rahe, Paul A.: Against Throne and Altar: Machiavelli and Political Theory under the English Republic, New York 2008.
Riall, Lucy: Risorgimento: The History of Italy from Napoleon to the Nation State, Basingstoke et al. 2009.
Richard, Carl J.: The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment, Cambridge, MA 1996, pp. 85–122.
Rudolph, Harriet: Hercules saxonicus: Über die Attraktivität eines antiken Heros für die symbolische Absicherung einer fragilen Rangerhebung, in: Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 93 (2011), pp. 57–94.
Ruffing, Kai: Cato Uticensis und seine Wahrnehmung in der Antike, in: Ulrich Niggemann et al. (eds.): Antike als Modell in Nordamerika? Konstruktion und Verargumentierung 1763–1809, Munich 2011, pp. 175–202 (Historische Zeitschrift: Beihefte 55).
Schauerte, Thomas: Model Germania, in: European History Online (EGO), published by the Leibniz Institute of European History (IEG), Mainz 2012-10-19. URL: http://www.ieg-ego.eu/schauertet-2012-en URN: urn:nbn:de:0159-2012101808 [2013-09-12].
Scheidel, Walter (ed.): Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires, Oxford 2009.
Schilling, Lothar: Das Jahrhundert Ludwigs XIV.: Frankreich im Grand Siècle 1598–1715, Darmstadt 2010.
Schmale, Wolfgang: A Transcultural History of Europe – Perspectives from the History of Migration, in: European History Online (EGO), published by the Institute of European History (IEG), Mainz 2010-12-03. URL: http://www.ieg-ego.eu/schmalew-2010a-en URN: urn:nbn:de:0159-20101011119 [2013-09-12].
Schmitt, Arbogast: Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes (RWG), in: Hubert Cancik et al. (eds.): Der Neue Pauly, Leiden 2012, online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/der-neue-pauly/querelle-des-anciens-et-des-modernes-rwg-e15205340 [12.09.2013].
Schulze, Hans K.: Grundstrukturen der Verfassung im Mittelalter, vol. 3: Kaiser und Reich, Stuttgart et al. 1998.
idem: Monarchie III: Germanische, christliche und antike Wirkungsverbindung im Mittelalter, in: Otto Brunner et al. (eds.): Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, Stuttgart 1978, vol. 4, pp. 141–168.
Schumacher, Leonhard: Augusteische Propaganda und faschistische Rezeption, in: Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 40 (1988), pp. 307–330.
Schumann, Jutta: Die andere Sonne: Kaiserbild und Medienstrategien im Zeitalter Leopolds I., Berlin 2003 (Colloquia Augustana 17).
Schwager, Therese: Militärtheorie im Späthumanismus: Kulturtransfer taktischer und strategischer Theorien in den Niederlanden und Frankreich (1590–1660), Berlin 2012 (Frühe Neuzeit 160).
Schwartz, Barry: George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York 1987.
Schwoerer, Lois G.: “No Standing Armies!”: The Antiarmy Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England, Baltimore 1974.
Scriba, Friedemann: Augustus im Schwarzhemd? Die Mostra Augustea della Romanità in Rom 1937/38, Frankfurt am Main 1995 (Italien in Geschichte und Gegenwart 2).
Seeger, Ulrike: Herkules, Alexander und Aeneas: Präsentationsstrategien der Türkensieger Prinz Eugen, Ludwig Wilhelm von Baden-Baden und Max Emanuel von Bayern, in: Christoph Kampmann et al. (eds.): Bourbon – Habsburg – Oranien: Konkurrierende Modelle im dynastischen Europa um 1700, Cologne et al. 2008, pp. 182–195.
Skinner, Quentin: The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Cambridge et al. 1978, vol. 1–2.
idem: Liberty before Liberalism, Cambridge 1998.
Sot, Michel: Références et modèles romains dans l’Europe carolingienne: Une approche iconographique du prince, in: Jean-Philippe Genet (ed.): Rome et l’état moderne européen, Rome 2007 (Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome 377).
Stachowiak, Herbert: Allgemeine Modelltheorie, Wien et al. 1973.
idem: Konstruierte Wirklichkeit: Zur Einleitung, in: idem (ed.): Modelle – Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit, Munich 1983, pp. 10–16.
Stahl, Michael: Einheit in Vielfalt: Die Friedensordnung des Imperium Romanum als erste und letzte Einheit Europas, in: Roberto Cotteri (ed.): L’Europa multiculturale: Atti del XXIV convegno internazionale di studi italo-tedeschi, 11–13 maggio 1998, Merano 1998, pp. 686–692.
Steinmetz, Willibald: Neue Wege einer historischen Semantik des Politischen, in: idem (ed.): “Politik”: Situationen eines Wortgebrauchs im Europa der Neuzeit, Frankfurt et al. 2007, pp. 9–40 (Historische Politikforschung 14).
Strothmann, Jürgen: Herrscher (RWG), in: Hubert Cancik et al. (eds.): Der Neue Pauly, Leiden 2012, online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/der-neue-pauly/herrscher-rwg-e1403750 [12.09.2013].
Struve, Tilman: Monarchie I. 800–1500 (RWG), in: Hubert Cancik et al. (eds.): Der Neue Pauly, Leiden 2012, online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/der-neue-pauly/monarchie-rwg-e1504620 [12.09.2013].
Tauber, Christine: Manierismus und Herrschaftspraxis: Die Kunst der Politik und die Kunstpolitik am Hof von François Ier, Berlin 2009 (Studien aus dem Warburg-Haus 10).
Tischer, Anuschka: Mars oder Jupiter? Konkurrierende Legitimierungsstrategien im Kriegsfall, in: Christoph Kampmann et al. (eds.): Bourbon – Habsburg – Oranien: Konkurrierende Modelle im dynastischen Europa um 1700, Cologne et al. 2008, pp. 196–211.
Visser, Romke: Fascist Doctrine and the Cult of Romanità, in: Journal of Contemporary History 27 (1992), pp. 5–22.
Walther, Gerrit: Renaissance, in: Friedrich Jaeger (ed.): Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, Stuttgart et al. 2010, vol. 11, col. 1–18.
idem: Tacitismus, in: Friedrich Jaeger (ed.): Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, Stuttgart et al. 2011, vol. 13, col. 209–212.
Weinbrot, Howard D.: Augustus Caesar in “Augustan” England: The Decline of a Classical Norm, Princeton, NJ 1978.
Wendehorst, Stephan: Vier-Reiche-Lehre, in: Friedrich Jaeger (ed.): Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, Stuttgart et al. 2011, vol. 14, col. 324–328.
Wiesehöfer, Josef / Rollinger, Robert: Periodisierung und Epochenbewusstsein in achaimenidischer Zeit, in: Josef Wiesehöfer et al. (eds.): Periodisierung und Epochenbewusstsein im Alten Testament und seinem Umfeld, Stuttgart 2012, pp. 57–85 (Oriens et Occidens 20).
Wrede, Martin: Türkenkrieger, Türkensieger: Leopold I. und Ludwig XIV. als Retter und Ritter der Christenheit, in: Christoph Kampmann et al. (eds.): Bourbon – Habsburg – Oranien: Konkurrierende Modelle im dynastischen Europa um 1700, Cologne et al. 2008, pp. 149–165.
Wyke, Maria: Projecting the Past: Ancient Rome, Cinema and History, London et al. 1997.
Yates, Frances A.: Astraea: The Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth Century, London 1975.
Ziegler, Hendrik: Der Sonnenkönig und seine Feinde: Die Bildpropaganda Ludwigs XIV. in der Kritik, Petersberg 2010 (Studien zur internationalen Architektur- und Kunstgeschichte 79).
Zwierlein, Cornel et al. (eds.): Machiavellismus in Deutschland, Munich 2010 (Historische Zeitschrift: Beihefte 51).
- “For what else is all history but the praise of Rome?” (transl. by P.B., quoted from Hirschi, Wettkampf 2005, p. 195).
- An overview is available in Walther, Renaissance 2010, col. 1–5; Burke, Renaissance 1996.
- Cf. Jaeger, Neuzeit 2009, coll. 159f.; Münch, Jahrhundert 1999, p. 165.
- That models are not simple copies, but rather conscious constructions of reality, has been emphasised, for example, by Herbert Stachowiak (1921–2004) – although his theoretical interests caused him to place a stronger emphasis on their representative function (Stachowiak, Modelltheorie 1973, pp. 131ff., 287f.; idem, Wirklichkeit 1983). The exemplary character of models has been emphasized from the art historical point of view by Erben, Verständnis 2008, pp. 284f.
- Jauß, Literaturgeschichte 1994; Iser, Lesevorgang 1994.
- An overview of the current state of research is available in Schmale, Transcultural History 2010; a theoretical focus in Middell, Kulturtransfer 2000, pp. 17–23.
- On the concept of hybridity as it is discussed above all in studies on migration and cultural transfer, cf. Bronfen / Marius / Steffen, Hybride Kulturen 1997.
- Steinmetz, Neue Wege 2007, p. 16: “coexistence and conflict of various, contemporaneously available applications”, transl. by P.B.
- Thus more generally also Jauß, Literaturgeschichte 1994, pp. 127f. Cf. also Niggemann / Ruffing, Einführung 2011, pp. 9–14; the concept employed here is based on the considerations of Moser, Extreme Metal 2009, pp. 15–26 and 129–131.
- Cf. Elm / Lottes / de Senarclens, Einleitung 2009, pp. 9f. Classic on the querelle is Hazard, Krise 1939, pp. 56–80; brief summaries are also available in Chihaia, Querelle 2009, and Schmitt, Querelle 2012.
- On this point cf. Konstantinou, Graecomania 2012; and the contributions in Heß, Graecomania 2009.
- Wendehorst, Vier-Reiche-Lehre 2011; and Wiesehöfer / Rollinger, Periodisierung 2012, pp. 81–85.
- Sot, Références 2007.
- On the problem of this concept cf. Bernstein, Anfang 2011.
- Giardina / Vauchez, Mito 2008, pp. 12–52; Fried, Imperium 2006, pp. 15–41; and Kunst, Imperium 2012.
- Giardina / Vauchez, Mito 2008, p. 61; Schulze, Grundstrukturen 1998, pp. 54f.; on the title Reich, Nonn, Heiliges Römisches Reich 1982.
- Brauneder, Heiliges Römisches Reich, col. 317f.
- Schulze, Grundstrukturen 1998, p. 55.
- Haidacher, Maximilians Leben 2004, p. 87.
- On this point see Tauber, Manierismus 2009, pp. 268–276.
- With regard to the posthumous image of Henry IV, cf. Hennequin, Henri IV 1977; on the fabrication of a public image for Louis XIV, Burke, Ludwig XIV. 1993; and specifically on the reformulation of antiquity, ibidem, pp. 31–52, 86f.
- On the Augustan Age and its meaning, cf. Johnson, Meaning 1958; Weinbrot, Augustus Caesar 1978, pp. 5f. In general, Ayres, Classical Culture 1997.
- Cf. Bassin, Geographies 2006, pp. 45f. On the use of classicising architecture and classically inspired art under tsarina Catherine II (1729-1796), also Hughes, Russian Culture 2006, pp. 81–83; and on Roman borrowings in coins, Günther, Alter Wein 2012; in general also Gavrilov, Rußland 2012; and Hösch, Translatio Imperii 2010.
- Giardina / Vauchez, Mito 2008, pp. 70ff.
- Classic is Burckhardt, Kultur der Renaissance 1988, pp. 125–202.
- Cipriani, Republican Ideology 1988, pp. 20ff.
- Baron, Crisis 1967; Skinner, Foundations 1978, vol. 1, pp. 70f., 82f.
- Pesman, Machiavelli 2010; Pocock, Machiavelli and Rome 2010, p. 147. On the crisis of the Italian republics, Baron, Crisis 1967; Skinner, Foundations 1978, vol. 1, pp. 113–118, 152–155.
- Kersting, Machiavelli 1998, pp. 48–61.
- “Io non mi partirò mai, con lo esempio di qualunque cosa, da’ miei Romani” (“Like my Romans, my example in everything, I shall never leave”, transl. by P.B.). These are the words Machiavelli puts into the mouth of Fabrizio Colonna, the protagonist of his L’arte della guerra (Machiavelli, L’arte della guerra 1963, p. 501).
- Machiavelli, Discorsi 1963, vol. I.4, pp. 101ff. Cf. Münkler, Machiavelli 1982, pp. 378f.; Nippel, Mischverfassungstheorie 1980, p. 164.
- Machiavelli, Discorsi 1963, vol. I.2, pp. 95–100; and on Rome’s capacity for military expansion, ibidem, vol. I.6, pp. 105–109. Cf. Skinner, Foundations 1978, vol. 1, p. 157. On the rediscovery of Polybios’ Histories, Dreyer, Polybios 2012.
- On Polybios’ reception in Livy in particular, cf. Dreyer, Polybios 2012, section C.1; Fuhrmann / Schmidt, Livius 2012.
- Münkler, Machiavelli 1982, pp. 377–380.
- For Machiavelli’s reception in Germany in particular, cf. also the contributions in Zwierlein / Meyer, Machiavellismus 2010.
- Cf. Bermbach, Widerstandsrecht 1985, pp. 109f.; Nippel, Mischverfassungstheorie 1980, pp. 161f.; Skinner, Foundations 1978, vol. 2, pp. 202ff., 214, 217–224, 230–235; Losemann, Sparta 2012.
- Brutus, Vindiciae 1689 , pp. 185–189.
- The likely authors are Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549–1623) and Hubert Languet (1518–1581); cf. Garnett, Introduction 1994, pp. lv–lxxvi.
- As far as I know, there is no modern edition of the original Latin text. A German translation is available in Dennert, Beza 1968, pp. 61–202.
- Cf. Gordon, Giannotti 1957, pp. 283–287.
- Henry II of France, Sendschrifften der Königlichen Maiestat zu Franckreich 1552.
- Schauerte, Model Germania 2012.
- Cf. Dreitzel, Monarchiebegriffe 1991, vol. 1, pp. 57ff.; Struve, Monarchie 2012, section I.C.; and on the 13th-century reception of ancient theories of forms of government, Schulze, Monarchie 1978, pp. 165f.
- Conze, Monarchie 1978, p. 170.
- Bodin, Six livres 1593, pp. 320f. Cf. Conze, Monarchie 1978, p. 170.
- Münch, Jahrhundert 1999, pp. 67–71, 102ff.; idem, Obrigkeit 1982; Conze, Monarchie 1978, pp. 175f.
- Cf., e.g., Brockmann, Bild des Hauses Habsburg 2008, p. 31.
- Cf., e.g., Seeger, Herkules 2008; Burke, Ludwig XIV. 1993, pp. 101f.; and in general Strothmann, Herrscher 2012. Thanks to the querelle des anciens et des modernes, contemporary rulers were increasingly able to portray antiquity as superior; cf. Burke, Ludwig XIV. 1993, pp. 154f. and 159f.
- Tischer, Mars 2008; Seeger, Herkules 2008; Rudolph, Hercules 2011; Goloubeva, Glorification 2000, pp. 132, 138f., 145; Schumann, Sonne 2003, pp. 267f., 291, 334, 381; Wrede, Türkenkrieger 2008, p. 155.
- This was especially the case during the first two decades of his rule; cf. Burke, Ludwig XIV. 1993, pp. 39–46; Ziegler, Sonnenkönig 2010, pp. 44–48; Schilling, Jahrhundert 2010, pp. 127f.
- Yates, Astraea 1975. In Greek mythology, Astraea was a daughter of Zeus and the personification of justice and innocence. She left mankind during the Iron Age on account of its depravity, becoming the constellation Virgo. Should she ever return to mankind, it would signal the return of the Golden Age.
- Münkler, Staatsraison 1985, pp. 59ff.; Walther, Tacitismus 2011.
- A classic is Oestreich, Antiker Geist 1989; idem, Politischer Neustoizismus 1969. On Neostoicism cf. also Münkler, Staatsraison 1985, pp. 61–67; Schwager, Militärtheorie 2012, pp. 116–142; and the summary in Newmark, Neustoizismus 2009.
- Comprehensive treatment is now available in Schwager, Militärtheorie 2012, pp. 91–289; and on the history of the scholarship, pp. 4–52.
- Cf. Koenigsberger, Dominium Regale 1986.
- References to a few examples from the Tudor era, which admittedly were of little moment in the context of the Civil War, are mentioned by Nippel, Mischverfassungstheorie 1980, pp. 177–210.
- Nippel, Mischverfassungstheorie 1980, pp. 255f. On the transition to a political language based on Polybios, cf. Pocock, Machiavellian Moment 2003, pp. 354f. and 361–371.
- Harrington, Oceana 2003, p. 10. Cf. also Fink, Classical Republicans 1962, p. 53; Raab, English Face 1965, pp. 187–192; Pocock, Machiavellian Moment 2003, pp. 383–400; idem, Machiavelli 1972, pp. 104–147.
- Cf. Pocock, Machiavellian Moment 2003, pp. 380–400; Schwoerer, Standing Armies 1974; Skinner, Liberty 1998, pp. 73f.
- An exception is Nedham, Excellencie 1767 , p. xi. Cf. Pocock, Machiavellian Moment 2003, p. 382.
- On the reception of Machiavelli in England, cf. Raab, English Face 1965; Pocock, Machiavellian Moment 2003; Rahe, Against Throne and Altar 2008.
- Edited in Robbins, Republican Tracts 1969.
- Cf. especially Claydon, William III 1996; and Goldie, Revolution 1980.
- They appeared first in the London Journal, then in the British Journal, and were later published as a collection under the title Cato’s Letters: Trenchard / Gordon, Cato’s Letters 1995.
- Cf. Burtt, Virtue 1992; Pocock, Machiavellian Moment 2003, pp. 462–505; and on the concept of corruption Euben, Corruption 1989.
- Addison, Cato 2004.
- Bolingbroke, Political Writings 1997, pp. 128f.
- ibidem, pp. 129ff. On Harrington cf. Niggemann, Auf der Suche 2011.
- For a balanced approach to antiquity, e.g. in the Federalist Papers, cf. Hanses, Antikenbilder 2011; and more generally Heun, Antike 2011.
- Rollin, Roman History 1739–1750. On the reception of this work (originally published in French) in England and America, cf. Gribbin, Histories 1972; Richard, Founders 1996, pp. 54f. On Livy’s importance for early modern republicanism in general, Skinner, Liberty 1998, pp. 44ff.
- Hanses, Antikebilder 2011, pp. 87f.
- Mossé, L’Antiquité 1989, pp. 40–61.
- Cf. Papenheim, Helden 1994; Ozouf, Fête 1976, pp. 329–332.
- Desmoulins, Le Vieux Cordelier 1837.
- Babeuf, Textes 1965, pp. 204–219.
- Parker, Cult 1965, pp. 16–20.
- On 18 Brumaire, cf. Kruse, Französische Revolution 2005, pp. 45f.
- Machiavelli, Discorsi 1963, vol. I.17, pp. 137ff.
- Bolingbroke, Political Writings 1997, pp. 129ff., 167f.
- Voltaire, Brutus 1998. Cf. also the introduction by John Renwick in ibid., pp. 77–113.
- On the painting, its creation and influence, cf. Herbert, David 1972.
- Addison, Cato 2004.
- On Washington’s appreciation of it, cf. Longmore, Invention 1988, pp. 173f.; Schwartz, Washington 1987, p. 130; Ferling, First of Men 1988, p. 6; and on the production, Furtwangler, Cato 1980. A general work on Cato in the American Revolution is Clark, Cato 2011; as well as Bailyn, Origins 1977, p. 44.
- Niggemann, Oppositionsfigur 2011; Hünemörder, Society of the Cincinnati 2006. On the reception of Cincinnatus in France, cf. Parker, Cult 1965, pp. 24, 144 and 147.
- Cf. Ruffing, Cato Uticensis 2011; and Dunsch, Exemplo aliis esse debetis 2011.
- Skinner, Liberty 1998.
- On the discourses related to ancient virtue, see Bücher, Geschichte 2006; and with reference to the French Revolution, Parker, Cult 1965, pp. 23ff.
- Cf., e.g., Mattern, “noble beyond expression” 2011. For art, reference may be made to Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717–1768), in clothing and furniture, to the Empire style in France and then elsewhere; cf., e.g., Pawlitzki, Antik wird Mode 2009.
- Thus also Ozouf, Fêtes 1976, pp. 332f.
- “Rome is everywhere the conscious or implicit premise of our observation and our thinking; if in basic intellectual matters we now no longer belong to an individual people or country but rather to Western civilisation, it is a consequence of the fact that the world was once Roman, universal, and that this ancient global civilisation has flowed into our own. That East and West belong together, that they comprise a single humanity – the world owes this notion to Rome and its empire.” (transl. by P.B., cf. Burckhardt, Fragmente 1957, pp. 13f.)
- Poesche / Goepp, New Rome 1853, p. 9: “If we search the history of the past for a parallel to the present aspect of political relations, we find it in the time when Greece had just passed the meridian of her glory, when Macedon had awakened to a consciousness of her powers, and the Roman republic was mewing her wings for a flight destined to outstrip them both.”
- Thus the apt subtitle of volume II.1 of the Storia di Roma: Momigliano / Schiavone, Storia 1990. On the positions elaborated by Poesche and Goepp, cf. Gollwitzer, Geschichte 1972, pp. 489ff.
- Cf. the contributions in Niggemann / Ruffing, Antike 2011.
- Cf. Günther, Alter Wein 2012, pp. 159f.
- Cf. Wyke, Projecting the Past 1997, pp. 15ff.
- Cf. Ferguson, Imperium 2004. Cf. also Morley, Empire 2010, pp. 6ff. The current discussion in the field of history about the historical category of empire, which in Germany has received its essential impulse from the publication of Herfried Münkler’s (b. 1951) monograph, must be seen against this backdrop in particular (cf. Münkler, Imperien 2005; Nolte, Reich 2008; Mutschler / Mittag, Conceiving the Empire 2008; Morris / Scheidel, Dynamics 2009; Scheidel, Rome 2009; Hurlet, Empires 2008; Bang / Bayly, Empires 2011.
- Cf. Wyke, Projecting the Past 1997, pp. 131–137.
- Cf. Christ, Geschichte 2009, pp. 10f.
- Thus, e.g., Alföldy, Imperium 1999, p. 48: “Rom vollbrachte die historische Leistung, einen Vielvölkerstaat zu errichten, in dem Völker, die nicht nur mit den Römern, sondern auch untereinander viele Kriege ausgetragen hatten, jahrhundertelang miteinander in Frieden lebten. Sie wurden ‘Römer’, ohne ihr eigenes Profil zu verlieren; ihre eigenen Leistungen bereicherten das Imperium. Zu verdanken war Roms Erfolg nicht nur der wirtschaftlichen ‘Globalisierung’, sondern vor allem auch der politischen Integration der einzelnen Völker und Regionen in den Römerstaat und der Überlegenheit seines geistigen Fundaments, der griechisch-römischen Kultur. Ein in der Geschichte zuvor nie dagewesenes und auch bis heute nicht wiederholtes Experiment war gelungen.” (“Rome achieved the historical feat of creating a multiethnic state in which for centuries peoples coexisted peacefully who had waged numerous wars not only with the Romans but also with each other. They became ‘Romans’ without losing their own identity; their own accomplishments enriched the empire. Rome’s success was due not only to economic ‘globalisation’ but even more so to the political integration of individual peoples and regions into the Roman state as well as to the superiority of its intellectual foundation, Graeco-Roman culture. An experiment succeeded that had never before been seen in history, nor has it been seen since.” (transl. by P.B.) – Cf. also Stahl, Einheit 1998.
- Cf. Posener, Imperium 2007.
- Cf. Morley, Empire 2010, p. 9, with the above quotation.
- Cf. Mattingly, Imperialism 2011, p. 10.
- On this point cf. Riall, Risorgimento 2009, pp. 149f. and 155; as well as Bondanella, Eternal City 1987, pp. 158–165.
- Cf. Polverini, Gaetano de Sanctis 1976, pp. XXXVff.; Gabba, Storia di Roma 1988, p. 181; Gabba, Cesare e Augusto nella storiografia 1989, esp. pp. 51f.; Gabba, Cesare e Augusto nell’opera 1989; Bondanella, Eternal City 1987, pp. 165f.; Wyke, Projecting the Past 1997, p. 18; Bandelli, Mito 2001, pp. 125–134; Giardina / Vauchez, Mito 2008, pp. 181–185.
- On the history of this period, cf. Bosworth, Italy 1983, pp. 99–120; Bosworth, Italy 1996, pp. 22–29 and 103f.
- Cf. Visser, Fascist Doctrine 1992, pp. 7f. Besides, cf. Giardina / Vauchez, Mito 2008, pp. 196–199.
- “Each one of you ought to stand on his own two robust feet and repeat with his head held high the words of Rome, the words of the legionaries: ‘there is no better place for us to stay.'” (transl. by P.B.) Cf. the monograph by Gatta, which has its own irredentist tendencies and is problematic as a piece of scholarship: Gatta, Italia 2007, S. 223–249, especially p. 235 with D’Annunzio’s quotation.
- On this point cf. Schumacher, Propaganda 1988; Visser, Fascist Doctrine 1992; Scriba, Augustus 1995. On the thematic complex of fascism and antiquity, especially the reference to Rome, cf. Cagnetta, Antichisti 1979; Bondanella, Eternal City 1987, pp. 172–206; Wyke, Projecting the Past 1997, pp. 20ff.; Bandelli, Mito 2001, pp. 134–144; La Penna, Rivista 2001; Polverini, L’impero 2001.
- Cf. Bertelli, Piazza Venezia 1997, pp. 191f.; Leone / Margiotta, Fori 2007; Giardina / Vauchez, Mito 2008, pp. 212–272. On the excavations in Pompeii, cf. Conticello, Scienze 1994, pp. 22ff. – Cf. also Brice, Vittoriano 1998, pp. 330–364.
- The poet’s romanità is still emphasised on the website of the Quirinale.