How the Romans conquered and built their world, and why this matters - N. Terrenato 2019. The Early Roman Expansion into Italy: Elite Negotiations and Family Agendas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xx + 327, maps 20, figs. 21. ISBN 978-1-108-42267-3. - P. J. E. Davies 2017. Architecture and Politics in Republican Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xii + 366, maps 18, color ills. 200, b/w 45. ISBN 978-1-108-09431-4.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Dominik Maschek
Classics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Rosillo-López

Populares and optimates are two political denominations, especially used in ancient Roman politics during the 1st century bce during the Late Roman Republic (although the sources apply them sometimes to the 2nd century bce). The basis of such differentiation is Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 bce), Pro Sestio 96, which defined populares and optimates as two distinct political categories. Popularis (adjective, singular of the plural populares in Latin) is an ambiguous term: it could connote “pleasing to the people” or “in the interest of the people”; the term to define the opposite of the senatorial majority, a combination of a certain political strategy and a certain type of political eloquence (eloquentia popularis) or, finally, a certain political tradition. Many politicians termed populares were tribunes of the plebs and some of them died or were murdered in violent confrontations with the Senate. The term optimates, or boni (a similar term, not exactly a synonym), rarely occur in the sources. People ascribed to this group in modern scholarship are those who believed in senatorial authority and/or those supporting the interests of the wealthy. However, identification can be also problematic. Some of the main sources are Cicero, Pro Sestio 96 (takes a negative view; main locus of the confrontation optimates-populares); Sallust, Bellum Catilinae 20; Bellum Iugurthinum 31 (Memmius’s speech) and 85 (Marius’s speech); Historiae 1.55 (Lepidus’s speech) and 3.48 (Macer’s speech). Sallust’s Epistulae ad Caesarem have been considered to be both fake and authentic (latest edition Antonio Duplá, Guillermo Fatás, and Francisco Pina Polo, Rem publicam restituere: una propuesta popularis para la crisis republicana: las Epistulae ad Caesarem de Salustio [Zaragoza, Spain: Departamento de ciencias de la antigüedad Universidad de Zaragoza, 1994] considers them authentic). Best introductions in English: Zvi Yavetz, Plebs and princeps (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1988); Nicola Mackie, Popularis ideology and popular politics at Rome in the first century B. C. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 135 (1992): 49–73; Margaret Robb, Beyond « populares » and « optimates »: political language in the late Republic (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2010); Antonio Duplá, “Consules populares,” in Consuls and res publica: holding high office in the Roman Republic, edited by Hans Beck, Antonio Duplá, Martin Jehne and Francisco Pina Polo (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 279–298; Claudia Tiersch, “Political Communication in the Late Roman Republic: Semantic Battles between Optimates and Populares?” in Institutions and Ideology in Republican Rome. Speech, Audience and Decision, edited by H. van der Blom, C. Gray and C. Steel (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 35–68.


2006 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANCO DE ANGELIS

On his recent retirement from the chair of classical archaeology in Cambridge University, Anthony Snodgrass reflected on the state of the subject, wondering whether a paradigm shift has occurred. Snodgrass assesses various matters, including, for our purposes, how archaeological approaches to ancient literary sources have changed. His comments deserve quotation in full:…Classical archaeology is often stigmatized, by its many critics, as being ‘text-driven’ … [in] that the subject takes its orientation from, and adapts its whole narrative to, the lead given by the literary sources. Thus the archaeology of Roman Britain has been built around Tacitus' narrative of conquest; the study of Greek art around the text of the Elder Pliny; the archaeology of fifth-century Athens around the narratives supplied by Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon; that of Republican Rome similarly around those of Livy and Diodorus; that of Sicily again around Thucydides; and most notoriously, that of Aegean prehistory and protohistory around Homer…. But there is a deeper level still. Traditional Classical archaeology is stated…to have directed its energies at those aspects of the ancient world on which the written sources, taken as a whole, throw light. Thus, on urban but not on rural life; on public and civic, but not on domestic activity; on periods seen as historically important, but not on the obscurer ones; on the permanent physical manifestations of religion, but not on the temporary ones – sacrifice, patterns of dedication, ritual meals, pilgrimage; on the artefacts interred in burials, but not on burial itself; on the historically prominent states – in Greece, Athens and Sparta – but not on what has recently been called ‘the Third Greece’…


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document