Rereading Republicans: Roman history and contemporary interpretation

This dissertation is a critical treatment of the historical interpretations of Roman political thought advanced by contemporary republican political theorists, including Quentin Skinner, Philip Pettit, and Maurizio Viroli. Their scholarship has its origins in the so-called Republican Revision in intellectual historiography and political theory. As was the case with Republican Revisionist scholars, these theorists challenge liberal political theorists by developing new and interesting normative accounts of liberty, the common good, and civic virtue rooted in Roman political thought.; I challenge the interpretations of Roman political thought (based on the Cambridge school or authorial intent methodology) upon which these theorists rely. In chapters centering on Cicero, Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus, I argue that they misread Roman sources. Because they misread these sources, the historical arguments contemporary republican political theorists make are in tension between thicker communitarian accounts and thinner liberal accounts. Moreover, contemporary republicans neglect the degree to which the political thought of the Roman Republic was rhetorically and ideologically competitive, and the ways in which Roman republicanism served to reinforce paternalism, hierarchy, and to counter pluralism.; I argue that rereading Roman republican writers helps us to understand some of the conceptual and historical difficulties associated with contemporary republican political theory. It also has implications for our understanding of how to approach and interpret historical works, as well as the challenges involved in developing normative theories based upon them. I suggest that taking my arguments will help to clarify and enrich debates between republican political theorists and non-republican political theorists.