Dissertation:
Regime Agnosticism: Tacitus on the Nature of Republics and the Growth of Savagery
Does regime type matter for politics? How should republicans in particular think about regime type, especially given the legacy of the Roman mixed regime? While we might normally think of regime type as being determinative of politics, I argue that this is less true than it appears at first glance. Through a reading of the Roman historian Tacitus, I show that republicanism is best understood as a politics of virtue and vice rather than a prescribed set of constitutional arrangements.
While Tacitus has not been read in this way before, attending to his use of rhetorical strategies allows us to see that he offers an oblique criticism of the Roman principate grounded in the emperors’ character, not any inherent problem with the rule of one. Using Stoic themes, he condemns the emperors as vicious, cruel, and a corrupting influence on Roman political life. Since his criticism is non-institutional, I read Tacitus as a regime agnostic republican. I call this interpretation “regime agnostic” because on this view behaviors and choices are the basic elements of politics, and certain choices – virtues – are the constitutive element of specifically republican politics.
Tacitus is therefore a much more interesting political thinker than he has been given credit for. Contemporary republicans, especially the “neo-Romans,” read him as a forerunner to their own project of reimagining the mixed regime. Yet Tacitus’s regime agnostic republicanism raises pointed questions about the neo-Roman understanding of republicanism. Beyond the historical issues, it is too legalistic and so it misunderstands the nature of liberty and domination. Tacitus helps us to cut through these overly formal and structural definitions of liberty and domination to see them for what they are – behaviors. I argue that this raises a continuity between ancient republicanism and a certain strand of liberal thought, though Tacitus does more than merely anticipate this. He offers theoretical resources for understanding the efficacy of individual action (and the importance of theorizing this), the nature of cruelty as a political problem, the need for virtue in both liberal and democratic societies, and the stakes of these concepts for liberal aspirations.
Regime Agnosticism: Tacitus on the Nature of Republics and the Growth of Savagery
Does regime type matter for politics? How should republicans in particular think about regime type, especially given the legacy of the Roman mixed regime? While we might normally think of regime type as being determinative of politics, I argue that this is less true than it appears at first glance. Through a reading of the Roman historian Tacitus, I show that republicanism is best understood as a politics of virtue and vice rather than a prescribed set of constitutional arrangements.
While Tacitus has not been read in this way before, attending to his use of rhetorical strategies allows us to see that he offers an oblique criticism of the Roman principate grounded in the emperors’ character, not any inherent problem with the rule of one. Using Stoic themes, he condemns the emperors as vicious, cruel, and a corrupting influence on Roman political life. Since his criticism is non-institutional, I read Tacitus as a regime agnostic republican. I call this interpretation “regime agnostic” because on this view behaviors and choices are the basic elements of politics, and certain choices – virtues – are the constitutive element of specifically republican politics.
Tacitus is therefore a much more interesting political thinker than he has been given credit for. Contemporary republicans, especially the “neo-Romans,” read him as a forerunner to their own project of reimagining the mixed regime. Yet Tacitus’s regime agnostic republicanism raises pointed questions about the neo-Roman understanding of republicanism. Beyond the historical issues, it is too legalistic and so it misunderstands the nature of liberty and domination. Tacitus helps us to cut through these overly formal and structural definitions of liberty and domination to see them for what they are – behaviors. I argue that this raises a continuity between ancient republicanism and a certain strand of liberal thought, though Tacitus does more than merely anticipate this. He offers theoretical resources for understanding the efficacy of individual action (and the importance of theorizing this), the nature of cruelty as a political problem, the need for virtue in both liberal and democratic societies, and the stakes of these concepts for liberal aspirations.
Publications:
"Dostoyevsky and the Defense of Compassion" (Political Research Quarterly)
Is cruelty a problem for politics? For Hannah Arendt, the answer was no. On her view, a compassionate response towards persons suffering cruelty is best avoided because compassion can only become political by transforming incommunicable individual pain into abstract suffering. At crucial moments in her argument in On Revolution, she cites the great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky as an ally. However, I argue that Arendt misrepresents Dostoyevsky. Through a critical examination of his mature novels, I show how suffering is communicable and compassion is political for Dostoyevsky. By attending to this theme in his writings, I argue that Dostoyevsky sheds light on the problem of cruelty in a way that Arendt’s framework cannot. This suggests that he is more at home with theorists like Judith Shklar who “put cruelty first” than with Arendt, although in favoring compassion I argue that he departs from Shklar’s liberalism of fear and offers a more constructive, hopeful political vision.
"Servile Stories and Contested Histories: Empire, Memory, and Criticism in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita" (Polis)
Scholars often turn to Livy’s famous digression on Aulus Cossus and the spolia opima (4.17-20) to shed light on his larger political inclinations. These readings generally view Livy as either an Augustan (or at least a patriotic Roman) or an apolitical skeptic. Yet neither view, I argue, fully explains the Cossus affair. What is needed is an interpretation that recognizes the political nature of the Cossus digression and its skepticism toward Augustus. Reading the digression this way shows that Livy raises fundamental and critical political questions about Augustus’s regime and his claim to rule. In doing so, Livy offers theoretical insight into nature of despotism, namely, that it seeks to control narratives of the past just as much as it aims for political domination.
"Dostoyevsky and the Defense of Compassion" (Political Research Quarterly)
Is cruelty a problem for politics? For Hannah Arendt, the answer was no. On her view, a compassionate response towards persons suffering cruelty is best avoided because compassion can only become political by transforming incommunicable individual pain into abstract suffering. At crucial moments in her argument in On Revolution, she cites the great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky as an ally. However, I argue that Arendt misrepresents Dostoyevsky. Through a critical examination of his mature novels, I show how suffering is communicable and compassion is political for Dostoyevsky. By attending to this theme in his writings, I argue that Dostoyevsky sheds light on the problem of cruelty in a way that Arendt’s framework cannot. This suggests that he is more at home with theorists like Judith Shklar who “put cruelty first” than with Arendt, although in favoring compassion I argue that he departs from Shklar’s liberalism of fear and offers a more constructive, hopeful political vision.
"Servile Stories and Contested Histories: Empire, Memory, and Criticism in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita" (Polis)
Scholars often turn to Livy’s famous digression on Aulus Cossus and the spolia opima (4.17-20) to shed light on his larger political inclinations. These readings generally view Livy as either an Augustan (or at least a patriotic Roman) or an apolitical skeptic. Yet neither view, I argue, fully explains the Cossus affair. What is needed is an interpretation that recognizes the political nature of the Cossus digression and its skepticism toward Augustus. Reading the digression this way shows that Livy raises fundamental and critical political questions about Augustus’s regime and his claim to rule. In doing so, Livy offers theoretical insight into nature of despotism, namely, that it seeks to control narratives of the past just as much as it aims for political domination.
Working Papers:
"A Mixed Regime Can Hardly Endure: Tacitus’s Republicanism of Virtue"
The Roman historian Tacitus offers the most important account of the early Roman empire. His politics, however, have been variously interpreted. In this article, I turn to Tacitus’s Stoic-inflected understanding of justice and moderation, particularly in the Annales, to shed light on his political views. By connecting the immoderation of the emperors Tiberius and Nero to their despotic acts, Tacitus articulates a republican criticism of the emperors that turns on imperial vice rather than on any constitutional complaint about monarchy. I place this argument into conversation with republican theorists who regard Tacitus as a republican but emphasize a constitutional reading of his works. I conclude by arguing that Tacitus’s virtue-oriented republicanism offers greater insight into the nature of domination of liberty.
"A Mixed Regime Can Hardly Endure: Tacitus’s Republicanism of Virtue"
The Roman historian Tacitus offers the most important account of the early Roman empire. His politics, however, have been variously interpreted. In this article, I turn to Tacitus’s Stoic-inflected understanding of justice and moderation, particularly in the Annales, to shed light on his political views. By connecting the immoderation of the emperors Tiberius and Nero to their despotic acts, Tacitus articulates a republican criticism of the emperors that turns on imperial vice rather than on any constitutional complaint about monarchy. I place this argument into conversation with republican theorists who regard Tacitus as a republican but emphasize a constitutional reading of his works. I conclude by arguing that Tacitus’s virtue-oriented republicanism offers greater insight into the nature of domination of liberty.
Works in Progress:
"Words Do Not Bestow Valor': Populism in Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae and Bellum Iugurthinum"
This paper turns to the Roman historian Sallust’s War with Catiline and War with Jugurtha for insight into the nature of populism. While the concept of populism is widely contested, Sallust’s works, treating the increasing destabilization and internal conflict of Roman politics in the late 2nd and 1st centuries BCE and featuring characters who engage in demagogic rhetoric and antagonistic class politics, bear critical similarities to the phenomena that contemporary scholars of populism analyze. Specifically, Sallust’s characters Catiline and Gaius Marius engage in (highly rhetorical) deprecations of speech in favor of deeds. While some scholars of populism have identified such rhetorical practices as common among populists, I argue for the more rigorous position that the rhetorical deprecation of speech in favor of action should be held as a defining feature of populism. This practice is closely linked to other populist phenomena, which allows us to identify a certain manifestation of populism in the ancient world despite the significantly different assumptions underlying ancient and modern politics.
I am happy to email drafts and discuss them upon request.
"Words Do Not Bestow Valor': Populism in Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae and Bellum Iugurthinum"
This paper turns to the Roman historian Sallust’s War with Catiline and War with Jugurtha for insight into the nature of populism. While the concept of populism is widely contested, Sallust’s works, treating the increasing destabilization and internal conflict of Roman politics in the late 2nd and 1st centuries BCE and featuring characters who engage in demagogic rhetoric and antagonistic class politics, bear critical similarities to the phenomena that contemporary scholars of populism analyze. Specifically, Sallust’s characters Catiline and Gaius Marius engage in (highly rhetorical) deprecations of speech in favor of deeds. While some scholars of populism have identified such rhetorical practices as common among populists, I argue for the more rigorous position that the rhetorical deprecation of speech in favor of action should be held as a defining feature of populism. This practice is closely linked to other populist phenomena, which allows us to identify a certain manifestation of populism in the ancient world despite the significantly different assumptions underlying ancient and modern politics.
I am happy to email drafts and discuss them upon request.
