On 26 March 20091, I introduced in the U.S. Senate a piece of legislation designed to establish a National Criminal Justice Commission. The Presidential level blue-ribbon commission would be charge...

The dominant feature of eighteenth-century aesthetic is the inquiry and discussion concerning the theory of “taste.” There is material or bibliographical evidence of this in the rapid sequence of treatises, essays, inquiries, observations, and controversies on this subject, extending from the close of the seventeenth to the last years of the eighteenth century, and bearing the names, in France, of Dacier, Bellegarde, Bouhours, Rollin, Seran de la Tour, Trublet, Formey, Bitaubé, Marmontel, and, still more eminent, of Montesquieu, Voltaire, d’Alembert; in (...) England, of Addison, Hume, Gerard, Home, Burke, Priestley, Blair, Beattie, Percival, Reid, Alison; in Italy, of Muratori, Calepio, Pagano, Corniani; in Germany, of Thomasius, J. U. König, Bodmer, A. von Schlegel, Wegelin, Heyne, Herz, Eberhard, J. C. König, and, by German influence in Hungary, Szardahely; and, greatest of all, Immanuel Kant, whose Critique of Judgment consists in the main of a critique of the aesthetic judgment of taste. (shrink)

This book taps the best American thinkers to answer the essential American question: How do we sustain our experiment in government of, by, and for the people? Authored by an extraordinary and politically diverse roster of public officials, scholars, and educators, these chapters describe our nation's civic education problem, assess its causes, offer an agenda for reform, and explain the high stakes at risk if we fail.

Through an analysis of the vocabulary used by Latin and Greek authors to describe the decision process at work in the Roman Senate, key notions of the political culture shared by the elite of the time can be investigated. Among them, the sententia reveals a central element, shedding light upon the function of the senator and the Senate itself from an anthropological point of view, instead of the usual institutional one.

This essay analyzes Senator Bill Frist's 2001 address to the American Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The author argues that the address represents an attempt to reframe physicians' political identity to authorize more active participation by them. Frist authorizes and demands such participation through the construction of a medical jeremiad. He argues that American physicians must have greater involvement to preserve the health of the body politic and to reassert physician control over the biomedical system. Although Frist's arguments are built on (...) an apparently democratic form of address, his jeremiad illustrates aristocratic possibilities in medico-political rhetoric. (shrink)

This paper seeks to dispel the notion that Mark Antony and the Senate indulged in a cat-and-mouse game over the control of Caesar's archives in the weeks immediately following the Ides of March. At stake was whether unpublished documents drawn up by Caesar before his death should be ratified and put into force. The belief that the Senate and Antony contended over this issue and that Antony got the upper hand rests primarily on what I hope to show (...) is a misinterpretation of two key passages in the Philippics. Moreover, since the standard interpretation of these two passages appears to be supported by Dio's account of how Antony cajoled the Senate into permitting him a freer hand to review and publish documents found in Caesar's archives, it will be necessary to have a closer look at Dio's probable sources for this particular section of his history. (shrink)

The origins and nature of the judicial role of the senate in cases which under the republic were the business of the permanent quaestiones have been the subject of long debate, and a satisfactory explanation has yet to be found for the change that had undoubtedly taken place by the reign of Tiberius. The discovery and publication of the senatorial decree which concluded the investigation into the charge brought in A.D. 20 against Cn. Piso following the murder of Germanicus,2 (...) in addition to the wealth of new material it provides for the political history of the period and the understanding of the methods of the historian Tacitus, allows an insight into the relation of the senate to the quaestio maiestatis which may prove useful in unravelling some of the puzzles which have troubled scholars hitherto. (shrink)

M. Bonnefond-Coudry has performed a great service by compiling a list of senators who are known to have spoken in the senate in the first century b.c. Yet her list for the year 50 invites a thoroughgoing revision. Beside the rubric ‘supplicatio à Cicéron’ she gives the following list: Cato, Hirrus, Balbus, Lentulus , Domitius , Scipio, Favonius. She also notes that Pompey spoke at a session late in the year , and maintains that Scipio spoke on 1 December.

In the future Belgian State, in which «communities» and «regions» are constitutionally authorized, the composition, the mission and the competences of the second Chamber, the Senate, are called in question.The «community-agreements» of Egmont and Stuyvenberg provided that the members of the regional councils should be also members of the councils of the communities and members of a Senate.His legislative roll should be limited to pass the revision of the Constitution, the bills with a special majority and to propose (...) amendments at the bills to the Chamber of deputies.The second Chamber, in the European states, envisaged by this study : the French Senate, the Italian Senate, the German Bundesrat and the Swiss Council of States, is always more powerfull that a simple Chamber of reflection, at least on the legislative ground, in the federal states, this assembly has not immediate political control on the national Government.The future Belgian Senate, as these second Chambers, must preserve an active roll in the elaboration of the most important laws and be an assembly of beneficial confrontation between the communities and their deputies; so, the Senate will assure their effective participation to the legislàtîve function. (shrink)

At the Seventh Congress of German Historians held at Heidelberg in April, 1903, Prof. Eduard Meyer delivered an address on the subject of Augustus, in which he expressed his view that the restitution of the republic was a genuine act of renunciation. ‘Augustus desired to dwell among his fellow-citizens not as a ruler but as a citizen, of course as the first among them all, as the princeps, like Camillus and the Scipios of old.’ If with Mommsen you described the (...) dual control of Caesar and Senate as a Dyarchy you ought not to forget that’ of the two the Senate in theory held complete predominance,1 the Emperor was ‘its executive, or as Tiberius expressed it, its servant, the Senate was the master .’. (shrink)

Plato, in his dialog Charmides, presents the question of how society can determine whether a person who claims superior expertise in a particular field of knowledge does, in fact, possess superior expertise. In the modern era, society tends to answer this question by funding institutions (universities) that award credentials to certain individuals, asserting that those individuals possess a particular expertise; and then other institutions (the journalistic media and government) are expected to defer to the credentials. When, however, the sequential reasoning (...) and theorizing and conclusion-stating of generation after generation of credential-bearing experts (i.e., scientists) leads to the assertion of the truth of statements that large segments of society find to be in conflict with the statements of persons who have earned credentials of expertise bestowed by an alternative institutional structure (i.e., religious teachers), representatives of the people are put to a choice. And when the conflicting statements present substantial implications for the moral and sexual behavior of people in the society, addressing the conflict brings into play not only the highest intellectual speculations and analyses, but also the most animal emotions and motivations. This paper, taking the form of a dialog, presents a scientist (Avram Codosia) named after an ancient Jewish patriarch and makes him a supplicant to a U.S. Senator (Helen Astartian) named after a pagan goddess. The stakes turn out to be not merely financial and intellectual, but personal and moral, involving the scientist's son (Isaac), an art student, and the senator's niece (Halia), a philosophy student. In a four-phase encounter, the paper hopes to offer some innovative observations on age-old issues and to stimulate productive new thinking on questions that too often seem to be debated by means of repetitions of the same old points. (shrink)

One of Sulla's first acts on assuming the dictatorship in 81 B.C. was to fill up the numbers of the Senate by the addition of some 300 new members. Tradition is divided on the question of the rank of these men before their promotion, and no unanimity has yet been reached in the matter. There are two distinct versions in the ancient authorities, both equally well attested. Appian and the Epitomator of Livy state that the new members were equites, (...) while Sallust and Dionysius of Halicarnassus assert that they included men of the lowest rank . When we turn to modern historians we find opinion similarly divided. Writers such as Lange, Zumpt and Herzog accept the first version, whereas Niebuhr, Botsford, Willems and Gelzer incline to the view of Sallust. It is tempting to do as some writers have done and to combine the two versions, saying that some of the new Senators were equites and some common soldiers. But this is a very arbitrary cutting of the knot. Herzog seems to play with the idea that Sulla promoted ordinary soldiers via the equites when he says ‘wobei noch dazu mancher war, der seine Ritterstellung erst eben errungen hatte.’ This, however, is mere guesswork. (shrink)

Discussions of the constitution of the Principate are usually focused on the powers of the emperor, and relatively little attention is given to the role of the senate; by exception much has been written on its jurisdiction, with which I shall not be concerned. Despite his theory of a dyarchy of emperor and senate, which I do not wish to revive, Mommsen, partly because he devoted separate volumes to each, did I not exhibit the extent to which Augustus (...) and Tiberius at least worked through the senate, and on occasions attributed to them legal powers to act by their own authority, when in reality they caused the senate to take action as the only proper means of effecting their wishes. More recently, F. de Martino in his admirable account of the Principate dedicates only one out of twenty-seven chapters to the composition, functions and procedure of the senate. For Syme it was simply an ‘organ that advertised or confirmed the decisions of the government’. This description does not bring out the truth that it was performing a role essential to Augustus' design. For though in effect he founded a monarchy, he commonly thought it expedient on necessary obtain for his measures senatorial approval. That this was the practice of Tiberius in his early years is clearly attested, and some suppose that he behaved in an entirely different manner from Augustus. This view seems to be mistaken, and the mistake is of some consequence. (shrink)

The study of the republican Roman Senate was revolutionized by Professor Broughton's Magistrates, and to a lesser extent more recently by Professor Lily Ross Taylor's Voting Districts of the Roman Republic. Naturally, neither of these two great works rounded up all the available evidence without exception, and a considerable amount of mopping-up has been carried out. More remains to be done, however, and this article aims at providing some further information on republican senators, their tribes, and their origins, as (...) an addendum to M.R.R. and its Supplement, and the prosopogra- phical chapter of Professor Taylor's book. (shrink)

I Should like to draw attention to two little-known inscriptions of republican senators; both men deserve notice in that each of them may illustrate the early stages of the recruitment of provincial senators, from Transpadane and Narbonese Gaul respectively.

A constitutional democracy is characterized by "governing pluralism": there is no single source of sovereignty and no single consensus on what political life should look like. Starting from this premise, and using the United States as the example of such a democracy, the work treats the ethics of three kinds of political leaders in American politics. The work examines the offices of senator, moral activist, and community organizer, in each case trying to identify the distinctive purpose of the office or (...) the contribution it makes to the democratic regime; a distinctive mode of action or set of habits conducive to fulfilling that purpose, and a set of dispositions or regime-relative virtues that people must have in order to engage in such actions consistently. ;The work concludes that a senator should focus on accommodating but restraining public opinions with a view of making possible his own consistent pursuit of public-spirited projects; that a moral activist should aim to extend the democratic principles of equality, liberty, and majority rule more widely, and towards this end must be able to mobilize a moral or religious association around a cause while speaking about that cause to a larger public in more widely accepted democratic terms; and that an organizer should promote civic self-assertion and the enlightened pursuit of interest by bringing together, and developing the capacities of, ordinary citizens through face-to-face contact. ;This plurality of ethics goes along with a single, consistent theory of democratic politics and democratic character rooted in the work of Aristotle, Tocqueville, and the authors of the Federalist. The work takes from these authors a theory of "democratic continence" under which the proper political aim for both leaders and ordinary citizens is not the good life, rational justified standards of right, or the highest virtues of human beings, but qualities of perseverance, self-restraint, individual and collective discipline, dogged self-assertion, and the enlightened pursuit of interest. Democratic politics does and must reject high moral aspirations for the sake of realism, toleration, and sympathy for the lives of ordinary people. (shrink)

This article analyzes Machiavelli's accounts of the historical figures Agathocles, Clearchus, Appius and Pacuvius to (1) accentuate the Florentine's distinction between tyranny and civic leadership, (2) identify the proper place of elite punishment and popular empowerment in his conception of democratic politics, and (3) criticize contemporary Straussian and "radical" interpreters of Machiavelli for profoundly underestimating the roles that popular judgment and popular rule play within his political thought.