Lynn Hunt: The Fall Of The Roman Republic
The Fall of the Roman Republic
Lynn Hunt’s analysis of the Roman Republic is far more compelling than Polybius’s.
Although Polybius writes concisely about the individual institutions within the Roman
Republic and how they overlap, he superimposes his mixed constitution bias as his analysis
seems more focused on the theoretical outline available in the constitution. On the other hand,
Hunt is not so strictly tied to the constitutional ideas of the institutions and explores how in
practice they have evolved and deviated from the attributes and responsibilities originally
constructed in the Roman constitution.
According to Polybius, while Rome was a republic, it had a mixed constitution
consisting of Consuls, the Senate, and the people. He is aware that if each …show more content…
Interestingly, she offers another reason for the Senate’s widespread influence - Hunt explains
that because there was no overarching authority, the maintenance of mos maiorum, values
passed down from ancestors, took precedence in Roman government and “[b]ecause they
defined this tradition, the most socially prominent and richest Romans dominated politics and
the court” (145). The Senate traditionally consisted entirely of patricians; it was much later on
in the Republic that plebeians were allowed entry, so deference to the Senate involves more
than just unquestioning submission to aristocracy. Hunt’s insight on the role of the Senate
complicates the ideas formed in class discussions because although she honestly represents
the Senate’s pervasive influence in every aspect of Roman politics, her writing on
Lynn Hunt’s analysis of the Roman Republic is far more compelling than Polybius’s.
Although Polybius writes concisely about the individual institutions within the Roman
Republic and how they overlap, he superimposes his mixed constitution bias as his analysis
seems more focused on the theoretical outline available in the constitution. On the other hand,
Hunt is not so strictly tied to the constitutional ideas of the institutions and explores how in
practice they have evolved and deviated from the attributes and responsibilities originally
constructed in the Roman constitution.
According to Polybius, while Rome was a republic, it had a mixed constitution
consisting of Consuls, the Senate, and the people. He is aware that if each …show more content…
Interestingly, she offers another reason for the Senate’s widespread influence - Hunt explains
that because there was no overarching authority, the maintenance of mos maiorum, values
passed down from ancestors, took precedence in Roman government and “[b]ecause they
defined this tradition, the most socially prominent and richest Romans dominated politics and
the court” (145). The Senate traditionally consisted entirely of patricians; it was much later on
in the Republic that plebeians were allowed entry, so deference to the Senate involves more
than just unquestioning submission to aristocracy. Hunt’s insight on the role of the Senate
complicates the ideas formed in class discussions because although she honestly represents
the Senate’s pervasive influence in every aspect of Roman politics, her writing on