Tag Archives: Roman Republic

The author posing in front of the Kansas City skyline in July 2025.

The Wednesday Blog

The Wednesday Blog – Wednesday Blog by Seán Thomas Kane

This week, to conclude what I’ve been saying.—Click here to support the Wednesday Blog: https://www.patreon.com/sthosdkane—Sources:%5B1%5D “Signs,” Wednesday Blog 1.10.[2] “On Servant Leadership,” Wednesday Blog 6.15.[3] Percy Bysshe Shelley, “Ozymandias,” Poetry Foundation.
Click Here to Support the Wednesday Blog

This week, to conclude what I’ve been saying.

I’ve said over the four years that I’ve been writing the Wednesday Blog weekly that I would stop writing this when it ceased to be fun. That’s a good rule for life overall that I’ve found: devote your life to things you love doing and keep them fun in the process. I tend to put on a very dry public face; a friend recently commented that I didn’t seem like one to scream or cheer at a concert, I affirmed that statement and demonstrated my own gentle “hurray!” to great amusement. This blog has changed with the times. It began as a project for me to write about things I enjoy outside of my research. I like to point to an early blog post all about my favorite state highway signs as a good example of this.[1] Yet I’ve found the topics I write about are changing, they’re becoming more academic, outlets where I can introduce some of the ideas I’m working on in my professional life and workshop them in a public forum. It’s a bald faced way of getting more readers to the Blog, I admit, yet so far, it’s worked.

I continue to cover politics here when I feel there’s a need to say something. Yet I’ve tried to balance what I’m writing to keep it positive, or at least to ensure that what I end up publishing suggests ways we can move forward out of the current crises we face. After all, there are enough writers out there pointing out the crises of the moment, some of us should be looking to the future to offer a light ahead that we all can reach for. This Spring, I was inspired by the commemorations in Boston of the 250th anniversary of the start of the American Revolution and the rallies for democracy here in Kansas City to focus that positive attention on popular action, the root of any good political system. I believe that government must act with the consent and full participation of the governed, and that through our elected representatives at all levels we ought to consider ourselves both governed and government. It sounds paradoxical, I know, and to an extent I believe that paradoxes are often a good thing. I devised one of my favorite phrases, “the extraordinary acts of ordinary people” to express this sentiment, that it is people acting out of the ordinary, out of what is considered ordered, which propels political change and keeps our politics fresh.[2] In 2023 one of the fads of the year on the internet was women asking men how often they think of the Roman Empire. I was asked this by one of my colleagues over lunch at the Nativity Parish School and remarked that because I was teaching the Romans at the time they were front of mind. Beyond this however, as much as I am familiar with the remains of the Empire, I am more drawn to the Republic and its ideals of popular government, even if they were never realized. The founders of the United States sought to model this federal republic on Roman models, yet they kept the Constitution they framed fresh for its day, an American constitution living in its ability to be amended to fit the changing times and passage of each generation rather than a Roman one deemed sacred through association with the old Republic’s gods and ancient institutions. Our republic is secular because for it to be sacred is to make it inviolate and unchanging, a monolith which will grow ever more distant from the people it was meant to govern, until like Shelley’s Ozymandias it is left as a mere pedestal of itself adrift in the sands of time.[3]

I want to stay a while longer with this phrase because I am so proud of it. To trumpet the extraordinary acts of ordinary people is to say that everyone has a voice and an impact upon the rest of us. In the first few years of the Wednesday Blog, my political essays tended to get lower readership across the board. I started writing the Blog in March 2021, a year after the January 6th insurrection showed how much the Republic was corrupted by the refusal to concede the 2020 election which caused that attack on the Capitol. I’ve seen a steady decline in political readership for my writing since the 2016 election, yet after 2020 that readership dropped off a cliff. American politics today is not a happy thing to write about, and at the moment it only seems to be getting worse. Yet by focusing less on the people in power and more on the people engaged for the common good I saw my readership grow on these political essays until they tended to be level with my other non-academic writing. A great inspiration for me here lies in the revolutionary era anthem Chester, sung by the New Englanders in the Continental Army and one of the older tunes in this country’s patriotic songbook. I’d been listening to it here and there without realizing for months, yet once I figured out what it actually was, when I was in Boston in March no less, I found that it spoke to my sentiment in a far greater way than I anticipated. I’m listening to William Schuman’s arrangement in his New England Triptych (1956) as I write this now, a New Deal era work intended to celebrate the democratic spirit of the cradle of the revolution.

There is a great deal of history behind my politics, naturally I notice that being a trained historian, and having taught American and British history on several occasions and having read a great deal in Irish history I can point out the various threads which I’ve coalesced into a logical genealogy of my political philosophy. Suffice to say, I believe it is better to look to the future and enact political policy which will build a future that we can all be proud of. At the core of this is listening to the people around us, hearing what they have to say, and listening to our own logic and empathy, two things which should always work together in our decisions. In writing about the extraordinary acts of ordinary people I look to those who will appear from the crowd as the leaders from my millennial generation and those coming up behind us in Generations Z and Alpha. We have inherited a great mess, and we have a lot of work to do. There are plenty of people arguing and advocating on what needs to be reformed, I feel better suited to provide an optimistic voice of what we could look forward to. By putting ordinary people front and center, I hope to make clear that policy should address problems from the bottom up, help reinforce and support the poorest in society that the whole structure grows stronger in kind. You might call this trickle-up economics, to speak to the Reaganites. We could build a future where everyone has good work, they can be proud of, enough to eat, a roof over their heads, and where every child learns how to read. We could have this future where people feel that law is meant to support them rather than push them down. I see this every day when I’m out around town: I suspect that the general sentiment behind people who run stop signs, red lights, or drive in transit only lanes is that the law has never worked in their favor, always rather beaten them down and stripped them of their humanity, so why should they follow the law? We must find our humanity in each other if we are ever going to grow out of this time of crises and begin to build a better future.

I enjoy thinking about the future in other languages, not just in the sense of the future tense but in the mentality of the language. How do they express things which haven’t happened but will come? In English we have the word future as a monolith on its own, derived from French and originally from the Latin futūrus, an irregular future active participle of the to be verb sum. In English, the future is as much a place as it is a time, it’s the destination we’re going to. Yet is it not better to think of the future as the scenery about to pass by as we go down the line like the trees and fields that we pass on a train? The present is momentary, here and gone in the blink of an eye, each millisecond the present, and the past a great gulf of memory whence we came. Yet the future is something both unknown and recognizable. It is both what we can see ahead of us along the way and what is just over the next horizon. It is an irregular version of being which will come someday. French expresses the concept of the future like this, whereas futur refers to the tense, l’avenir is instead the noun I’ve heard used most to describe the concept of the future. Yet l’avenir instead merely is the crafting of a phrase, temps à venir (time to come) into a noun, avenir, or that which is coming. We don’t know in truth what it is, what it will feel like when it comes, yet we know that someday we will see it and live in it. The future is inevitable, yet it is not singular by nature. Rather, if there is one past and present those are merely the choices made by actors in those moments which were chosen from the multitude that is possible from what could come. 

Irish expresses this sense of the future well because Irish really has no specific word for future. There is a future tense, which in some ways is more regular in its formation than the Irish present tense. Instead, Irish uses a phrase which breaks down the future into its core concepts:  An rud atá le teacht, or the thing which is coming. Therein lies the future in its baldest form: it is merely the thing that is coming next out of all the possibilities. Another topic which I seemed to write about a fair deal for a while was faith, self-help, and religion. My Catholicism is influential to my cosmovision and political philosophy in my core belief of the paradoxical nature of God, that God can exist yet also be omnipotent and omniscient. Because of this, I like to say, “anything is possible in the Eyes of God,” or for short, “anything is possible.” As I think about the end of my doctoral writing and needing a dedication to affix on my dissertation, I’ve found myself thinking about this phrase, and about who my audience is. After all, you now reading this sentence in my future, just as I wrote it in your past. It is possible that just about anyone could be reading this now, and so rather than dedicate my work to one person in particular in the moment in which I am writing it, perhaps I ought to instead dedicate it to the possible, or rudaí indéanta in Irish. That second word indéanta is a neat one because it comes from the verb déan, meaning to do, thus the possible is something that might be done. In English and French, I say, “I am studying” or « J’étudie, » yet in Irish, I say, “Déanaim ag staidéar,” or “I am doing study,” which makes the study more of an act than a state of being. The future has and always will be something acted, something done by individuals in our own small ways that creates great change in the collective form.

I study history because of all the things I am interested in it is history which brings them together. So far, history is a human creation made in our image and likeness which seeks to tell our story as best as we can recall it. We’ve devised historical methods of a similar manner to understand other histories, salvation history, church history, and natural history to name three. I returned to natural history as an adult yearning for the halcyon days of curiosity and wonder from my early childhood and built my career on my study of André Thevet’s (1516–1590) sloth. It’s become my gateway into the history of natural history, and through it I’m beginning to make my name as a sloth historian. I do not believe in prescriptivism, the notion that history in inexorably leading to some great moment in the future when the final form of human nature will announce itself. I think this is limiting, claustrophobic in fact. It’s far too simplistic to say that we will all wake up someday and find the morning sunlight is just a little bit brighter, the grass and trees greener, and the sky a prettier shade of blue because there’ll be somebody among us who will find something contrary about the experience. I for one an enjoying the gray skies outside my window today, it’s finally cool enough in mid-October for me to open the blinds in my room and let some sunlight in without making it too hot. Rather, history teaches us that the future is what we will make of it. I chose to not study the twentieth century because I felt this dolorous pain in my heart that there were so many things which happened in the last century which could have been avoided, choices which could have been different. In studying recent history, I worried I would be faced with the ghosts of the world wars, Great Depression, and all the troubles faced by humanity in general and my fellow Irish Americans in particular throughout my working life. 

Instead, I looked deeper into the past, first to the Roman Republic with an interest in studying the expansion of Roman citizenship in the late Republic after the Social War of the 90s and 80s BCE and later to the Renaissance, a period that seemed similar enough, Latinate to be sure, yet full of people and stories who I felt I could relate to better than the ancients. I found Thevet almost accidentally, and through his sloth I feel that I’ve found balance in my life that sustains me today, makes me feel more fulfilled in my efforts than I was before. My history is fundamentally interdisciplinary, historical zoology adopts zoological methods and theories to determine the true nature of historical animals, layering their scientific taxa upon their far older human memory and legendaria. In Thevet I am able to work with the ancients, looking especially Aristotle and Pliny, yet soon after I can turn around and look ahead to Buffon and Linnaeus and see how they interpreted what Thevet wrote in order to establish a clear lineage through the historical record for the animal in question. There is nothing sure about this history, often the historical sources are lacking with detail about a given animal, or the zoological data may not have enough detail about an extinct species to offer a clear picture of what it is I am describing. Both are limited by the foggy memory of the human past, yet together they can offer a light with which to move ahead and keep exploring those parts of our cosmos which are still strange and unfamiliar to us today.

I write because it is the greatest way I’ve yet found to express myself. I can say far more in an essay such as this than I could in a conversation. The Wednesday Blog remains less formal than my academic writing, here I use the first person. Yet with the passage of time, I’ve found the Blog has become more academic to the point that friends have told me they got an education about Thevet that they never expected. The Blog has several antecedents, including earlier less regular blog posts which you can find on this same website from before 2021 that all form the roots of this project. I’m proud of the writing I’ve done here, the Wednesday Blog now is comprised of 238 essays and 200 podcast episodes, I’ve written 521 pages, and the total word count is over 300,000. The future is defined as much by its potential as the fact that once it comes to be what was present will then be past. To see an end gives all things meaning. It is for this reason, at the end of the sixth book of the Wednesday Blog, and fifth season of the podcast, that I’ve decided to end this particular publication. This remains a fun thing to write, yet I have so much more to do today, and I only see that workload growing as I try my hand at more peer-reviewed articles, books, and translations in the coming decades. I hope the Wednesday Blog will be a testament to who I was at this point in my life in the years after the COVID-19 Pandemic and during my long years of doctoral study. Let these essays remain a monument of the first half of the 2020s, a sign of where we’ve been and where I hope we will be going.

[1] “Signs,” Wednesday Blog 1.10.

[2] “On Servant Leadership,” Wednesday Blog 6.15.

[3] Percy Bysshe Shelley, “Ozymandias,” Poetry Foundation.

Click Here to Support the Wednesday Blog
A figure from Raphael's "The School of Athens" variously identified as Francesco Maria della Rovere, Pico della Mirandola, or Hypatia of Alexandria.

On Knowledge

On Knowledge – Wednesday Blog by Seán Thomas Kane

This week, I want to address how we recognize knowledge in comparison to the various fields of inquiry through which we refine our understanding of things.—Click here to support the Wednesday Blog: https://www.patreon.com/sthosdkaneArtRaphael, The School of Athens (1509–1511), Apostolic Palace, Vatican Museums, Vatican City. Public Domain.Sources“On Writing,” Wednesday Blog 6.27.Surekha Davies, Humans: A Monstrous History, (University of California Press, 2025).Marcy Norton, The Tame and the Wild: People and Animals After 1492, (Harvard University Press, 2024), 307.Dead Poets Society, (1989) "What will your verse be?" Video on YouTube.
Click Here to Support the Wednesday Blog

This week, I want to address how we recognize knowledge in comparison to the various fields of inquiry through which we refine our understanding of things.

Lately my work has been dedicated to a thorough review of the historiography within which I’m grounding my dissertation. I wrote about this two weeks ago in an essay titled “On Writing.”[1] My research is historical, yet it touches on secondary literature which operates within various fields within the discipline of history. These include Renaissance history, and its larger sibling early modern history, the history of cartography, the history of animals, the history of botany, and more broadly the history of early modern science. Methodologically, I owe a great deal to two great twentieth-century Francophone anthropologists, Alfred Métraux (1902–1963) and Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009). While Métraux and Lévi-Strauss aren’t considered directly in the historiographic section of the new introduction that I’m writing for my dissertation, which is limited to sources published since the millennium, they nevertheless stand tall in the background of my history.

Today we often talk within academia about a desire for interdisciplinarity in our work and our research. We’ve found ourselves too narrowed by our ever shrinking fields and seek greener common pastures for grazing as our intellectual and pastoral ancestors alike once knew. In my case, this interdisciplinarity lies more in my efforts to incorporate historical zoology into my work, a methodology which seeks to use zoological methodology and theory to explain historical animals. I have friends who study many things. Among them is one whose passion for history, classics, and mathematics has come together to craft a dissertation which seeks to demonstrate the intersections between those three to better understand the great transitions in human inquiry. Another seeks to follow the medical connections across oceans between disparate regions in the Americas and Europe that nevertheless existed even if they seem remarkable today. Still more, I have a friend who applies basic economic need to explain a complex diplomatic situation that once existed between the Venetian Republic and the Ottoman Empire in the Adriatic Sea. All of these historians of whom I write are applying a degree of interdisciplinarity to their work that reflects their own disparate interests and curiosities. In early modern history we talk about curiosities as objects which were collected from disparate and exotic lands into cabinets to display the erudite collector’s prestige and wealth. I say our curiosity is something to be collected by those worthy archives, libraries, museums, or universities that will employ us in the near future and for us to feed with new ideas and avenues of investigation that we will never be bored with life.

In all of these things, there is an underlying genre of knowledge which I am addressing. I’ve written thus far about history alone, yet it is the same for the anthropologists, astronomers, planetary scientists, and physicists who I know. Likewise for the literature scholars and the linguists. Our fields of inquiry all grow on the same planet that comprises of our collected knowledge. In English, this word knowledge is somewhat nebulous. To me, it says that we know things broad or specific. In London, for instance, the Knowledge is the series of tests which new cabbies must complete in order to learn every street within a certain radius of Charing Cross. The Latin translation of this word, scientia, makes things even more complicated as that is the root of the English word science. Thus, when we refer to Renaissance science, there is always a caveat in the following sentence explaining that “this is not science as we know it but a sort of protoscience.” I was advised, similarly, after a particularly poorly received presentation at a workshop at the Museum of Natural Sciences in Brussels in October 2023 that I shouldn’t refer to “sixteenth-century conservation” because no such concept existed at the time; instead, it would be better to discuss a “genealogy of conservation.” This sense that modern terms, in use since the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, ought not to be pulled further back into the past I think loses some of the provenance of those terms and how the Enlightenment philosophes first came across them. 

I find it telling that the Ancient Greek translation of knowledge, γνῶσις (gnôsis), is a word with which I’m more familiar from theology and the concept of Gnosticism whereas scientia reminds me of philosophy and the other fields of inquiry which grew from that particular branch of the tree of human curiosity. One might even say that philosophy and theology are a pair, siblings perhaps? They seek to understand similar things: on the one hand an inquiry into thought, and ideally wisdom, and on the other a search for the nature of the Divine, which at least in my Catholicism we can know because we are made in the Image of God. The division here between the Ancient Greek term being affiliated with faith and the Latin one with reason I think speaks to the Latin roots of my own education in Catholic schools and at a Jesuit university, where I learned about Plato and Aristotle, yet I recognized Aristotle’s Historia animalium (History of Animals) by its Latin name by which it was generally known in Western Europe for centuries before the rise of vernacular scholarship rather than by its Greek original Τῶν περὶ τὰ ζῷα ἰστοριῶν (Ton peri ta zoia historion). Note that the English translation of this title, History of Animals reflects better the Latin cognate of ἰστοριῶν rather than the better English translation of that Greek word, Inquiry.

Added onto these classical etymologies, in my first semester Historiography class at Binghamton University I was introduced to the German translation of scientia, γνῶσις, and knowledge. Wissenschaft struck me immediately because I saw the German cognate for the English word wizard in its prefix, and because I knew that the -schaft suffix tends to translate into English as -ship. Thus, my rough Anglicization of Wissenschaft renders Wizardship, which is rather nifty. Yet this word Wissenschaft instead was seen in the nineteenth century as a general word which could be translated into English as science. This is important for us historians trained in the United States because our own historiographic tradition, that is our national school of historians traces our roots back to German universities in the early and middle decades of the nineteenth century. I remember long sessions of my historiography class at UMKC discussing the works of Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886), the father of research-based history. I felt a sense that this concept of Wissenschaft seemed relatable, and as it turned out that was because Irish has a similar concept. 

Whereas in English we tack on the suffix -ology onto any word to make it the study of that word, in Irish you add the suffix -ocht. So, geology is geolaíocht and biology is bitheolaíocht. Yet note with the second example that the suffix is not just -ocht but an entire word, eolaíocht. This is the Irish word for science, added onto the end of bitheolaíocht to demonstrate that this word refers to the study of bith- a prefix combining form of the word beatha, meaning life. So, biology then is the science of life itself. Powerful stuff. I appreciate that Irish linguists and scholars have sought overall to preserve our language’s own consistency with its scientific terminology. It means that these fields of study, these areas of knowledge, can exist purely within the purview of the Irish language without any extra need to recognize that their prefixes or suffixes come from Latin, Greek, or English. There are some exceptions of course: take zó-eolaíocht, the Irish word for zoology, which effectively adopts the Greek word ζῷον perhaps through the English zoo into Irish. Would it not have been just as easy for whoever devised this hyphenated word to instead write ainmhíeolaíocht, translated into English as the science of animals? Here though I see more influence from English because this language adopts as much as it can from other languages out of prestige and a desire for translingual communicability. As an English speaker, I find scholarly works often easier to read because we share common etymologies for our words relating to knowledge. English’s science, geology, biology, and zoology are French’s science, géologie,biologie, and zoologie. In English, we drop any pretense of Englishness to clothe ourselves in a common mantle familiar to colleagues from related cultures around the globe. In academia this is to our mutual benefit, after all so much of our work is international. I’m regularly on webinars and Zoom calls with colleagues in Europe for instance. I believe this is the lingering spirit of the old scholarly preference for Latin as a lingua franca which at least to me seems close enough in the past that it’s tangible yet realistically it’s surely been a very long time since any serious scholarly work beyond classics was published in Latin for the benefit of a broad translingual readership?

I for one admire the Irish word eolaíocht and its root eolas, which translates into English as knowledge, that is an awareness of things because eolaíocht represents a universal concept while retaining its own native nature. So often in my research I am discussing the early assimilation of indigenous cosmovisions, to borrow a Spanish word put to good use by Surekha Davies in her latest book, into the nascent global world centered on Europe.[2] I see how these cosmic conceptions faded until they were rendered in Gothic or Latin letters on the voluminous pages of encyclopedic Renaissance general and natural histories which remain among the most often cited primary sources for these indigenous cultures who Marcy Norton argued in her 2024 book The Tame and the Wild: People and Animals After 1492 had their own classical past made remote from their colonial present by European contact, conquest, and colonization.[3] Seeing these indigenous perspectives fade into their categorized and classified statuses within the cosmos defined by Europe’s natural philosophers I feel fortunate that my own diaspora (which was also colonized) has retained this element of our individual perspective. I first came across the -ocht suffix in the word poblacht, the Irish word for republic. A famous story from the birth of the Irish Free State during the Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations in 1921 tells of British Prime Minister David Lloyd-George, a Welsh speaker, remarking to Michael Collins, an Irish speaker, that their choice of a republic was unusual because none of the Celtic languages naturally have a word for republic. That word evokes its Roman roots in the ancient Res publica Romana, the Roman Republic, whose northward expansion across the Alps led to the gradual death of the Continental Celtic languages, whose speakers’ descendants today are largely the Western Romance speakers of French, Romansh, Occitan, Catalan, Spanish, Galician, and Portuguese, among others. Romance languages are noted for their common descent from Latin, whence they all derive variations on the Latin word scientia; English gets science through Old French. “How are you going to name your new government in the Irish language?” Lloyd-George asked. Collins replied something along the lines of “a kingdom is called a ríocht, so this government of the people (pobal) will be called a poblacht. Thus, the Republic of Ireland is named in Irish Poblacht na hÉireann. Naturally, this word pobal derives from the Latin populus, so the shadow of Rome hovers even over unconquered Hibernia. Yet that is another topic for a different essay.

Let me conclude with a comment on the difference between knowledge and wisdom, as I see it. The former is far more tangible. We can know things through learning embodied best in living and in reading. I know for instance to look both ways before crossing a street because plenty of people in the last 140 years have been hit by cars, buses, and trucks, and you can never be too careful. Likewise, I know everything I do about the things I study through reading what others have written about these topics. It’s my job then to say what I will. In Whitman’s words made immortal by our recitation, the answer to the eternal question, “that the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.” That’s history, people! Reading the powerful play of what others have written and summoning up the courage to take the podium and have your say. I first heard this particular poem, as did many in my generation, recited by Robin Williams in the 1989 film Dead Poets Society. Knowledge is the recitation of these facts we’ve learned. Wisdom is understanding how these facts fit together and speak to our common humanity. What makes us human? I believe it’s as much what we know as what we remain ignorant of. Our ignorance isn’t always a curse, rather it’s another foggy field we’ve yet to inquire about, a place where someone’s curiosity will surely thrive someday. It is another evocation of eolas still to come in our long human story. How wonderous is that?

[1] “On Writing,” Wednesday Blog 6.27.

[2] Surekha Davies, Humans: A Monstrous History, (University of California Press, 2025).

[3] Marcy Norton, The Tame and the Wild: People and Animals After 1492, (Harvard University Press, 2024), 307.

Click Here to Support the Wednesday Blog

Ab urbe condita

Ab urbe condita – Wednesday Blog by Seán Thomas Kane

This coming Friday will mark the 2,776th anniversary of the traditional date for the founding of the City of Rome. Click here to support the Wednesday Blog: https://www.patreon.com/sthosdkane
Click Here to Support the Wednesday Blog

I find it interesting as an adult that my first understanding of my own religion, explained to me by my Mom when I was little, was that “we are Roman Catholics.” Even at that point, when I must’ve been no more than five years old, I knew what Rome was, I can remember my thoughts from that moment as clear as day: I pictured in my mind a map of the Italian peninsula descending from the Alps down into the Mediterranean. Whether that map was my memory of the globe in my grandparents’ home next to their collection of the 1979 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia, or of some other map I had seen I can’t say for sure. Rome, with all its antiquity, has had a hold over my imagination just as it has over the collective imaginations of those of us in the European and American orbits since its fall.

Several years later, after we’d moved to Kansas City, and I continued my schooling at St. Patrick’s in Kansas City, Kansas, I checked a book on Ancient Rome out of the school library. As I remember it, it was one of the few history books in color, most of them had been donated when the school first opened in 1949 and were by modern standards rather outdated. Still, I had this book in my bag that had a wonderful colored picture of the greatest extent of the Roman Empire in the reign of Hadrian during the 2nd century CE. I had looked over it several times already before this particular memory took place, but when one afternoon I was denied entry into an after school club, I think a geography bee club perhaps, I found myself sitting on the bench in front of the school’s office, reading that book.

My ancestors, the Irish Gaels, were never conquered by Rome. There were likely Roman merchants visiting the Leinster coast during the imperial period, after all the western boundaries of the Roman Empire were across the Irish Sea in Wales, but Roman influence didn’t fully arrive until after the Western Roman Empire had already collapsed in the form of missionaries like St. Patrick who introduced Christianity, the Latin alphabet & language, and fostered a new sense of European connectivity for my people that has never left. For me conversations of heritage are always complicated. Yes, I am an Irish American with roots going deep into that island’s past beyond what’s considered historical, but so much of the culture I’ve lived in and embraced comes from Europe’s classical past: from Greece & Rome, that I feel a strong bond if not in blood, then in civilization to those continental cultures.

When I teach Western Civilization or European History I, or whatever you want to call the intro class that covers European history from Bronze Age Greece to the Reformation, I make a point of trying to define civilization as being inherently tied to the concept of the city. Mapping civilizations is like charting the stars in the sky, with each city glowing bright like those lights in the heavens, at the heart of their own civilizations. In antiquity this ideal makes sense, for the city-state was the most common type of polity. Rome was a city-state governed by its own balance between an aristocratic Senate and an Assembly representing the rest of the People that in turn ruled over an ever growing empire of subjected peoples until at last it became too much for the standing political order in Rome to control and 150 years of civil wars lead to a Principate, rule by the Princeps, the First Citizen, in this case Augustus Caesar and his heirs and successors who we today know as the Emperors.

Today, I look at Roman history and see several ideals that every generation since its conception has espoused. On the one hand there’s the model of the Caesar as the best sort of leader. The Caesars who ruled Rome from Augustus’s elevation in 31 BCE to Constantine XI Paleologos’s death at the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 CE have their heirs and imitators in all the Kaisers, Tsars, and Emperors to rule in Europe and its erstwhile American colonies since, as well as in kings like Louis XIV, le roi soleil, who like Augustus fashioned himself the Sun at the center of all his domain. Yet on the other hand I see the republican ideal of citizen government espoused before the Principate, lauded by men like Cicero and the Gracchi yet never fully realized by anyone then or since. 

I would rather emulate that republican ideal of citizenship, refashioned in a modern sense with the blending of republicanism with democracy. The founders of the United States saw in their new republic a revival of the best of Rome, emulating their ancient heroes in law, government, and architecture. One needs only wander around the National Mall to find all the classical buildings one’s heart could ever desire to see how our new Rome on the banks of the Potomac has come to be. Yet in all honesty, as much as Washington fits this idealized model of a republican Rome reborn, with even the great headquarters of our Department of Defense across the Potomac beyond the confines of the capital in the Pentagon, not unlike Rome’s ancient Campus Martius, experience has taught me that the greatest modern inheritor of the symbols of the Roman Republic in its art & architecture can be found in Paris, a city whose grand boulevards and monumental architecture built during and after the Revolution of 1789 are alive with the symbols and spirit of Roman republicanism. This is in part thanks to one of the great Romanophiles of the last 250 years, Napoléon Bonaparte, whose reign as First Consul and later Emperor of the French sought to create a new Rome in his own day, albeit in the transitional model of Julius Caesar whose reign at least nominally sought to preserve the Republic yet established the foundations for the Empire that Augustus, his adoptive son, created.Today the meaning of the republic has changed so dramatically that I doubt Cicero or even the Gracchi would approve; and as much as I look up to so many of those old Roman republicans as people who I appreciate and enjoy reading, I firmly believe we’re better off without all the trappings of what was inherently a limited and oligarchical Roman Republic. I would rather live in a modern democratic republic, one where social welfare, tradition, and the markets were kept in balance. So, on this the 2,776th anniversary of the founding of the City of Rome, I’m worried to see the reactionaries among us pulling us backward toward that oligarchy that initially established our own Republic here on the far side of the Atlantic almost 240 years ago. The Roman Republic fell because its leaders misdiagnosed the sickness and killed the patient, ignoring the needs of the people for their own power & wealth. Rome continues to provide us lessons today. We should listen to them.

Click Here to Support the Wednesday Blog