# Ancient Rome and the American Revolution

## Метаданные

- **Канал:** toldinstone
- **YouTube:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9urhV9lwZVQ
- **Источник:** https://ekstraktznaniy.ru/video/40454

## Транскрипт

### Segment 1 (00:00 - 05:00) []

The American founding fathers saw themselves in their world through classical lenses. Roman heroes and Roman history suffused the rhetoric of the American Revolution. The US Constitution, likewise, was meant to create a perfected Roman Republic. In colonial America, virtually all education beyond the elementary level was classical. Students were fed reams of Latin flavored with a bit of Greek. Alongside the Aniid, the curriculum emphasized the works of Cicero, the great champion of the Roman Republic in its final days. John Adams began a lifelong fascination with Cicero during his school days. It was partly through the rhetoric of Cicero that Adams and the other founders were exposed to the Roman concept of libertas, liberty. The liberty that they accused the British of trying to take was different from anything the Romans knew, but conceived simply as the antithesis of tyranny, the same unchecked power that the founders of the Roman Republic had opposed. The concept of liberty allowed the revolutionary generation to make their struggle seem ancient. Roman history also provided the American founders with prophets and martyrs of liberty. A particular favorite was Kato the Younger. This implacable opponent of Julius Caesar, famous for his adherence to Republican tradition, had ended his own life rather than accept Caesar's pardon. He was most familiar to the founders through Joseph Addison's Ko, a tragedy, first performed in 1713. Popular in pre-revolutionary America, the play was apparently performed for Washington's troops at Valley Forge. Patrick Henry's famous line, "Give me liberty or give me death," was almost certainly inspired by it. As were Nathan Hail's final words, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country. " The liberty for which Ko fought was closely identified with the republic itself, or at least with an idealized vision of the republic, in which both the rights of the Roman people and the authority of the Senate were respected. The great enemy of that conception of libertas was Julius Caesar, whom the founders regarded as the archetypal tyrant. The founders's idea of liberty, mediated by a century and a half of English debate over the nature of popular rights and sovereignty was more complex than the Roman libertas. And in the wake of the revolution, it evolved in directions different from anything prefigured in Britain or ancient Rome. But as children of the enlightenment, the founders believed that history was governed by universal rules. What had happened in Rome would happen in America. Liberty would always struggle against power. Power would always be prey to corruption. In the wake of the revolution, the Roman rhetoric of liberty seemed to preclude any attempt to establish an effective national government. If mankind would always be corruptible, after all, concentrating power could only speed the return of tyranny. A way forward was suggested by another ancient precedent, the so-called mixed constitution of the Roman Republic. For the founders, the ancient idea of a mixed constitution, a government that combined the best elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, was crystallized by Palibius's description of the Roman Republic. According to Palibius, the republic owed its success to the balance between the powers of the councils, the senate, and the popular assemblies. It was only when the balance was lost that the republic began its long slide into tyranny. Shortly before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, John Adams, then in London, published the first volume of his ponderously titled Defense of the Constitutions of Governments of the United States, a work that defended the idea of mixed government with the aid of copious citations from classical authors, including a new translation of Plus's discussion of the Roman Constitution. Partly inspired by Adam's work, James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution sought to create a mixed government for the United States. This would be, they hoped, a new and better Roman Republic, safeguarded by the balance of its parts against the ambition that had doomed its model. The Constitution was also designed to forestall the kind of popular tyranny epitomized by Shea's rebellion in

### Segment 2 (05:00 - 08:00) [5:00]

Massachusetts. It gave great authority to the Senate whose members chosen by state legislatures and serving for long terms would represent the aristocratic element of the new government. The directly elected members of the House of Representatives would provide the democratic counterpart. The president filled the place of the Roman councils. When the constitution was submitted to the states, fierce debates erupted between supporters and opponents of ratification. Both sides referenced ancient Rome. Opponents of the Constitution, the anti-federalists, fell back on revolutionary rhetoric about concentrated power tending irresistibly toward corruption and tyranny. They cited Roman authors, especially Solist, chronicler of the late republic's vices, in support of this view. If vice had failed the mighty Roman Republic, why would its American successor be spared? The mixed government claimed as the antidote for such decline was elucery or simply inapplicable to a modern context. Supporters of the constitution, the federalists, countered that vice was indeed present in all governments, but so was virtue. They pointed to the heroes of the Roman Republic. Above all, Cenatis, the former statesman said to have returned to his plow after leading the legions to victory, and to Cicero, who had saved the republic with his tireless rhetoric. John Adams catalog of constitutions likewise provided federalist authors with a host of classical references to deploy in support of mixed government. Partly with the help of their classical illusions, the Federalists prevailed. The constitution was ratified and the new republic came into being. It was never really Roman, of course, and that the government was ever mixed. It is now much more democratic than anything envisioned in 1787. But in my opinion, at least, America's Roman roots still matter. Although few politicians today reference the classics, our political anxieties are not so different from those of the founders. Their readings of Roman history taught them to regard liberty as a fragile and precious thing, forever under siege from humanity's worst impulses. The history of our own time has given us few reasons to think they were wrong. Need a break from grim reflections on the future of democracy? Why not escape into history and join me in the sunny Mediterranean? Bookings will close soon on my spring tours. one exploring the Roman ruins of Spain, the other following Alexander's path across Turkey. You'll find links for both tours in the description, and another link for my November tour to Pompei, Naples, and Capri. Check out the latest Roman review video on the Tolenstone Patreon, also linked in the description, and a great new podcast episode on the Tollen Stone Footnotes channel. My series exploring the classical sites of Greece continues on scenic routes to the past. Thanks for watching.