The meaning of "Res Publica"

[Ingsoc]

It's widely accepted the when the Roman wrote "Res Publica" they meant a specific type of regime which existed from 509 BC - 49 BC and many of the translation from Latin tend to translated "Res Publica" into "Republic". but is this really true? I shall try to determine this by checking the context which the ancient author use the word "Res Publica".

 

"Urbem Romam a principio reges habuere; libertatem et consulatum L. Brutus instituit." ("Rome at the beginning was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus." Tacitus, Annales, 1.1) as you might notice when Tacitus talk on the overthrow of T. Superbus by Brutus he describe the new regime as liberty and consulship and not as a "Res Publica".

 

Cicero speaks of "regali re publica" (de re publica, 3.47) - Republic (or more accurently a state) of king.

[sylla]

It's widely accepted the when the Roman wrote "Res Publica" they meant a specific type of regime which existed from 509 BC - 49 BC and many of the translation from Latin tend to translated "Res Publica" into "Republic". but is this really true? I shall try to determine this by checking the context which the ancient author use the word "Res Publica".

 

"Urbem Romam a principio reges habuere; libertatem et consulatum L. Brutus instituit." ("Rome at the beginning was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus." Tacitus, Annales, 1.1) as you might notice when Tacitus talk on the overthrow of T. Superbus by Brutus he describe the new regime as liberty and consulship and not as a "Res Publica".

 

Cicero speaks of "regali re publica" (de re publica, 3.47) - Republic (or more accurently a state) of king.

As many other Roman administrative terms, its meaning evolved with time.

 

The phrase Res publica literally means

Edited December 12, 2009 by sylla

[M. Porcius Cato]

It's widely accepted the when the Roman wrote "Res Publica" they meant a specific type of regime which existed from 509 BC - 49 BC and many of the translation from Latin tend to translated "Res Publica" into "Republic". but is this really true? I shall try to determine this by checking the context which the ancient author use the word "Res Publica".

 

"Urbem Romam a principio reges habuere; libertatem et consulatum L. Brutus instituit." ("Rome at the beginning was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus." Tacitus, Annales, 1.1) as you might notice when Tacitus talk on the overthrow of T. Superbus by Brutus he describe the new regime as liberty and consulship and not as a "Res Publica".

 

OK, so keep reading beyond the first sentence of Tacitus, and you'll see that Tacitus does use res publica to refer to a specific type of regime.

(I.7)

Nam Tiberius cuncta per consules incipiebat, tamquam vetere re publica et ambiguus imperandi: ne edictum quidem, quo patres in curiam vocabat, nisi tribuniciae potestatis praescriptione posuit sub Augusto acceptae.

For Tiberius would inaugurate everything with the consuls, as though the ancient constitution remained, and he hesitated about being emperor. Even the proclamation by which he summoned the senators to their chamber, he issued merely with the title of Tribune, which he had received under Augustus.

 

(I.3-4)

quotus quisque reliquus qui rem publicam vidisset?

Igitur verso civitatis statu nihil usquam prisci et integri moris: omnes exuta aequalitate iussa principis aspectare...

How few were left who had seen the republic!

Thus the State had been revolutionised, and there was not a vestige left of the old sound morality. Stript of equality, all looked up to the commands of a sovereign...

 

In both cases, it's clear that Tacitus uses res publica to mean more than just an ordinary term for the state. It's clearly something that contrasts with the state of affairs under a princeps, where men were "stript of equality' and "looked up to the commands of a sovereign".

 

The dual use of res publica as both a generic term for the state and as a specific form of a good state is in no way unique to the Romans. The Greek term politeia works exactly the same way.

[sylla]

The above linked passage (Annales, 1,1-9) is a good example.

Tacitus used here the phrase Res publica (or a declination/abbreviation) eight times.

AJ Church & WJ Brodribb translated it as:

 

-

Edited December 13, 2009 by sylla

[Emperor Goblinus]

If I'm not mistaken, the term res publica was used as late as Valentinian I.

[sylla]

If I'm not mistaken, the term res publica was used as late as Valentinian I.

And even far later; for example within the Justinian

[M. Porcius Cato]

If I'm not mistaken, the term res publica was used as late as Valentinian I.

And even far later; for example within the Justinian

[sylla]

If I'm not mistaken, the term res publica was used as late as Valentinian I.

And even far later; for example within the Justinian

[Maladict]

I've seen it on 5th century AD brick stamps, indicating state property.

[sylla]

I've seen it on 5th century AD brick stamps, indicating state property.

So seems to be also its main use within legal texts: for the common as opposed to the private property.

[Kosmo]

I've seen it on 5th century AD brick stamps, indicating state property.

 

The most direct translation of res publica is "public object"

I think that the meaning of republic become opposed to monarchy much more recently. Venice was one of the many italian republics ruled by a duke. The polish-Lithuanian commonwealth titled itself as a Republic and Napoleon was briefly emperor of the French Republic so maybe republic means a political system that at least in theory elects its rulers. If it is so Rome was always a Republic as hereditary rule never became completely accepted and there was always required and sought the consent, even formal, of various bodies like the Senate and the army.

[sylla]

It's widely accepted the when the Roman wrote "Res Publica" they meant a specific type of regime which existed from 509 BC - 49 BC and many of the translation from Latin tend to translated "Res Publica" into "Republic". but is this really true? I shall try to determine this by checking the context which the ancient author use the word "Res Publica".

 

"Urbem Romam a principio reges habuere; libertatem et consulatum L. Brutus instituit." ("Rome at the beginning was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus." Tacitus, Annales, 1.1) as you might notice when Tacitus talk on the overthrow of T. Superbus by Brutus he describe the new regime as liberty and consulship and not as a "Res Publica".

 

Cicero speaks of "regali re publica" (de re publica, 3.47) - Republic (or more accurently a state) of king.

After checking out on the Loeb Classical Library

Edited December 15, 2009 by sylla

[Maty]

Just to add something else to the mix. The Res Publica was not the only kind of 'Res' the Romans knew. There was also Res Mancipa, which were items of personal property such as land which had a special legal status, and Res Nullius, which was something which no-one owned.

 

So in its loosest meaning, Res Publica was literally 'the public thing' with the sense of 'public property'

[sylla]

It's widely accepted the when the Roman wrote "Res Publica" they meant a specific type of regime which existed from 509 BC - 49 BC and many of the translation from Latin tend to translated "Res Publica" into "Republic". but is this really true?

Short answer; only sporadically.

[NeoCicero]

("Deleuze designates this state of affairs as