The Íslendingasögur, written in Iceland in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, primarily describe the lives of Icelanders during the tenth and eleventh centuries. Many of these lives involve encounters with foreign peoples, both abroad and in Iceland, who are portrayed according to stereotypes which vary depending on the origins of those people. Notably, inhabitants of the places identified in the sagas as Írland, Skotland and Vínland are portrayed as being less civilized than the Icelanders themselves. This thesis explores the ways in which the Íslendingasögur emphasize this relative barbarity through descriptions of diet, material culture, style of warfare, and character. These characteristics are discussed in relation to parallel descriptions of Icelandic characters and lifestyle within the Íslendingasögur, and also in the context of a tradition in contemporary European literature which portrayed the Icelanders themselves as barbaric. Innovatively, comparisons are made with descriptions of barbarians in classical Roman texts, primarily Sallust, but also Caesar and Tacitus. Taking into account the availability and significance of classical learning in medieval Iceland, the comparison with Roman texts yields striking similarities between Roman and Icelandic ideas about barbarians. It is argued that the depiction of foreigners in the Íslendingasögur is almost identical to that of ancient Roman authors, and that the medieval Icelanders had both means and motive to use Roman ideas for inspiration in their own portrayal of the world. Ultimately it is argued that when the medieval Icelanders contemplated the peoples their Viking Age ancestors encountered around the world, they drew on classical ideas of the barbarian to complement the mix of oral tradition, literary inspiration and contemporary circumstance that otherwise form the Íslendingasögur.

Zugl.: Diss.

Le mos maiorum est fondé sur la mémoire et a une nature orale. Le droit Quiritaire était essentiellement fondé sur les mores. Ceux-ci règlent les vies des familiae et des gentes patriciennes. Jusqu’à la rédaction des Douze Tables, le droit était oral et la connaissance et l’interprétation du droit étaient les prérogatives des pontifes. La nature orale de la tradition rend possible sa manipulation politique de la part des patriciens et, dans un deuxième temps, de la noblesse patricio-plébéienne. Ensuite, nous éclairons le passage du droit pontifical à la iurisprudentia laïque qui apparaît vers le IIIe siècle. Nous étudions aussi l’évolution des rapports entre l’auctoritas de la classe dirigeante et la revendication d’équité dans le domaine juridique adressée par le peuple. Nous mettons en lumière la crise de la tradition à l’époque tardo-républicaine. L’appel au mos maiorum par Cicéron et Salluste s’inscrit dans le projet de mettre en œuvre un renouvellement politique de la res publica sur un fondement moral. Le mos maiorum est évoqué dans l’espoir de revenir à la res publica des maiores. Toutefois, à cette époque, l’État s’est effondré et les citoyens ne sont pas à la hauteur de leurs ancêtres. Aussi bien Cicéron que Salluste sont conscients que la tradition ne peut pas constituer un modèle à leur époque. En effet, cette dernière a profondément changé au fil du temps. D’ailleurs, l’évocation du mos maiorum, est mise place aussi bien par les optimates que par les populares dans des buts politiques opposés. La tendance à l’individualisme répandue dans la société tardo-républicaine est la cause de l’effondrement de la res publica. / Mos maiorum is based on memory and it has an oral nature. The Quiritary Law was primarily based on mores. They regulated the the way of living both of familiae and patrician gentes. Prior to the writing of Twelve Tables, the law was oral and the knowledge as well as the interpretation of the law were the prerogatives of the pontiffs. The oral nature of the tradition makes it possible for the patricians and, then, for the patrician-plebeian nobility to provoke its political manipulation. Thereafter, we will enlighten the transition from the Pontifical Law to secular iurisprudentia, which appears approximately at the 3rd century BC. We will also clarify the evolution of relations between the auctoritas of the ruling class and the claim for equity in the legal area appealed by the people. We will shed light on the crisis of tradition in the late republican era. The calling to the mos maiorum by Cicero and Sallust is a part of the project to implement a political renewal of the res publica on a moral basis. Mos maiorum is mentioned in the hope of returning to the res publica of maiores. However, at that time, the state collapses and citizens are not equal to their ancestors. Both Cicero and Sallust are aware that tradition can not be a model in their time. Indeed, the latter has changed profoundly over time. Moreover, the evocation of the mos maiorum is put both by the optimates and by the populares for opposite political purposes. A tendency to widespread individualism in the late-republican society is the cause of the collapse of the res publica.

Zugl.: Diss. Ruhr-Univ. Bochum, 2003 (umstrukturiert, gestrafft und aktualis.). / Literatur- und Abkürzungsverzeichnis: S. 405-453.

The nature of the Republican constitution has been much contested by scholars studying the history of the Roman Republic. In considering the problems of the late Republic, the nature of the constitution is an important question, for if we do not understand what the constitution was, how can we explain Rome’s transition from ‘Republic’ to ‘Empire’? Such a question is particularly pertinent when looking at events at Rome following the assassination of Caesar, as we try to understand why it was that the Republic, as we understand it as a polity without a sole ruler, was not restored. This thesis examines the Roman understanding of the constitution in the aftermath of Caesar’s death and argues that for the Romans the constitution was a contested entity, its proper nature debated and fought over, and that this contest led to conflict on the political stage, becoming a key factor in the failure to restore the Republic and the establishment of the Second Triumvirate. The thesis proposes a new methodology for the examination of the constitution, employing modern critical theories of discourse and the formation of knowledge to establish and analyse the Roman constitution as a discursive entity: interpreted, contested and established through discourse. I argue that the Roman knowledge of the proper nature of the constitution of the res publica had fractured by the time of Caesar’s death and that this fracturing led to multiple understandings of the constitution. In this thesis I describe the state of Rome in 44-43 B.C. to reveal these multiple understandings of the constitution, and undertake an analysis of the discourse of Cicero and Sallust after 44 B.C. in order to describe the way in which different understandings of the constitution were formulated and expressed. Through this examination this thesis shows that the expression and interrelation of these multiple understandings in Roman political discourse made arrival at a unified agreement on a common course of action all but impossible and that this combined with the volatile atmosphere at Rome after Caesar’s death played a major role in Rome’s slide towards civil war and the eventual establishment of a different political system.

Cette étude explore dans une perspective comparative la présentation historique et l’interprétation philosophique de la décadence de la res publica chez Salluste et Tite Live. Dans la première partie, il est montré que Salluste et Tite-Live sont les premiers auteurs à avoir choisi comme thème central de leur récit le progrès et la décadence d’une cité. À travers un examen précis des étapes de la décadence chez les deux auteurs, nous remarquons que Tite-Live apporte constamment des corrections à la théorie de Salluste. Le schéma d’aucun des deux historiens ne se conforme à une vision cyclique ou linéaire du temps. La représentation biologique de la cité montre aussi que les hommes sont les seuls responsables pour la maladie de la décadence. Or, la reprise du progrès, selon une conception cyclique et la guérison du corps de l’État sont évoquées comme perspectives seulement par Tite-Live. La deuxième partie est consacrée aux causes de la maladie de la décadence, et la troisième à la guérison de la res publica. Trois facteurs sont examinés en détail : les facteurs « divins », le metus hostilis et la nature humaine. Tite-Live renverse l’analyse de plus en plus pessimiste de Salluste, et réintroduit l’homme en tant que facteur principal de l’histoire et comme responsable de la décadence. Dans la troisième partie, leur vision différente de l’avenir de Rome est mise en lumière, à travers l’étude de la position politique et de la fonction exemplaire de l’œuvre des deux historiens. Il en ressort que Tite-Live adopte les catégories sallustéennes d’analyse, mais conçoit sa propre présentation et interprétation de la décadence en réponse à son devancier, dont il renverse les théories. / This study explores in a comparative perspective the historical presentation and the philosophical interpretation of the decadence of the res publica in Sallust and Livy. In the first part, it is shown that Sallust and Livy are the first authors who have chosen the progress and decline of a State as the central theme of their works. Through a precise examination of the stages of decadence in both writers, we observe that Livy constantly proposes corrections to Sallust’s theory. Neither author’s pattern conforms to a cyclical or a linear vision of time. The organicist representation of the body politic also shows that men are solely responsible for the disease of decadence in both authors. However, the resumption of progress according to a cyclical conception and the healing of the body of the State are considered as potential prospects only by Livy. The second part is devoted to the causes of the disease of decadence, and the third one to the healing of the res publica. Three factors are discussed in detail: the "divine" factors, the metus hostilis and the human nature. Livy reverses the increasingly pessimistic analysis of Sallust, and reintroduces man as the most important factor in history and as responsible for the decadence. In the third part, their different view of the future of Rome is brought into focus, through the study of the political position and the exemplary function of the two historians’ works. It is concluded that Livy adopts Sallustian categories of analysis, but he conceives his own presentation and interpretation of the decadence in response to his predecessor, whose theories he challenges.