The debate on the ‘‘collective’’ or ‘‘cultural memory’’ of groups, social classes, and whole societies past and present, which features prominently in the vast field of cultural studies, is very much a phenomenon of ‘‘Old Europe’’ - that is why the bulk of the relevant literature is in languages other than English, above all in French (Nora 1984) and German (Assmann and Hcllscher 1988; Assmann 1992, 2000). The contributions in English (e. g., Burke 1989; Fentress and Wickham 1992; Crane 1997; Confino 1997), stimulating though they are, do not cover the whole range of issues that have been raised in the continental debate over the last two decades. The text above is mainly based on the work of Hcilscher (esp. 1978, 1990, 2001), Walter (2001, 2003, 2004), and my own publications (Hcllkeskamp 1993, 1996, 2001a - updated in 2004b - and 2004a) - all but one, alas, in German. The most important recent contributions in English on the typically Roman (republican) ways and practices to (re-)construct the origins and history of the city again deal with a broad range of particular aspects, but only occasionally touch on general theoretical problems concerning the concept of cultural memory: compare especially Dupont 1992 (on memory, time, and space); Edwards 1996 on Rome as the city of memories (a rather subjective, indeed extravagant tour d’horizon), Favro 1988 on memory and public space and Favro 1996 on ‘‘defining the urban image of (republican) Rome’’; see now especially Morstein-Marx 2004: 68-118. Holliday 2002 deals with what he calls the rhetoric of history and the functions of historical commemorations in the republican milieu from the point of view of an art historian (which is somehow too narrow a perspective cf. Holkeskamp 2005). In this context, a recent study on yet another exemplary Roman deserves a special mention: Flower 2003 (on M. Claudius Marcellus, conqueror of Syracuse). The most detailed analyses of great Romans as ‘‘icons of virtue’’ are, however, in French (and one in German): Coudry and Spath 2001. For an introduction to Roman historiography generally, see Chapter 1 in this volume; but see especially Beck and Walter 2001; Walter 2001, 2004, for its character as a practice of memoria. For a brief introduction to republican political life in general, with valuable suggestions for further reading, see Chapter 1 in this volume.
The best surveys of the topography of the urbs and its sacral and political landscape in English are Stambaugh 1988 and Cornell 2000a; compare also Patterson 1992b for a discussion of modern research. Kuttner 2004 gives a vivid picture of the intense monumentalization of the republican city (318 and passim). However, the most comprehensive work on the urban texture of Rome and its development from earliest times to the Empire is Kolb 2002. On the urban landscape of (mid-)republican Rome, the development of public space, buildings, and monuments, etc.: Coarelli 1977; Richardson 1991: 392-402; Patterson 1992b: 185-204; Cornell 2000a; Kolb 2002; as well as, for the late Republic, Favro 1996: 24-41, 42-50. For individual monuments, see Richardson 1992; Steinby 1993-2000 (especially the articles by Tagliamonte and Reusser: 1. 226-31, 232-4 (on the Capitol); Coarelli: 1. 309-14 (on the Comitium); and Tagliamonte and Purcell: 2. 313-25, 325-36); Favro 1988 (on the Forum Romanum).
The best modern study on the pompa funebris is Flower 1996 - compare also Bodel 1999; Holkeskamp 1995, 1996; and recently Walter 2003, Flaig 2003. The most stimulating article on the triumph in English is Favro 1994; compare (from a different perspective and somewhat impressionistic) Brilliant 1999 - but see also Holscher 2001 and again Flaig 2003. Flower 2004a, the best introduction into this culture of spectacles, and Gruen 1996 treat both funerals and triumphs - the latter also touches on other aspects of republican political culture: representative art, the self-image of the nobilitas and, in a few pages, gives his view of 400 years of aristocratic ascendancy (Gruen’s citation of previous work on these topics is, however, highly selective).