Marek Żyromski Boeken

(...) This book presents the question of continuity and change of symbols of power on the example of the capital of Rome. Rome functions as the state’s capital for over two thousands years (without any significant interruption) – and so, longer than any town in Europe. Starting with the ancient Roman Empire (taking the year of 754/753 B.C. as the traditional date of the foundation of Rome) up to the transfer of capital of Imperium Romanum to Constantinople in 330 A.D. Nevertheless, after the division of Roman Empire into two parts after the death of Theodosius the Great (in 395 A.D.) Rome became the capital of Western part – the separate state. Together with rise of Christianity (and with its recognition as a state religion by Constantine) Rome became the seat of a bishop of Rome (later on known as the pope). After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire (in 476) it was the Christianity and papal Rome which enabled the continuity of both the position of Rome and the continuity of ancient culture and civilization. During the Medieval times Rome strengthened its position not only as the capital of papal state but first of all as the capital of the Western Christianity. Opis stanowi fragment Wstępu

It is certainly nothing strange that the theory of elite had been created by three men connected with Italy: Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto descended from Italian families (although Pareto was born in Paris). Robert Michels was born in family of rather mixed and complicated roots (German – French – Italian) but in the later part of his life career he voluntarily accepted Italian citizenship (and he even changed his first name into Roberto!). Ettore Albertoni described even Pareto, Mosca and Michels as the so-called “Italian school of elites”.1 Moreover, Eva Etzioni-Halevy described even Pareto, Mosca and Michels as the “founding fathers”.2 James Burnham presented them as the “New Machiavellians” – it means the descendants of N. Machiavelli.3 This had been critized on the other hand by Giovanni Sartori – “Croce was far more a Machiavellian than the other three authors. Mosca was not an admirer of Machiavelli, and I find it very difficult, furthemore, to perceive Michels as a Machiavellian.”4 On the other hand it would be extremely difficult to accept the opinion presented quite recently by J. Morrow, who wrote that Mosca, Pareto, Michels “stressed the normative claim that elites should rule.”5 On the contrary, especially Vilfredo Pareto stressed instead the need to objective analysis of the question of elites. Opis stanowi fragment Wstępu