Republicanism has been divided into two strands, neo-Athenian and neo-Roman. This division, unlike others, is made in its historical origin. These strands are distinctive in their own conceptions of liberty: neo-Athenians view liberty as self-government while neo-Romans it as non-domination. Accordingly they have different views of the relationship between liberty and the rule of law: neo-Athenians see it as circular while neo-Romans as constitutive. Their views give us new perspectives and make us conscious of their defects as well; neo-Athenians cannot expel domination from selfgoverning politics while neo-Romans cannot show that legal rule protecting non-domination has its own public legitimacy. However, they prove to be complementary and give rich resources for our debate over the rule of law.