Display:
Alexander:
I don't think "republic" is a category that has much standing in political theory

Plato, of course, wrote The Republic

Aristotle actually delineated SIX forms : there are three pairs of congruent governments :

  1. A state with only one ruler is either a monarchy or a tyranny
  2. A state with several rulers is either an aristocracy or an oligarchy
  3. A state in which mob rule or a democracy.

He found flaws with all of them and thus concluded that none were suitable systems of government. Aristotle largely embraced Plato's ideas and in his Politics three types (sans Timocracy) are discussed in detail. Aristotle views aristocracy to be the ideal form of government but he observes that none of the three are healthy and that states will cycle between the three forms in an abrupt and chaotic process known as the kyklos. In his Politics he lists a number of theories of how to create a stable government. One of these options is creating a government that is a mix of all three forms of government.

....

The ideal of a mixed government was popularized by Polybius who saw the Roman Republic as a manifestation of Aristotle's theory. Monarchy was embodied by the consuls, the aristocracy by the Senate, and democracy by the elections and great public gatherings of the assemblies. Each institution complements and also checks the others, presumably guaranteeing stability and prosperity. Polybius also describes Sparta as an earlier manifestation of this ideal. Polybius was very influential and his ideas were embraced by Cicero.

....

Cicero became extremely well regarded during the Renaissance and many of his ideas were embraced. Polybius was also rediscovered and the positive view of mixed governments became a central aspect of Renaissance political science integrated into the developing notion of republicanism. Mixed government theories became extremely popular in the Enlightenment and were discussed in detail by Hobbes, Locke, Vico, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Kant. Apart from his contemporaries, only Montesquieu became widely acknowledged as the author of a concept of separation of powers


Thus while the republic may not have made Aristotle's list, it preceded him and was the description used by the Romans for their form of government prior to the Empire.  Montesuieu described three forms of government: Monarchy, Republic and Despotism.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 02:00:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thus while the republic may not have made Aristotle's list, it preceded him and was the description used by the Romans for their form of government prior to the Empire.

What do you mean? Republic comes from the Latin Res Publica ('the public thing'). Plato's Republic was called

Πολιτεία/"Politeía", meaning "city-state governance")
We get the word politics from Aristotle's book title. The Roman Republic started in the 6th century BC, well before Socrates or Plato. Anyway, did the Romans call their state "the Republic of Rome"? To them Res Publica was the affairs of the State. SPQR stands for Senatus Populusque Romanus: 'the Roman Senate and People'. They probably just referred to Rome as 'Rome' and when they said 'the res publica' they meant politics.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 05:07:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And I wonder whether we don't get the term Republic directly from Cicero and whether the term was used before he did
De re publica (Latin: On the commonwealth, see below) is a dialogue on Roman politics by Cicero, written in six books between 54 and 51 BC. It is written in the format of a Socratic dialogue in which Scipio Africanus Minor (who had died a few decades before Cicero was born, several centuries after Socrates' death) takes the role of a wise old man -- an obligatory part for the genre. Cicero's treatise was politically controversial: by choosing the format of a philosophical dialogue he avoided naming his political adversaries directly. Cicero employed various speakers to raise differing opinions in an attempt to make it more difficult for these adversaries to take him to task on what he had written.


En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 05:13:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For instance this article doesn't quote any author prior to Cicero.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 05:15:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Mig:
What do you mean?
I am obviously not a Classical scholar and have not read original sources in Latin or Greek. One of the cheif differences between Greek and Roman ideas of governance was that the Greeks were long bound, (by choice or cultural preference), by the concept of the polis as the practical unit of governance, while the Romans devised a way to incorporate a much broader area into a single quasi-elected form of governance. That probably gave Rome military advantage.

Regardless,

Roman authors would also use the word res publica in the sense of the era when Rome was governed as a republic, that is the era between the Roman Kingdom and the Roman Empire. So in this case res publica does distinctly not refer to the Roman Empire, but to what is generally described as the Roman Republic.
It is to that I referred. The point being that the form, the name and the theory of republics was from classical antiquity. My focus was on the history of the concept rather than the etymology of the word. But citing the mis-translation of Plato's work was misleading and anachronistic.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 12:23:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I quote Wolin on republicanism in this post. The citations you give yourself make clear that "republic" isn't a fundamental political category. How old the term is or where it comes from doesn't really matter: what matters is what competing concepts there are, and which are more coherent. Aristotle's six political forms that you list are coherent; republic isn't.

Plato's Republic was a kind of aristocracy, and republicanism is an attempt to put a positive spin on oligarchy. It is rule by the few attempting to claim the legitimacy of rule by the many.

As for the idea of "mixed government", according to Wolin, America is a republic in the sense that there is a continuing unresolved conflict of interest between the many and the few. The way that inverted totalitarianism deals with this conflict of interest is through managed democracy.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 11:57:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series