Classical republicanism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Classical republicanism is a form of republicanism originating from and inspired by the governmental forms and writings of classical antiquity. After a gaping centuries-long period of neglect, its main ideas were rediscovered and went on to flourish during the Renaissance. In the classical period itself the term republicanism did not exist, however the term res publica, which translates literally as "things public", was in usage. There were a number of writers who wrote on political philosophy during this period such as Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero, and their ideas would become integral to classical republicanism. The ideology of republicanism was developed during the Renaissance when a number of authors looked back to the classical period and used its examples to formulate ideas about improved, even ideal governance. Most prominent among these was Niccolò Machiavelli.[1] That classical republicanism actually refers to a philosophy developed primarily in the early modern period is acknowledged by many scholars to be confusing; hence some now use the term early modern republicanism to cover this branch of political thought.
Classical republicanism is also known as civic humanism, a term first employed by the renowned German scholar of late medieval and early modern Italian history, Hans Baron (1900-1988).[2] And although in certain cases and with certain scholars there is a subtle distinction between the two, they are for all intents and purposes interchangeable. Civic humanism is a bit wider in scope and stresses the central role of civic virtue in the preservation of the classically Roman/Florentine ideal of political liberty. Leading exponents of this dual concept are Hannah Arendt, J.G.A. Pocock, Quentin Skinner, and Philip Pettit.[3]
Early modern republicanism rejected monarchy (whether hereditary or otherwise autocratic) in favour of rule by the people. The notions of what constituted an ideal republic to classical republicans themselves is still debated. The ideal republic had mixed government and was based on the pursuit of civic virtue. Most controversial is the classical republican view of liberty and how, or if, this view differed from that later developed by liberalism. Traditionally many scholars felt that republicanism was tilted more towards positive liberty rather than the negative liberty characterizing liberalism,[4] but in recent years this thesis has been challenged. Philip Pettit argues that republican liberty is based upon "non-domination" while liberal freedom is based upon "non-interference." Another view is that liberalism views liberty as pre-social while classical republicans saw true liberty as a product of society.
According to Baron, for many years the foremost expert on the development of classical republicanism, the ideology was a product of the long conflict between Florence and Milan.[5] Florence was ruled by its commercial elites while Milan was a monarchy controlled by its landed aristocracy. The Florentines asserted that their form of government was superior on the basis that it was more similar to that of the Greeks and the Roman Republic. Not only that: Leonardo Bruni asserted, based on Tacitus's pronouncements in the introduction to the Histories, that republican government made better men, whereas monarchy was inimical to human virtue (see Tacitean studies). The Florentine ideal developed into the ideology of civic humanism, as per Baron.
Classical republicanism remained an important theory/ ideology in the Enlightenment playing a central role in the thought of Rousseau and Montesquieu. It was also popular among the Founding Fathers of the United States, and as such, was and remains the enduring basis of its national and state governments.
[edit] See also
- This entry is related to, but not included in the Political ideologies series or one of its sub-series. Other related articles can be found at the Politics Portal.
[edit] Notes
- ^ this would, of course, be the Machiavelli of the Discourses on Livy, not he of The Prince, but for some scholars, they are simply two sides of the same coin. see J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavelian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton: 1975); and Gisela Bock, Quentin Skinner, Maurizio Viroli, eds. Machiavelli and Republicanism (Cambridge: 1990).
- ^ In his native German, "Bürger Humanismus," the coinage occurred in his Leonardo Bruni Arentino. Humanistisch-philosophische (Leipzig;Berlin: B.G. Teubner, 1928). Baron believed Bruni to be "the embodiment of civic humanism." see James Hankins, "The 'Baron Thesis' after Forty Years and some Recent Studies of Leonardo Bruni," Journal of the History of Ideas 56,2(April 1995), 309-332, at 312.
- ^ Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: 1958); J.G.A. Pocock, "Civic Humanism and its Role in Anglo-American Thought," in Politics, Language, and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History (Chicago: 1989;1971); Quentin Skinner, Liberty before Liberalism (Cambridge: 1998); Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: 2000 ed.).
- ^ for this distinction definitively expounded, see Sir Isaiah Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty," in Four Essays on Liberty (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1970).
- ^ The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny (Princeton: 1966; 1955).
[edit] References
- perhaps most valuably: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Civic Humanism
- Bill Brugger, Republican Theory in Political Thought: Virtuous or Virtual? (Basingstoke: St. Martin's Press, 1999).
- Zera Fink, The Classical Republicans: an Essay in the Recovery of a Pattern of Thought in Seventeenth-Century England. (Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press, 1962).
