One of the most conspicuous features of the historical thought of Polybius is the fact that he places emphasis on both rationalism and the role of Tyche. In his history the word τυχη appears on no less than 137 occasions, 106 of which show his own judgment regarding Tyche. While a unanimously acceptable classification is impossible, it would appear that the word is used 13 times to mean Providence or the purposive power working toward a definite goal, and 31 times to indicate the capricious power working for instability in human affairs. He admits in several passages that chance(Tyche) could contribute to history, but in other passages insists that to talk of chance is a poor explanation. There has been much discussion as to why he was inconsistent regarding this matter. We consider that it might be understood if we look at his political career. He saw too many cases where fortunes were suddenly and sensationally reversed, the cause of which it was impossible to explain. However, to acknowledge the power of Tyche is not to give up every effort. He insists that those who engage in politics should do their best with sound judgment and rational calculation. Here he stands within the Greek tradition of rationalism. To make this point clear, we tried to compare Polybius with Ssu-ma Ch'ien, a Chinese historian who was born half a century later. We can find many parallels between them. Ssu-ma Ch'ien regarded the study of the past as essentially a means of attaining practical ends by learning lessons. In a short essay at the end of the Basic Annals of Emperor Kao-tsu, he characterizes the governmental principle of the first three dynasties, the Hsia, Shang and Chou, and demonstrates the cyclical theory of history. He makes frequent references to the so-called "Mandate of Heaven", but in some cases expounds the opposite view that men's failures are due primarily to their own faults and may not be attributed to Heaven. It has of ten been noticed that he was afflicted by the problem of the caprice or injustice of Heaven, and he wrote the famous Memoir on Po I and Shu Ch'i, which reminds us of the episode in Polybius(XXXII, 4,3). However, we cannot find such rationalism as Polybius' in Ssu-ma Ch'ien. His Shih-chi or Records of the Historian was intended primarily as a guide to moral conduct. He emphasizes the importance of virtue or high-mindedness, and writes as if most events were caused by psychological motives. We also noticed many accounts about the movements of stars, and pointed out that those of Polybius are astronomical while those of Ssu-ma Ch'ien are astrological. The contrast between them shows that they stand within different traditions.

抄録全体を表示

It is the object of the present article to analyze and understand the characteristics of peace consciousness of Polybius who lived in the Hellenistic age of chronic wars and wrote a world history in the true sense. We can see in his book, especially in IV. 31. 3-8 and IV. 74. 3, what kind of attitude he took toward the problem of peace. There he wrote as follows: "That war is a terrible thing I agree, but it is not so terrible that we should submit to anything in order to avoid it. ......Peace indeed, with justice and honour is the fairest and most profitable of possessions, but when joined with baseness and disgraceful cowardice, nothing is more infamous and hurtful." Thus, Polybius insisted that liberty and justice were indispensable conditions for peace. We can also recognize the same idea of connecting peace with liberty and justice in many other Greek politicians and historians such as Thucydides. The Greek thought of peace, however, was metamorphosed gradually by historical conditions in the development of the ancient world. Thucydides advocated the war for justice and took a rather aggressive attitude against other city-states such as Sparta, putting stress on Athenian hegemony, although he admitted that peace was naturally desirable. His conception of peace could never depart far from the narrow idea of ομονοια within a πολι&b.sigmav;. The Greek idea of peace was widened by Isocrates to Panhellenistic homonoia, but he had a strong antagonism against Barbaroi. In the historical development of peace theory, the Hellenistic age played a very important role, giving birth to the cosmopolitan pacifism. This kind of pacifism, however, could not become a historical force to attain world peace, because it had a tendency to escape from reality. Though Polybius was influenced by Stoicism he was able to reach a sort of realistic pacifism and wanted to cooperate with Rome, cherishing the idea of a united and organic world consisting of the cultural Hellas and the political Rome, where the common freedom of Hellas should be fundamentally respected. Moreover, he evaluated highly the value of unions of city-states such as the Achaean league. He had not merely a Stoic, philosophic and abstract idea of cosmopolitanism, but a positive, ego-involving and realistic attitude of international cooperation. Thus, the freedom of Hellas as a condition of peace was connected by him with a kind of internationalism and with a Hellenistic idea of one organic world founded on the principle of equality among races and nations. In this sense, we may recognize that Polybius was indeed a pioneer of realistic pacifism, that is of internationalism, though of course in an ancient pattern, which has its limitations for us. It was regrettable after all that the ancient world could not develop this kind of pacifism, but had to seek for a key to solve its problems in Pax Romana and eventually in Pax Dei.

抄録全体を表示

In considering the causes of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides (I. 23. 4-6) makes a clear distinction among αρχη and αιτιαι και διαφοραι and η αληθετατη προφαι&b.sigmav;. Of these three, the meaning of αρχη is transparent, while the other two, προφαι&b.sigmav; and αιτιαι, have allowed scholars to offer various interpretations. Here I will propose my own interpretation of them. Firstly on Trpocpaots. I believe that we should refer to the whole passage of τηνμεν αληθεστατην προφασιν, αφανεστατην δε λογω in order to get at the proper meaning of the word; that it is wrong to try to deduce it only from the first half of the passage. 'Αφανεστατη προφασι&b.sigmav; is opposite to ε&b.sigmav; το φανερον λεγομενη in its meaning; and, on the other hand, προ-φασι&b.sigmav;, with the meaning of 'pretext' and 'excuse', is naturally expected to be spoken in public. Therefore αφανεστατη προφασι&b.sigmav; is a paradoxical expression, containing contradictory concepts in itself. By this paradoxical expression Thucydides intended to attract his readers' attention to the truth hidden deep in the Trpopaais. Now Thucydides distinguishes two kinds of truth: objective truth, του&b.sigmav; 'Αθηναιου&b.sigmav; μεγαλου&b.sigmav; γιγνομενου&b.sigmav;; and subjective truth, φοβον παρεχοντα&b.sigmav; τοι&b.sigmav; Λακεδαιμονιοι&b.sigmav;, each of them corresponding with two different passages respectively: φοβουμενοι του&b.sigmav; 'Αθηναιου&b.sigmav; (I. 88), and of 'Αθηναιοι…επι μεγα εχωρησαν δυναμεω&b.sigmav;, οι δε Λακεδαιμονιοι αιαθομενοι ουτε εκωλυον…ησυχαζον τε…πριν δη η δυναμι&b.sigmav; των 'Αθηναιων σαφω&b.sigmav; ηρετο και τη&b.sigmav; ξυμμαχια&b.sigmav; αυτων ηπτοντο (I. 118). It is often, but wrongly, said that Thucydides, like Polybius, considered αιτια in history only in terms of psychology. It is true that he paid due attention to psychology and sometimes tried to give psychological explanations of historical events, but he never reduced history to psychology. In the major part of his work, he simply observes and describes τα πραχθεντα και λεχ〓εντα ω&b.sigmav; εκαστα εγενετο, as it is specifically the case with the chapters devoted to description of the Fifty Years' History. Thus, to την μεν αληθεστατην…Thucydides did no more than give a passing attention. It by no means invites us to interpret his History as psychological research of some hidden meaning of the facts. Secondly on αιτιαι και διαφοραι. Through his descriptions of incidents at Kerkyra and at Potidaea, and through those of the debates at the meeting of the Lacedaemonian allies, we know that what mattered then most was λελυσθαι τε τα&b.sigmav; σπονδαζκαι του&b.sigmav; 'Αθηναιου&b.sigmav; αδικειν; that what they claimed as δικαιον was τιμωρια against Athenian αδικια; that δικαιο&b.sigmav; λογο&b.sigmav; offered them desired προφασι&b.sigmav; for opening war. In this connection scholars may be right who insist that aixiat means grievances and accusations. However, what I want to emphasize here is that no state can open war through δικαιο&b.sigmav; λογο&b.sigmav; alone. In the Athenian's speech (I. 76. 2) we find a phrase, τα ξυμφεροντα λογιζομενοι τω δικαιω λογω…χρησθε. We should observe, I believe, a shade of anxiety and calculation of their own ουμφερων in the Lacedaemonians' φοβο&b.sigmav; of the Athenians. The truth, which αληθεστατη προφασι&b.sigmav; ought to point to, is no mere emotion, but rather indicative of a historical truth (it will not reveal itself in legal arguments), so far as it reflects historical facts and contains calculations of advantages and disadvantages. In the Mytilenean debates (III. 36-49) Thucydides shows us how δικαιον and συμφερον and οργη can be connected together with one another and how they can differ

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

According to the traditional version of the legend concerning the Gallic occupation of Rome in 390 B C, M Manlius, awakened by the cackling of geese, miraculously saved the Capitol from the night attack by the Gauls who, having occupied the rest of the city, now intended to capture also the citadel Since 1953 Otto Skutsch, an authority on Ennian studies, has persistently asserted on the basis of the fragment Ann 227-8 Sk (=164-5 V^2) that Ennius, in defiance of the tradition, talked rather of the fall of the Capitol The present article counters his theory on three points and aims to establish the probability that Ennius adhered to the traditional version Firstly, the fragment does not provide sufficient evidence for asserting that Ennius spoke of the fall The verb cruentant does not in itself indicate that the vigiles are massacred, still less that the Capitol was taken Skutsch denies the imperfective character of cruentant used with repente As various instances show, however, this adverb does not necessarily preclude an inchoative connotation of the verb with which it is used It is therefore possible that the fragment talks merely of relatively light wounds sustained by the vigiles In one of the preceding books of the Annals (probably the fourth), Ennius dwelt on the more positive aspect of the story for the Romans (Manlius' prowess), in the seventh, to which this fragment belongs, he underlines in retrospect the negative aspect (the wounding of the vigiles) to make vivid the panic of the Romans in face of a renewed Gallic incursion (225 B C) This device is used also by Polybius (2 23 7) and Silius (6 5546) Secondly, there is no good reason to doubt Propertius' testimony concerning the contents of the Annals (3 3 1-14) nor to read cecini instead of cecinit (line 7) As Butler and Barber have pointed out, the phrase regiaque Aemilia vecta tropaea rate (8) refers to the triumph of Aemilius Regillus (191 B C), not to that of Aemilius Paullus (168 B C), so it is unnecessary to suppose that the catalogue (7-12) includes episodes which Ennius does not relate Furthermore, as Kambylis observes, the reading cecinit is more suitable for the context Therefore, the phrase anseris et tutum voce fuisse Iovem (12) clearly means Ennius' reference to a successful defence of the Capitol Thirdly, in the light of the patriotic significance attached to the Capitol in the Republican age, it is implausible that Ennius should have related its fall in the Annals The Capitol had become the symbol of Rome's everlasting glory at latest by the third century B C And a passage in Cicero Pro Archia 22 confirms the public function of the Annals Lucan (5 27) and Tertullian (Apol 40) certainly hint at the fall, but it is wrong to suppose that Ennius could have been as free from the patriotic ideas as these writers of a later period when the Capitol had already lost its symbolic meaning in consequence of Rome's moral decadence These three points makes it more probable that Ennius spoke of the successful defence of the Capitol The episode would have fitted in with the patriotic flavour of the historical epic and must have been one of the highlights of the Annals

抄録全体を表示

The philosophy as a background of the history of geography, especially that of the ancient times, has not been made sufficiently clear. In this article, which is an attempt at tracing the methodological history of geography, I have tried to discover the relationship between Strabo and the Stoic philosophy of the Greco-Roman Age.
Briefly, the Stoic elements in the geography of Strabo are:
(1) his orientation of geography in the system of philosophy: geography→gemoetry→astronomy→physics that is àρειη;
(2) the encyclopaedic character of his geography as related to his practical character;
(3) that this practical character also means ethical practice;
(4) that this practical character may also be found in his ideas of poetry, mythology, and history; especially in his interpretation of Homer from the viewpoint of practice;
(5) that his theory of geographical environment originates in his idea of προνοια;
(6) that his theory of environmental possibilism is influenced by the behaviourism of the middle Stoicism.
(7) his cosmopolitanism that the possession of virtue, and not the difference in race, is the criterion of Barbaroi;
(8) his admiration of the Pax Romana that he regards as tha establishment of Megalopolis.
As these characteristics of Strabo are also related with his methodology of geography, this article will serve as prolegomenon to a full study of Strabo's geography.

抄録全体を表示

Theodor Mommsen was of the opinion that the patricii of ancient Rome had a long-standing right proper to gentes,of letting ancestors who had been dictatores,consules,censores,praetores,magistri equitum or asdiles curules follow in the funeral procession,and of keeping for this purpose their masks (imagines)in the atrium of the house.Afterwords,Mommsen argued,the right was claimed also by the plebs who organized themselves into gentes.It is well-known that Mommsen called this right "ius imaginum".After Mommsen,it was pointed out that the wxpression ius imaginum was a modern creation and does not appear in the classics,but some scholars still believe that there was really a right which can be understood best using this expression and claim to use it as a terminus technicus in the research.However the author's examination of the source materials has led to following conclusions:it was indeed an old practice to show at funerals the imagines of the ancestors who by virtue of holding higher offices had performed great services for the state,and to call their achievments to the minds of fellow-citizens.But with regard to keeping and showing imagines in public,there were no precisely defined right and so far we cannot speak of any "right"per se.The words of Cicero (Verr.II,V,36 und Rab.Post.16),from which ius imaginum was derived,should not be understood as pointing to keeping the imago as such,but as mentioning the chance that magistratus curules can offer for living on in the memory of the future generations by having accomplished achivements.The same Cicero advises a certain Papirii who had flourished until the 3rd century B.C.To be sure,there are indications that ai first it was customary to keep only imagines of agnatic ancestors.Even if that should have been the case,the new nobility which was formed in connection with high offices at the end of the 4th century might have contributed to propagation of the imagines,since they had to win elections in order to acquire offices and tried to capture fellow-citizens' attention by all means possible.In this way by the end of the republic imagines might have become only ornaments which satisfie d the vanity of rich citizens.

抄録全体を表示

Did Cicero intend his statesman to be understood as a 'new concept' (K. Büchner) when he called him tutor et procurator rei publicae and rector et gubernator civitatis (2.51)?
Now numerous instances before and with Cicero of similar metaphors and their combinations applied to political activities make it quite clear that there is nothing new insofar as these phrases are concerned. So in view of their well-known metaphorical character 'minus......tritum sermone nostro' (2.51) should not be translated by 'not frequently used in our language i.e. Latin' but by 'not fully treated in our conversa-tion'.
The study of the passages concerning the role of this statesman suggests too that it is chiefly based on auctoritas and is not appreciably different from that of the principes of the Roman republic. It is, however, very remarkable that the analogy of the reason swaying and controlling the mind, by which the imperium of a monarch is explained, seems also to have been used to describe the activities of this statesman (2.67ff.). Cicero, while conceding the superiority to the mixed form of constitution, maintains that monarchy is to be preferred to the other unmixed forms because of, among others, the fact that there will be no imperium at all unless it remains a unit. It could be inferred from this that what Cicero, when using this analogy, had in mind was a statesman who, while acting on auctoritas (2.69: ut sese......sicut speculum praebeat civibus), would be the sole leader in the state. This semi-monarchistic role is, however, clearly incompatible with the principles of the mixed form of constitution which Cicero pronounces the best and sees embodied in the Roman republic. This inconsistency, if it may be called so, could have resulted from his theorizing on an ideal statesman in line with Greek political theories while retaining him in the framework of the Roman republic.
Now this statesman is set in opposition to a tyrant who is nothing but a deteriorated form of monarchy as is illustrated by the Roman history. This transformation of the best single form into the worst is most typical of all political changes. The mixed form, according to the Greek theories (mainly Polybios) outlined in the De re publica, is the most effective in maintaining equality and stability and thus preventing any change for the worse because it combines and balances the elements of the three unmixed forms; whereas Cicero sees the vital factor of stabilization in the statesman who cares for the practical interests and the self-respect of his fellow-citizens, foreseeing dangerous changes and taking necessary steps against them. Here Cicero, while following a familiar pattern of political discussions where a tyrant or tyranny is contrasted with a just king or other forms of constitution, reserves for his statesman a leading role in renewing and preserving the Roman state, and all who are present in the conversation are urged to become like him (2.45) since he is an exemplum (2.69), a model to be followed by all his fellow-citizens.
The impression thus gained would be that of a 'new' statesman, but he remains nonetheless a traditional i. e. republican princeps, presented as he is in an idealized form. This method of theorizing on the traditional institutions (mos maiorum), idealizing and presenting them as exempla, is used again in the De legibus which was probably begun as soon as, or before, the De re publica was finished.
It is not clear whether Augustus was influenced by Cicero's concept of this statesman. Granting that he adopted for his principate the latter's concept, then he pretended it was not new, for he emphasized his role in having restored the Roman republic and posed as a traditional princeps acting on auctoritas. In reality, however, his principate was nothing other than a kind of monarchy, a novus status, as Suetonius called it.

抄録全体を表示

John Adams (1735–1826), the second President of United States, was a representative theorist of the British North American Colonies and is known as the American Revolution’s most famous leader. He had been the only president to not be reelected until his son, John Quincy Adams (1767–1845), the sixth president, lost to Andrew Jackson (1767–1845). Therefore, one can appropriately say that almost historians have studied why the elder Adams had been unpopularity.

In The Creation of American Republic 1776–1787 (1998), Gordon Wood memorably appraised Adams’s significance in the chapter “The Relevance and Irrelevance of John Adams.” He portrayed Adams as “relevant” based on his earliest writings and his role in establishing the essential forms of American Constitutionalism such as a bicameral legislature, with independent executive and judicial branches, to promote effective checks and balances. However, Wood believed that Adams’ theory of government was incapable of adapting to changes in the American society after the 1780s because his ideas had been based on the ancient concept of mixed government, therefore, his countrymen started considering him an anachronistic aristocrat, thus reflecting his “irrelevance” in American democracy.

The Three-volume A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, published from 1787 to 1788, describes Adams’ constitutional theory. This publication had been initially accepted as a supreme achievement of American enlightenment because of Adams’ early fame and reputation. Nevertheless, several scholars eventually expressed their reservations with his thinking. For example, Mercy Otis Warren (1728–1814), in The Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution (1805), accused Adams of adopting corruptible European courts, therefore dismissing Republican principles. John Taylor (1753–1824), in An inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States (1814), criticized Adams’ theory, especially its aristocratic element. These insights on John Adams were echoed by pre-Wood historians such as Edward Handler, and John R. How Jr.. However, the difference between these historians and Wood is that formers believed that John Adams changed his stance after the American Revolution, while the latter thought that Adams’ political inclination had already been different from that of his colleagues and countrymen, and that this had already been revealed in the political and social processes of the 1780s.

On the basis of previous studies, this article illustrates that Adams’ political thought in Defence and its fourth volume, Discourses on Davila(1790–1791), had taken exception to the democratization of Republicanism in the American political society after the 1780s. It also shows how Adams’ “mixed government theory” was different nature from mixed government theory in the context of medieval Europe despite his use of old-fashioned terms, and this has been reflected in the American society since the colonial age. By describing the Americanistic nature of his “mixed government theory”, this article ascertains the changing process from the early modern to the modern age of American republic.

抄録全体を表示