Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 6 - Chapter 4

<w lemma="dhmokrati%2Fas">δημοκρατίας</w>. <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29lhqe%2Fs">ἀληθές</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="lego%2Fmenon">λεγόμενον</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="sumfane%2Fs">συμφανές</w>.

<w lemma="ou%29%2Fte">οὔτε</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="pa%3Dsan">πᾶσαν</w> <w lemma="dh%2Fpou">δήπου</w> <w lemma="monarxi%2Fan">μοναρχίαν</w> <w lemma="eu%29qe%2Fws">εὐθέως</w> <w lemma="basilei%2Fan">βασιλείαν</w> <w lemma="r%28hte%2Fon">ῥητέον</w>, <w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="mo%2Fnhn">μόνην</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="e%28ko%2Fntwn">ἑκόντων</w> <w lemma="sugxwroume%2Fnhn">συγχωρουμένην</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="gnw%2Fmh%7C">γνώμῃ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="plei%3Don">πλεῖον</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="fo%2Fbw%7C">φόβῳ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="bi%2Fa%7C">βίᾳ</w> <w lemma="kubernwme%2Fnhn:">κυβερνωμένην·</w>

<w lemma="ou%29de%5C">οὐδὲ</w> <w lemma="mh%5Cn">μὴν</w> <w lemma="pa%3Dsan">πᾶσαν</w> <w lemma="o%29ligarxi%2Fan">ὀλιγαρχίαν</w> <w lemma="a%29ristokrati%2Fan">ἀριστοκρατίαν</w> <w lemma="nomiste%2Fon">νομιστέον</w>, <w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fthn">ταύτην</w>, <w lemma="h%28%2Ftis">ἥτις</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="kat%27">κατ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29klogh%5Cn">ἐκλογὴν</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="dikaiota%2Ftwn">δικαιοτάτων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="fronimwta%2Ftwn">φρονιμωτάτων</w> <w lemma="a%29ndrw%3Dn">ἀνδρῶν</w> <w lemma="brabeu%2Fhtai">βραβεύηται</w>.

<w lemma="paraplhsi%2Fws">παραπλησίως</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%5C">οὐδὲ</w> <w lemma="dhmokrati%2Fan">δημοκρατίαν</w>, <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="h%28%3D%7C">ᾗ</w> <w lemma="pa%3Dn">πᾶν</w> <w lemma="plh%3Dqos">πλῆθος</w> <w lemma="ku%2Frio%2Fn">κύριόν</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w> <w lemma="poiei%3Dn">ποιεῖν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2F">ὅ</w>,

<w lemma="ti">τι</w> <w lemma="pot%27">ποτ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5C">αὐτὸ</w> <w lemma="boulhqh%3D%7C">βουληθῇ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fqhtai">πρόθηται</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="w%28%3D%7C">ᾧ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Ftrio%2Fn">πάτριόν</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="su%2Fnhqes">σύνηθες</w> <w lemma="qeou%5Cs">θεοὺς</w> <w lemma="se%2Fbesqai">σέβεσθαι</w>, <w lemma="gonei%3Ds">γονεῖς</w> <w lemma="qerapeu%2Fein">θεραπεύειν</w>, <w lemma="presbute%2Frous">πρεσβυτέρους</w> <w lemma="ai%29dei%3Dsqai">αἰδεῖσθαι</w>, <w lemma="no%2Fmois">νόμοις</w> <w lemma="pei%2Fqesqai">πείθεσθαι</w>, <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="toiou%2Ftois">τοιούτοις</w> <w lemma="susth%2Fmasin">συστήμασιν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Ftan">ὅταν</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="plei%2Fosi">πλείοσι</w> <w lemma="do%2Fcan">δόξαν</w> <w lemma="nika%3D%7C">νικᾷ</w>, <w lemma="tou%3Dto">τοῦτο</w> <w lemma="kalei%3Dn">καλεῖν</w> <w lemma="dei%3D">δεῖ</w> <w lemma="dhmokrati%2Fan">δημοκρατίαν</w>. <w lemma="dio%5C">διὸ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ge%2Fnh">γένη</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="e%28%5Cc">ἓξ</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="r%28hte%2Fon">ῥητέον</w> <w lemma="politeiw%3Dn">πολιτειῶν</w>,

<w lemma="tri%2Fa">τρία</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="a%28%5C">ἃ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntes">πάντες</w> <w lemma="qrulou%3Dsi">θρυλοῦσι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="nu%3Dn">νῦν</w> <w lemma="proei%2Frhtai">προείρηται</w>, <w lemma="tri%2Fa">τρία</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w> <w lemma="sumfuh%3D">συμφυῆ</w>, <w lemma="le%2Fgw">λέγω</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="monarxi%2Fan">μοναρχίαν</w>, <w lemma="o%29ligarxi%2Fan">ὀλιγαρχίαν</w>, <w lemma="o%29xlokrati%2Fan">ὀχλοκρατίαν</w>.

<w lemma="prw%2Fth">πρώτη</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%3Dn">οὖν</w> <w lemma="a%29kataskeu%2Fws">ἀκατασκεύως</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="fusikw%3Ds">φυσικῶς</w> <w lemma="suni%2Fstatai">συνίσταται</w> <w lemma="monarxi%2Fa">μοναρχία</w>, <w lemma="tau%2Fth%7C">ταύτῃ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%28%2Fpetai">ἕπεται</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fths">ταύτης</w> <w lemma="genna%3Dtai">γεννᾶται</w> <w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="kataskeuh%3Ds">κατασκευῆς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="diorqw%2Fsews">διορθώσεως</w> <w lemma="basilei%2Fa">βασιλεία</w>.

<w lemma="metaballou%2Fshs">μεταβαλλούσης</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fths">ταύτης</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="sumfuh%3D">συμφυῆ</w> <w lemma="kaka%2F">κακά</w>, <w lemma="le%2Fgw">λέγω</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="turanni%2Fd%27">τυραννίδ᾽</w>, <w lemma="au%29%3Dqis">αὖθις</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="katalu%2Fsews">καταλύσεως</w> <w lemma="a%29ristokrati%2Fa">ἀριστοκρατία</w> <w lemma="fu%2Fetai">φύεται</w>.

<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="mh%5Cn">μὴν</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fths">ταύτης</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="o%29ligarxi%2Fan">ὀλιγαρχίαν</w> <w lemma="e%29ktrapei%2Fshs">ἐκτραπείσης</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="fu%2Fsin">φύσιν</w>, <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="plh%2Fqous">πλήθους</w> <w lemma="o%29rgh%3D%7C">ὀργῇ</w> <w lemma="metelqo%2Fntos">μετελθόντος</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="proestw%2Ftwn">προεστώτων</w> <w lemma="a%29diki%2Fas">ἀδικίας</w>, <w lemma="genna%3Dtai">γεννᾶται</w> <w lemma="dh%3Dmos">δῆμος</w>.

<w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftou">τούτου</w> <w lemma="pa%2Flin">πάλιν</w> <w lemma="u%28%2Fbrews">ὕβρεως</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="paranomi%2Fas">παρανομίας</w> <w lemma="a%29poplhrou%3Dtai">ἀποπληροῦται</w> <w lemma="su%5Cn">σὺν</w> <w lemma="xro%2Fnois">χρόνοις</w> <w lemma="o%29xlokrati%2Fa">ὀχλοκρατία</w>.

<w lemma="gnoi%2Fh">γνοίη</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fn">ἄν</w> <w lemma="tis">τις</w> <w lemma="safe%2Fstata">σαφέστατα</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="a%29lhqw%3Ds">ἀληθῶς</w> <w lemma="e%29stin">ἐστιν</w> <w lemma="oi%28%3Da">οἷα</w> <w lemma="dh%5C">δὴ</w> <w lemma="nu%3Dn">νῦν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dpon">εἶπον</w>, <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="e%28ka%2Fstwn">ἑκάστων</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="fu%2Fsin">φύσιν</w> <w lemma="a%29rxa%5Cs">ἀρχὰς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="gene%2Fseis">γενέσεις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="metabola%5Cs">μεταβολὰς</w> <w lemma="e%29pisth%2Fsas">ἐπιστήσας</w>.

<w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="sunidw%5Cn">συνιδὼν</w> <w lemma="e%28%2Fkaston">ἕκαστον</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="fu%2Fetai">φύεται</w>, <w lemma="mo%2Fnos">μόνος</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="ou%28%3Dtos">οὗτος</w> <w lemma="du%2Fnaito">δύναιτο</w> <w lemma="sunidei%3Dn">συνιδεῖν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="au%29%2Fchsin">αὔξησιν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29kmh%5Cn">ἀκμὴν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="metabolh%5Cn">μεταβολὴν</w> <w lemma="e%28ka%2Fstwn">ἑκάστων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="te%2Flos">τέλος</w>, <w lemma="po%2Fte">πότε</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pw%3Ds">πῶς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pou%3D">ποῦ</w> <w lemma="katanth%2Fsei">καταντήσει</w> <w lemma="pa%2Flin:">πάλιν·</w>

<w lemma="ma%2Flista">μάλιστα</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fwn">Ῥωμαίων</w> <w lemma="politei%2Fas">πολιτείας</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dton">τοῦτον</w> <w lemma="a%28rmo%2Fsein">ἁρμόσειν</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="tro%2Fpon">τρόπον</w> <w lemma="u%28pei%2Flhfa">ὑπείληφα</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29chgh%2Fsews">ἐξηγήσεως</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="fu%2Fsin">φύσιν</w> <w lemma="au%29th%5Cn">αὐτὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29p%27">ἀπ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29rxh%3Ds">ἀρχῆς</w> <w lemma="ei%29lhfe%2Fnai">εἰληφέναι</w> <w lemma="th%2Fn">τήν</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="su%2Fstasin">σύστασιν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="au%29%2Fchsin">αὔξησιν</w>.

The truth of what I say is evident from the following considerations.

It is by no means every monarchy which we can call straight off a kingship, but only that which is voluntarily accepted by the subjects and where they are governed rather by an appeal to their reason than by fear and force.

Nor again can we style every oligarchy an aristocracy, but only that where the government is in the hands of a selected body of the justest and wisest men.

Similarly that is no true democracy in which the whole crowd of citizens is free to do whatever they wish or purpose,

but when, in a community where it is traditional and customary to reverence the gods, to honour our parents, to respect our elders, and to obey the laws, the will of the greater number prevails, this is to be called a democracy.

We should therefore assert that there are six kinds of governments, the three above mentioned which are in everyone's mouth and the three which are naturally allied to them, I mean monarchy, oligarchy, and mob-rule.

Now the first of these to come into being is monarchy, its growth being natural and unaided; and next arises kingship derived from monarchy by the aid of art and by the correction of defects.

Monarchy first changes into its vicious allied form, tyranny; and next, the abolishment of both gives birth to aristocracy.

Aristocracy by its very nature degenerates into oligarchy; and when the commons inflamed by anger take vengeance on this government for its unjust rule, democracy comes into being; and in due course the licence and lawlessness of this form of government produces mob-rule to complete the series.

The truth of what I have just said will be quite clear to anyone who pays due attention to such beginnings, origins, and changes as are in each case natural.

For he alone who has seen how each form naturally arises and develops, will be able to see when, how, and where the growth, perfection, change, and end of each are likely to occur again.

And it is to the Roman constitution above all that this method, I think, may be successfully applied, since from the outset its formation and growth have been due to natural causes.

Walbank Commentary

Overview

6.4.7 - 6.9.14

(a) The Anacyclosis. In this section P. outlines a schematic sequence of political development, by which the various constitutional forms follow each other in a cyclical succession through a process which P. analyses in detail from 5. 4 onwards. The theory of this is specifically not claimed as original (5. 1 ff.). Recently Ryffel (189 ff.) has traced two separate traditions culminating in P.'s anacyclosis, (a) a theory about the origins of culture which goes back to the sophists and especially to Protagoras, (b) a theory about the causes of corruption in states, which are in general the same for each successive constitutional form (see 7–9 nn.). The details of Ryffel's analysis are given in the separate notes. The concept of metabole in states is old; its germs exist in Solon's theory that anomia leads to tyranny, and it was to counteract such a metabole that the idea of a mixed constitution first arose. But the first man to set out an 'order of states' was Plato. In the Republic (viii. 544 C) the 'best form' (aristocracy or basileia, iv. 445 D) is followed by the Cretan or Laconian state (= timocracy), oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny, with the implication that they develop one into another; cf. Rep. v. 449 A, <w lang="el-GR">ἐγὼ μὲν ᾖα τὰς ἐφεξῆς ἐρῶν, ὥς μοι ἐφαίνοντο ἕκασται ἐξ ἀλλή?λων μεταβαίνειν</w>. In the course of a long critique of this passage (Pol. vii (v). 12. 1316 a 1 ff.) Aristotle complains that Plato has failed to explain how the changes come about, and that he has asserted one path of development, whereas in reality almost any change of any constitution into any other is possible (a criticism equally applicable to Aristotle's own succession of constitutions, basileia–aristocracy (politeia)–oligarchy–tyranny–democracy, in Pol. iii. 15. 1286 b 8 ff.; cf. Barker, op. cit., 143 n. 2). But in addition Aristotle points to the absence of any indication of what happens after tyranny, observing (as a reductio ad absurdum) that the logic of Plato's argument would require tyranny to change back into the first, ideal constitution; <w lang="el-GR">οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἐγίγνετο ουνεχὲς καὶ κύκλος</w> . Plato does not in fact close the circle, either here or in his further development of the theory of constitutional change in Laws, iii. 677 A ff., iv. 709 A ff.; Ep. vii. 326 B ff.; and Polit. 291 D, E (for though in Laws, iv. 710 D the development of the best state from tyranny is envisaged, the order of thought is somewhat different); but clearly his theories come very close to this step. Similarly, the discussion of constitutional forms by Aristotle in Eth. Nic. viii. 1160 b 10 ff. (basileia–tyranny; aristocracy–oligarchy; timocracy–democracy), though also not yet a 'cycle', comes close to one. It has been suggested that this passage in the Ethics may have been a close forerunner of the Polybian anacyclosis (cf. Ryffel, 172–3; and already Shute apud Newman, ii, introduction xiv); but it is doubtful whether (despite iii. 4. 11) P. was acquainted with the Ethics, and any influence is likely to be indirect. It is indeed only with the combination of the two theories of cultural <milestone unit="page" n="643">[643]</milestone> ascent and constitutional corruption that the full circle is possible; and this is found in no surviving work before P. In the form in which he presents it, the cycle has so many traditional elements that the immediate source is probably past recovery. As to this many suggestions have been made. It has been widely assumed that P. followed Panaetius of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhodes&groupId=931&placeId=1665">Rhodes</a> (for references see CQ, 1943, 85); and the two men are known to have been fellow-members of the Scipionic circle (Cic. de re pub. i. 34; Vell. Pat. i. 13. 3; Plut. Mor. 814 C–D; Suidas, s.v. <w lang="el-GR">Πολύβιος)</w>. There are, however, chronological difficulties; it is not known whether Panaetius had come to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> before P. returned to Greece (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 103 n. 3). Furthermore, it is an equally arguable hypothesis that if there was any influence it was in the other direction, with the experienced statesman inspiring the young philosopher (cf. Reitzenstein, Gött. Nachr., 1917. 406 ff.; Pohlenz, RE, 'Panaitios (5)', col. 423). P.'s account of the anacyclosis reveals traces of Stoic terminology (see notes), but this would not be very conclusive at a period of considerable eclecticism; <note type="footnote" id="note1">Mioni (62) draws attention to the presence in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> in 155 of Diogenes of Seleuceia, Panaetius' teacher and author of a work of a political character (Ath. xii. 526 D; Cic. de leg. iii. 13). P. certainly heard him lecture (xxxiii. 2. 10); but he did not need to wait until then to become acquainted with Stoic doctrines.</note> and in one important particular, the origin of social life, P. adopts a different explanation from the Stoics (5. 7 n.). Another possible milieu with which the anacyclosis may have links is that represented by the second-century works of Hippodamus and 'Ocellus Lucanus' (cf. Ryffel, 203 ff.; von Scala, 237 ff.). 'Ocellus Lucanus' was the author of a schematizing work in which the principles of <w lang="el-GR">γένεσις, ἀκμή</w>, and <w lang="el-GR">τελευτή</w> were developed on various levels to comprise a picture of the universe. The background of this work is disputed. R. Harder (Neue philolog. Untersuchungen, i (Berlin, 1926), Ocellus Lucanus, Text und Kommentar, 30) regards it 'als popularphilosophischen hellenistischen Traktat'. But W. Theiler (Gnomon, 1925, 151; 1926, 151–3, 590 ff.; Hermes, 1953, 300) argues that 'Ocellus' represents a 'ziemlich geschlossenes System'; and he would link the biological cycle in 'Ocellus' with the circle of Critolaus, in view of parallels between 'Ocellus' (14–16) and Philo (aet. mund. 108–12, cf. 57 ff.ultimately from Critolaus). This connexion was already noted by von Scala (243), but Theiler has reinforced it with new passages. Now, according to 'Ocellus', things 'at the highest level' move <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τόπον</w> only; everything else is subjected to the biological law of <w lang="el-GR">γένεσις ἀκμή</w>, and <w lang="el-GR">τελευτή</w>. Thus at the second level the four elements move <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ μεταβολήν</w> in a Heracleitean flux, described as <w lang="el-GR">ἀντιπερίστασις</w>; at the third level plants move in a cycle of seed, fruit, seed, called <w lang="el-GR">ἐπανάκαμψις</w>; and at the fourth level men and other living creatures <milestone unit="page" n="644">[644]</milestone> pass through a succession of ages. Each of these levels thus reveals a special application of the primary biological law in a form appropriate to its context. The theory of the anacyclosis, Ryffel suggests, may well have arisen in such a milieu; if so, it would represent the specific form in which the biological law expresses itself at the level of political institutions. This milieu, according to Harder, was that of the second-century Peripatos, with a Pythagorean admixture (cf. Ps.-Hippodamus in Stobaeus, iv. 34. 71 = W–H, v. 846); the extent to which it also contained Stoic elements is a matter of dispute between Harder and Theiler. Now, in fact, there is no definite proof that 'Ocellus' and his milieu are directly related to P. at all; and the importance of 'Ocellus' lies in the fact that it provides evidence for a contemporary example, probably of popular philosophizing, which, like P., tries with only partial success to combine the two schemes of growth–acme–decline and of cyclical movementschemes which are to be found united in nature, where the succession of birth, growth, decay, and death in the individual secures the permanence of the species. But to define P.'s source for the anacyclosis more closely seems at present impossible; and no agreement has been reached among recent writers. To Ryffel (201 n. 360) P.'s source is 'mainly Platonizing, but also open to Peripatetic influences'; he does not risk a name; Mioni (66 ff.) derives the doctrine primarily, though not exclusively, from Plato (cf. 5. 1); Regenbogen, RE, Suppl.-B. vii, col. 1519, suggests Theophrastus; and Erbse (Rh. Mus., 1951, 160 n. 1) thinks that Dicaearchus may have been P.'s source for both anacyclosis and mixed constitution. Wilamowitz (Lesebuch, ii. 1. 119), described the anacyclosis as 'eine rationalistische Verwsserung der Platonischen Darstellung, die er gar nicht unmittelbar vor Augen hat'; with its suggestion of Platonic origins and the dilution through a popular intermediary this statement still goes as far as one can go with safety. (b) The anacyclosis and the biological theory. Reference has already been made to the biological theory that all things have their birth, acme, and decline. In its general form this can be traced back to Anaximander (Diels, FVS, i. 12, B 1): <w lang="el-GR">ἐξ ὧν δὲ ἡ γένεσίς ἐστι τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ τὴν φθορὰν εἰς ταῦτα γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὸ χρεών</w> . By Thucydides' time it was a commonplace (cf. Thuc. ii. 64. 3, <w lang="el-GR">πάντα γὰρ πέφυκε καὶ ἐλασσοῦσθαι)</w>; and by the Hellenistic period it was identified with the Stoic <w lang="el-GR">εἱμαρμένη</w> (cf. Phot. Bibl. cod. 249, 1584 B. (perhaps Agatharchides), <w lang="el-GR">τὸ? ἐκ παιδὸς εἰς μειράκιον ἐλθεῖν καὶ τὰς καθ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἑξῆς ἡλικίας οἰκείως διελθεῖν</w>an example of <w lang="el-GR">εἱμαρμένη)</w>. In several passages (4. 11–13. 9. 11–14, 43. 2, 51. 4–8, 57) P. applies such 'organic' or 'biological' terms to his discussion of the development of the state, e.g. <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχή</w> or <w lang="el-GR">σύστασις, αὔξησις, ἀκμή, φθορά, μεταβολή</w>. This sequence implies that all states (even the mikte) must eventually decline <milestone unit="page" n="645">[645]</milestone> <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>(cf. 9. 12–14). What is the connexion of ideas between this biological theory and that of the anacyclosis with which it appears in close conjunction? Whether this conjunction was already in existence before P. is uncertain. Theiler (Hermes, 1953, 298; Gnomon, 1926, 590 ff.) argues that it was in Critolaus (cf. Philo, aet. mund. 58 ff., 71); but Critolaus' acquaintance with the anacyclosis has yet to be proved. In any case the relationship between the two concepts in P. requires close analysis. The problem was first raised by Cuntz (40–41) and De Sanctis (iii. 1. 206); and Zancan (Rend. Ist. Lomb., 1936, 508) provided a partial answer by pointing to the concept of <w lang="el-GR">φύσις</w> which P. insists is proper to both the biological development and the anacyclosis (cf. 4. 7 <w lang="el-GR">φυσικῶς</w>, 4. 9 <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>, 4. 11, 4. 13, 5. 8 <w lang="el-GR">φύσεως ἔργον</w>, and 9. 10 <w lang="el-GR">φύσεως οἰκονομία</w> (both of the anacyclosis), 9. 13, 9. 14, 51. 4 <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>, 57. 1 <w lang="el-GR">ἡ τῆς φύσεως ἀνάγκη)</w>. Particularly in 4. 11–13 the two concepts are brought into the closest relationship; yet they cannot be made wholly to coincide, since the biological theory requires an <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w>, and it is only at the cost of some violence that this can be introduced into the anacyclosis. The difficulty is discussed by Ryffel (216 ff.; see also Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 110 ff., 113–15). There are, he observes, three forms which such an <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> might take. (a) If one considers the whole curve of the anacyclosis, it might well be argued that the <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> is <w lang="el-GR">βασιλεία</w>, since clearly the <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχή</w> lies in primitive society (cf. 5. 4), and the development through the <w lang="el-GR">μοναρχία</w> to the <w lang="el-GR">βασιλεία</w> is a form of <w lang="el-GR">αὔξησις</w>, and the decline into <w lang="el-GR">τυραννίς</w> represents a <w lang="el-GR">μεταβολή</w>. But, despite the fact that P. devotes all 5–7 to this stage of the cycle, such an identification neglects the further stages, and is therefore unsatisfactory. (b) Inside the single state (e.g. of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>) P. tends to treat aristocracy as the <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> (e.g. in 51. 5–6, 57. 8), thus indulging his personal prejudices (cf. 56. 11). But when he is describing the detailed working of the mikte (11–18), he seems rather to exaggerate the real power of the people by putting to their credit the role of the tribunes (16. 4) and the economic activity of the equites (17. 3 ff.), in the interest of his schematic balance. This is against our assuming that the mikte is to be regarded as in some sense weighted towards aristocracy; and in fact 51. 6 merely states that in a mixed constitution at its prime deliberation is part of the function of the aristocratic element (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 117–18). (c) One may apply the biological concept to a single constitutional form; and Ryffel (217) sees some evidence that P. intends this in his use of the doctrine of the <w lang="el-GR">σύμφυτον κακόν</w> inherent in each good form (cf. 4. 8 n., 10. 1 f.). Up to a point this is sound, and is partly supported by such passages as 7. 1 and 8. 1, where it is clear that each phase of the anacyclosis has its own <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχὴ καὶ γένεσις</w> and in turn <milestone unit="page" n="646">[646]</milestone> its destruction. If this is pressed, the problem of an <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> disappears, each phase having its own <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w>; but if P. meant this, surely he would have said so more clearly. Indeed, the problem of the <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> is not fully solved until the idea of the mixed constitution has been combined with that of the anacyclosis. It is to this combination that we now turn. (c) The anacyclosis and the mixed constitution. In four passages (10. 7, 10. 11, 10. 14, 11. 1) P. speaks of the mixed constitution in terms implying that it will not last for ever; eventually it must decline <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ? φύσιν</w>, like other states including the ideal state of Plato: cf. Plato, Rep. viii. 546 A, <w lang="el-GR">χαλεπὸν μὲν κινηθῆναι πόλιν οὕτω συστᾶσαν. ἀλλ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἐπεὶ γενομένῳ πάντι φθορά ἐστιν, οὐδ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἡ τοιαύτη σύστασις τὸν ἅπαντα μενεῖ χρόνον ἀλλὰ λυθήσεται</w>. Consequently there is no fundamental contradiction between the theory of the mixed constitution and that of the organic series, birth, growth, acme, decline (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 107, 112). Indeed, historically the theory of the mixed state arose as the answer to the problem of constitutional change and decay (cf. 3. 7 n., 4. 6 n.); and the ultimate lack of permanence in the mikte made it possible to combine it with the anacyclosis in this book. The existence of any mixed constitution at an historical period ('Lycurgan' <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a>, third- and second-century <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>) explicitly raised the question of its growth, and by implication at least that of its decay. P. wrote book vi as part of his general didactic purpose. His specific reasons are repeatedly stated (iii. 2. 6, 118. 9 f., v. 111. 10, vi. 2. 3, cf. xxxix. 8. 7); they are, briefly, to account for Roman success and world-empire by analysing the form of constitution under which she achieved it. Zancan (Rend. Ist. Lomb., 1936, 499 f.) assumed that P. was also concerned to explain certain contemporary signs of decadence; but this is an object he never mentions, and can only have been incidental. To explain Roman success P. had to analyse the mixed constitution; this meant analysing its growth; and here he found the theory of the anacyclosis invaluable, since the early course of Roman history corresponded to the demands of that theory (cf. 11 a n.). But the anacyclosis also implied eventual decay; and it is this fact which has led to the view (cf. CQ, 1943, 73–89) that its acceptance by P. must be part of the revised plan of his history, adopted after 146 (cf. iii. 1–5 n.), and that this revision sounded a critical note, and put <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> up at the bar of justice to answer for her method of exercising her rulewith an end to it all in <w lang="el-GR">ταραχὴ καὶ κίνησις</w> (iii. 4. 12 n.). But in fact P. must have been confronted with the issue of Roman decay before 150–146 (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 105–7). Already in i. 64 he had criticized the inability of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> as mistress of the world to put to sea such fleets as she had marshalled during the First Punic War; and he must have <milestone unit="page" n="647">[647]</milestone> been familiar with the statue set up to Cato after his censorship of 184 and have read the inscription which Plutarch (Cat. mai. 19. 3) translates: <w lang="el-GR">τὴν Ῥωμαίων πολιτείαν ἐγκεκλιμένην καὶ ῥέπουσαν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον . . . εἰς ὀρθὸν αὖθις ἀποκατέστησε</w>. Nor was Cato alone. Already in 166 the young Scipio Aemilianus was a contrast to the rest of the Roman youths, who had been corrupted by the great wealth and power of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> since the fall of Macedon (xxxi. 25–29; the <w lang="el-GR">ἀδήριτος ἐξουσία</w> of xxxi. 25. 6 recalls the <w lang="el-GR">δυναστεία ἀδήριτος</w> of vi. 57. 5); on this see Pöschl, 64–65. Hence the theory of the anacyclosis, which P. saw illustrated in the rise of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, and which he probably regarded as the specific form of the general theory of biological change (above § (b)), could perhaps already find a further justification (if an incidental one) in the signs that even as early as P.'s arrival in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> 'things were not what they had been'. It is therefore unnecessary (and misleading) to postulate that (as was argued in CQ, 1943, 82–84) the anacyclosis was part of the revised scheme; indeed the difficulties of such a view render it untenable (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 109 ff.). The mikte is therefore to be regarded as the constitution to which the Romans worked by way of the early stages of the anacyclosis; and in so far as she achieved the mikte <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> succeeded in temporarily placing herself outside the influence of the forces normally making for change. To that extent the Roman constitution is a breach of the anacyclosis pattern, which was <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>. Yet from another point of view the achievement of the mikte gave <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> something which, as we saw, was lacking to the anacyclosis as it normally operated an acme; and this brought it (despite the zigzags in its pattern) into relation with the biological concept of origin, growth, acme, and decline. Hence it could (from that point of view) be said to have had a growth that was essentially <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w> (cf. 9. 13–14). This is the explanation of the apparent paradox that P. describes as having had, <w lang="el-GR">εἰ . . . τινα καὶ ἑτέραν πολιτείαν</w> (9. 13), a development <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>, the one state which has evidently succeeded in making a breach in the 'natural' development of the anacyclosis. There is a contradiction herebut one which lies within P.'s rather complicated theorizing in a realm in which he was not a real master; and it is this contradiction which enables him to treat the anacyclosis as the specific form in which the biological law finds expression within the realm of political theory.

6.4.11 - 6.4.13

Transition to the biological interpretation. On <w lang="el-GR">μεταβολαί</w> see 3. 1 n. P. stresses that these changes <w lang="el-GR">(ἀρχαὶ καὶ γενέσεις καὶ μεταβολαί)</w> occur <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w> (cf. § 12 <w lang="el-GR">φύεται)</w>, and that it is because of this that the course of development can be traced; in particular, this is true of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (§ 12 <w lang="el-GR">ἐπὶ τῆς Ῥωμαίων πολιτείας</w>, with a reference forward to the archaeologia (11 a), which outlines the <w lang="el-GR">σύστασις καὶ αὔξησις</w> of the Roman constitution until it acquired the mikte); for this constitution has developed essentially <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>. The transition from § 12 (general statement) to § 13 (application to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>) is, however, effected only by a slight shift in the application of the biological idea. In §§ 11–12 the words <w lang="el-GR">ἑκάστων</w> and <w lang="el-GR">ἕκαστον</w>, coming immediately after the outline of the various constitutional forms, seem naturally to apply to them; and indeed these forms have their beginnings and ends (7. 1, 8. 1). Thus the biological idea is, as it were, 'built into' the anacyclosis. But when in § 12 P. comes to apply his argument to the Roman <w lang="el-GR">πολιτεία</w>, it is no longer of the separate constitutional forms that he is speaking, but of the 'constitution' which is in some sense continuous behind (and through) the separate forms. The same ambiguity appears in 9. 11–14, where <w lang="el-GR">ἕκαστον</w> (9. 11) seems to mean 'each constitutional form', but where it is in reference to the constitutional history of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> as a whole that he speaks of formation, growth, perfection, and decline. In this way the idea of growth and decadence proper to each part of the anacyclosis is transferred to the process as a whole, thus enabling P. to make the kind of assessment which in 51 allows him to assert that <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> is farther along the path of constitutional change than <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 111–12); and it is of course for its application in such specific instances, and as a tool of prognostication, that P. is especially interested in political theory. <milestone unit="page" n="649">[649]</milestone> P. is here interpreting the growth of the mikte at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> as an illustration of the cycle of constitutional forms outlined in the anacyclosis, and consequently as the mark of a state developing <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>. In 10. 13–14 its growth is conceived in more rationalist terms. But there is no fundamental contradiction (as Laqueur, Hermes, 1930, 165, asserts). In the one case the contrast is with Lycurgan <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a>, in the other P. is merely stressing that the growth to the mikte conformed to the pattern of the anacyclosis. When in 9. 11–14 P. reverts to the argument of this passage, he adds an explicit reference to decline (absent here) which is taken up in 57.

Specifics

6.4.2 - 6.4.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μόνην τὴν . . . κυβερνωμένην</w>:</emph> a traditional distinction; cf. Xen. Mem. iv. 6. 12 (of Socrates), <w lang="el-GR">τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἑκόντων τε τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ κατὰ νόμους τῶν πόλεων ἀρχὴν βασιλείαν ἡγεῖτο, τὴν δὲ ἀκόντων τε καὶ μὴ κατὰ νόμους, ἀλλ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ὅπως ὁ ἄρχων βούλοιτο, τυραννίδα</w> . It appears in Plato (Polit. 291 E) and in Aristotle (Pol. iii. 14. 1285 a 24–29). For government by <w lang="el-GR">γνώμη</w> as the mark of the basileus see Herod. iii. 82. 2. See further Taeger, 30; Ryffel, 186 n. 347.

6.4.3 - 6.4.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἐ?κλογὴν . . . ἀνδρῶν</w>:</emph> also a traditional distinction; cf. Herod. iii. 81. 3, <w lang="el-GR">ἀνδρῶν τῶν ἀρίστων ἐπιλέξαντες ὁμιλίην τούτοισι περιθέωμεν τὸ κράτος</w>; see Plato, Rep. iii. 414 A, for the <w lang="el-GR">ἐκλογὴ . . . τῶν ἀρχόντων τε καὶ φυλάκων</w>; Arist. Pol. ii. 11. 1273 a 21 ff., where the choice of officers at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> <w lang="el-GR">πλουτίνδην</w> (as well as <w lang="el-GR">ἀριστίνδην)</w> is a deviation from aristocracy in the direction of oligarchy. See too 10. 9, <w lang="el-GR">τῶν γερόντων . . . οἳ κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἐκλογὴν ἀριστίνδην κεκριμένοι</w> .

6.4.4 - 6.4.4

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐν ᾗ πᾶν πλῆθος . . . πρόθηται</w>:</emph> cf. Plato, Rep. viii. 557 B, for the state with <w lang="el-GR">ἐξουσία ἐν αὐτῇ ποιεῖν ὅτι τις βούλεται</w>. In such conditions the traditional virtues enumerated in 4. 5 are all overthrown; cf. Rep. viii. 560 C, 562 E, Laws, iii. 701 B; Ryffel, 186 n. 347.

6.4.6 - 6.4.6

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰ τούτοις συμφυῆ</w>:</emph> for the concept of a natural inborn corruption see 10. 3 n. Applied to the three constitutional forms (3. 5 n.) it naturally led to the formulation of the three corruptions proper to them, with the mikte as an attempt to avoid these. These corruptions are to be found in Plato (Politicus, 302 B ff.) and Aristotle (Pol. iii. 7. 1279 a 22 ff.; Eth. Nic. viii. 10. 1160 a 31 ff.); for later examples see Plut. Mor. 826 E ff., Ps.-Plut. uit. poes. Hom. 182 f.; cf. Theiler, Hermes, 1953, 300. But, as Ryffel (65 n. 196) points out, the sixconstitution theory seems to be already implicit in Herodotus (iii. 82. 1, <w lang="el-GR">τριῶν . . . προκειμένων καὶ πάντων τῷ λόγῳ ἀρίστων ἐόντων</w> ); hence it would seem to spring from the same sophistic milieu as that of the three simple forms. <milestone unit="page" n="642">[642]</milestone>

6.4.7 - 6.4.7

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πρώτη . . . συνίσταται μοναρχί?α</w>:</emph> monarchia is here the primitive monarchy of early society, which will later develop into kingship; in §6 it is the corruption of kingship, which in § 8 is called <w lang="el-GR">τυραννίς</w>. In CQ, 1943, 76–79, it was argued that this shift in terminology is to be explained by the assumption that 4. 7–9. 14 was a later insertion. This assumption <milestone unit="page" n="648">[648]</milestone> is unnecessary (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 115 n. 3). P.'s distinction between <w lang="el-GR">μοναρχία</w> and <w lang="el-GR">τυραννίς</w> in this section, which is not to be found elsewhere in the Histories, probably reflects the terminology of the source from which he drew his account of the anacyclosis, and is irrelevant to the problem of the construction of this book. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μετὰ κατασκευῆς καὶ διορθώσεως</w>:</emph> 'by the aid of art and the correction of its defects' (Paton). <w lang="el-GR">διόρθωσις</w> is contrasted with <w lang="el-GR">φυσικῶς</w>.

6.4.8 - 6.4.8

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μεταβαλλούσης δὲ ταύτης εἰς τὰ συμφυῆ κακά</w>:</emph> i.e. <w lang="el-GR">βασιλεία</w> (Paton misleadingly translates it 'monarchy') changes into <w lang="el-GR">τυραννίς</w>. The concept of 'innate evil' is Platonic; cf. Rep. x. 609 A <w lang="el-GR">σύμφυτον ἑκάστῳ κακόν τε καὶ νόσημα</w>. Ryffel (248–9) traces it back to a sophistic milieu, probably Antiphon, and ultimately to Empedocles, as its earliest originators. See below, 10. 1 ff., and especially 10. 3 n.

6.4.10 - 6.4.10

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀποπληροῦται σὺν χρόνοις ὀχλοκρατία</w>:</emph> 'in due course mob-rule closes the series'. For the use of <w lang="el-GR">ὀχλοκρατία</w> in Areius Didymus, recording a peripatetic source, see 3. 7 n.

6.4.13 - 6.4.13

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῦτον . . . τὸν τρόπον . . . τῆς ἐξηγήσεως</w>:</emph> 'this sort of explanation'; on <w lang="el-GR">τρόπος</w> in P. see Strachan-Davidson, 1–2.

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary