Editing Classical republicanism (section)

==Overview==
In the classical period itself the term ''republicanism'' did not exist, but the [[Latin language|Latin]] term ''[[res publica]]'', which translates literally as "the public thing" or "the public affair", was in usage. There were a number of theorists who wrote on political philosophy during that period such as [[Aristotle]], [[Polybius]], and [[Cicero]],<ref>The scholar James Hankins would oblige us to include Sallust, Livy, and Virgil, and adds "above all" for Cicero. See "The 'Baron Thesis' after Forty Years and some Recent Studies of Leonardo Bruni", ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' 56, no. 2 (April 1995), 309–332, at 330.</ref> and their ideas became the essential core of classical republicanism. The ideology of republicanism blossomed during the Italian Renaissance, most notably in Florence, when a number of authors looked back to the classical period and used its examples to formulate ideas about ideal governance. In the late [[13th century]] the Italian [[Dominican Order|Dominican]] [[Bartholomew of Lucca]], when completing [[Thomas Aquinas]]’s ''[[De regno, ad regem Cypri|De regno]]'', defended republicanism against monarchy and the autonomy of the Tuscan [[Medieval commune|communes]], and reconfirmed, against [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]], Roman republican values such as patriotism.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|first=Lidia|last=Lanza|year=2010|title=Ptolemy of Lucca|encyclopedia=The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|access-date=5 November 2023|url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198662624.001.0001/acref-9780198662624-e-4835|editor=Robert E. Bjork}}</ref> One of the first to reintroduce classical republicanism was said to have been [[Niccolò Machiavelli]] (1469–1527) in his later reflections.<ref>This would, of course, be the Machiavelli of the ''[[Discourses on Livy]]'', not of ''[[The Prince]]'', but for some scholars, they are simply two sides of the same coin. See J.G.A. Pocock, ''The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition'' (Princeton: 1975); and Gisela Bock, Quentin Skinner, Maurizio Viroli, eds. ''Machiavelli and Republicanism'' (Cambridge: 1990).</ref>

It has been argued that Machiavelli was not a classical republican, since he described mostly medieval political relations.<ref>Paul A. Rahe, "In the Shadow of Lucretius: The Epicurean Foundations of Machiavelli's Political Thought", ''History of Political Thought'', Vol. XXVIII, #1, Spring, 2007.</ref> Indeed, Machiavelli's innovation, addition, or transformation of classical republicanism more likely marks a turning point and the dawn of [[Republicanism#Modern republicanism|modern republicanism]]; Machiavelli's particular brand of republicanism has been dubbed "rapacious republicanism" by a collection of scholars.<ref>See the collection of essays in Ed. Paul Rahe, ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy'' (Cambridge University Press, 2006).</ref> At any rate, that ''classical'' republicanism actually refers to a philosophy developed primarily in the ''early modern'' period is acknowledged by many scholars to be confusing; therefore, some now use the term ''early modern republicanism'' to cover this branch of political thought. To be sure, the conceptual, historical, and philosophical debate continues.

One variant of classical republicanism is known as "civic humanism", a term first employed by the German scholar of late medieval and early modern Italian history, [[Hans Baron]].<ref>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 Hankins, {{"'}}Baron Thesis{{'"}}, p. 312.</ref> 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 slightly 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]].<ref>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.); Jean-Fabien Spitz, la liberte politique, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1995.</ref>

[[Thomas Pangle]] (a student of [[Leo Strauss]]) has critiqued the inaccuracy of the "civic humanist" reconstruction, regarding it as a distortion of classical republicanism on the one hand and of Machiavelli's political science on the other hand. Pangle writes, "both Pocock and Arendt (the latter more self-consciously) obscure the imperialism, the ruthlessness, the warring hierarchy, and the glacial rationalism that truly characterize Machiavelli; over these elements they throw a veil of softened, egalitarian, 'civic humanism.{{'"}}<ref>Thomas L. Pangle, ''The Spirit of Modern Republicanism'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 52. Pangle's discussion can be seen as consistent with Rahe's critique, as cited above.</ref>

According to Baron, for many years the foremost expert on the development of classical republicanism,{{Citation needed|date=February 2022}} the ideology was a product of the long conflict between [[Florence]] and [[Milan]].<ref>''The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny'' (Princeton: 1966; 1955); ''In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism: Essays on the Transition from Medieval to Modern Thought'', 2 vols. (Princeton: 1988).</ref> Florence was ruled by its commercial elites while Milan was a monarchy controlled by its [[landed nobility|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. Moreover, [[Leonardo Bruni]] (1370–1444) asserted, based on [[Tacitus]]'s pronouncements in the introduction to the ''[[Histories (Tacitus)|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.<ref>''Leonardo Bruni Arentino''; also Hankins, {{"'}}Baron Thesis{{'"}}, 318–330; Pocock, ''Machiavellian Moment'', 86-91.</ref>

Since [[Thomas Hobbes]], at the core of republicanism is the concept of the [[social contract]]. Although modern republicanism rejected [[monarchy]] (whether hereditary or otherwise autocratic) in favour of rule by the people, classical republicanism treated monarchy as one form of government among others. Classical republicanism was rather aimed against any form of [[tyranny]], whether monarchic, aristocratic, or democratic ([[tyranny of the majority]]). The notions of what constituted an ideal republic to classical republicans themselves depended on personal view. However, the most ideal republic featured a form of [[mixed government]] and was based on the pursuit of [[Civil society|civility]].

Most controversial is the classical republican view of [[liberty]] and how, or if, this view differed from that later developed by [[liberalism]]. Previously, many scholars accepted the stance of [[Isaiah Berlin]] that republicanism was tilted more toward [[positive liberty]] rather than the [[negative liberty]] characterizing liberalism.<ref>For this distinction definitively expounded, see Sir Isaiah Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty", in ''Four Essays on Liberty'' (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1970).</ref> In recent years, this thesis has been challenged, and [[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. Because liberty was an important part of republican thought, many republican thinkers were appropriated by the theory of [[classical liberalism]].

Classical republicanism became extremely popular in [[Classicism]] and during [[the Enlightenment]], playing a central role in the thought of political philosophy since [[Hobbes]], through [[John Locke]], [[Giambattista Vico]], [[Montesquieu]], [[Rousseau]], until [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]. Some historians have seen classical republican ideas influencing early American political thought.<ref>John G.A. Pocock, ''The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition'' (1975); Bernard Bailyn, ''The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution''. Harvard University Press, 1967; Gordon S. Wood, ''The Radicalism of the American Revolution: How a Revolution Transformed a Monarchical Society into a Democratic One Unlike Any That Had Ever Existed'', (1992); Gordon S. Wood, ''The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787'', (1969); Lance Banning, ''The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology'', (1978); Drew R. McCoy, ''The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America'',(1980); Joyce Appleby, ''Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Republican Vision of the 1790s'', 1984; Joyce Appleby, ed., "Republicanism in the History and Historiography of the United States", special issue of ''American Quarterly'', Vol. 37, No. 4, (1985); Joyce Appleby, Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination, (1992); Isaac Kramnick, ''Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-Century England and America'', (1990); Robert E. Shalhope, "Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography", ''William and Mary Quarterly'', 29 (Jan. 1972), 49–80; Robert E. Shalhope, "Republicanism and Early American Historiography", ''William and Mary Quarterly'', 39 (Apr. 1982), 334–356.</ref>