Talk:Classical definition of republic/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Much of this isn't Greek. Does this page need yet another title (I hope not), or can we work collaboratively to trim this article? I think a lot of the material about America simply won't fit under this title. Any ideas? Jwrosenzweig 23:44, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes it all fits under the term Republic. And hopefully this page will disappear and become the definition of the Republic. WHEELER 01:52, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This reads like someone's essay...is it really encyclopedic? Adam Bishop 20:08, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Edit it mercilessly until it is! :-) Kim Bruning 20:16, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I edited the intro mercilessly. I figure we'll take it one section at a time for ease. As I've said to WHEELER many times, Sparta was not considered a republic or a politeia by any source I have found. On the contrary, Aristotle uses it frequently as an example of a monarchy -- a very loosely held monarchy, but a monarchy nonetheless. No source I have found equates the British commonwealth with republican government. Political scientists simply do not describe constitutional monarchies as republics. This is why the cuts were made as they were. Other edits to the intro were largely for grammar, I believe. Jwrosenzweig 17:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aristotle, Cicero considered the Spartan State a Republic. Are you more an authority about Sparta than Aristotle Mr. Jwronsenzweig?WHEELER 18:00, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit the internal consistency of the article is improving, Jwrosenzweig definately has had some practice in writing. I've learnt the hard way that internal consistency is almost as important as factual accuracy.

If there's any factual errors left after Jwrosenzweig is done, go right ahead and edit mercilessly right back at him! Try to keep the text as tidy and consistent as was left by the other editors when you do so. Oh yeah, and have fun. If you're not having fun, what's the point of doing this for free? :-) Kim Bruning 18:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, WHEELER, let's start at the beginning again. First of all, neither of us are Aristotle: we are both approaching his work as readers and interpreters. Second of all, I have said countless times that I find no evidence that Aristotle called Sparta a republic, and have begged you for a citation. You still fail to provide one, preferring to simply assert that he did, and then attack me as though I am some kind of rabid egomaniac. I remain as patient as I can be, in hopes that a citation will be forthcoming. Thirdly, Cicero is a moot point in this article, as he is most definitely not Greek. Finally, I can't remain quiet anymore: this may seem a small matter to you, but my username is spelled "Jwrosenzweig". You have seen it dozens of times in our conversations. I take great care to type your name in all caps as WHEELER, to do you the courtesy of getting this small matter right. To print one's own name in all capital letters (as though to enhance its importance) while simultaneously not offering one's interlocutor respect by attempting to spell his name correctly strikes me as a possibly troubling indication of a lack of regard for others. I hope that I am mistaken in this, but I ask you to please do me the favor of spelling my name correctly: a minor matter, I admit, and yet one which I feel an intelligent person such as yourself ought to do as a matter of courtesy. Now, WHEELER, may I get that citation from Aristotle concerning Sparta? Jwrosenzweig 18:33, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Go back to Talk:Republic. There I quoted from Aristotle and gave the Loeb reference. Nothing happened on that page. I have the expertise. I have read. I take it you are new to politics. I have considerable reading done and studied. You do not trust me at all. I have put the reference in.WHEELER 18:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have looked at the relevant passage: if you remember, I did once before. You and I are not agreed that "politeia" is synonymous with republic -- most translators, except (interestingly) for the one you continue to quote, do not consider the Greek politeia synonymous with republic. Furthermore, Sparta is repeatedly referred to as a species of kingship, which Aristotle explicitly separates from his discussion of mixed government -- see 1285a and subsequent sections. Your assertion of expertise and implication that I am foolish or inexperienced is offensive and bizarre: you already know from having talked to me that I took 2 quarters (6 months) of independent directed study with a philosophy professor in which we studied nothing but the Politics of Aristotle. I have 11 years of university education and three degrees to my name, all of them with an emphasis on history and literature (giving me an exceptional amount of time studying the classics). I do not like to boast, but if you are going to pretend some kind of superiority here, that's going to bring out my fighting spirit, which I would rather set aside. You may have more education than me (I do not know), but you certainly have no right to condescend to me as you just did. I don't know Aristotle perfectly, but I know him well enough to know that you are frequently twisting his words for your own devices. I do not know why you are doing this: you know Aristotle well enough that you could use that knowledge to write excellent encyclopedia articles. Instead you are writing biased personal essays and then attacking people who dare to question your speculations. I am growing very tired of this. Please stop being rude to me and deal with the questions we are considering. Jwrosenzweig 18:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
All right, the above is a little too harsh, WHEELER, for which I apologize. I do remain unhappy about the fact that your comments about me frequently misrepresent or mis-assess my experience, ability, knowledge, and beliefs. I feel you use evasions and personal attacks to avoid arguments you feel you have no response to. I would like to have a calm conversation with you about our differing viewpoints in the hope that this article can be edited into fine shape. I hope you are willing to do that. Thank you. Jwrosenzweig 21:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have put a discussion on Wikipedia:Revisionism up. It is something I am noticing. WHEELER 23:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why I was directed to that page. I can't make heads or tails of it -- how is it relevant to our discussion? And why do you attack science for disagreeing with Aristotle that women have fewer teeth than men? Do you believe that Aristotle was right in that assertion? Jwrosenzweig 00:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Let me flesh this out completely and compare this to the current Wikipedia definition and see and compare. An encyclopaedia is "Total knowledge". It is supposed to be "elaborate and exhaustive repertory of information on all the branches of some knowledge.

I was wrong when I said that the British Commonwealth *was based* on the Spartan model. I should say that the Bristish Commonwealth *mimics* the Spartan model. But look at the name itself "Commonwealth". Commonwealth and Republic are synonomous words. A state is composed of many different *classes* of people. 'Classes' is not 'seperation of powers'.WHEELER 15:29, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedia should indeed attempt to be exhaustive, but not when the desire to be exhaustive allows it to accrete personal essays and speculative arguments that, though they may be true, cannot be said to be neutrally descriptive articles. I do not believe that you've established that commonwealth and republic are synonymous. Furthermore, the United Kingdom calls itself just that -- a kingdom. When is commonwealth ever used except in the context of describing the interconnections of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.? And what do you mean by the "classes" statement? I do not follow your argument there. Jwrosenzweig 00:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Clearly this definition will dispel Confusion.WHEELER 15:29, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, I'm sorry, but it certainly doesn't. I'm surprised that you haven't realized by now that most of us do not find your definitions and arguments clear: that doesn't necessarily make them wrong, but I think at this point you should proceed under the assumption (based on past precedent) that arguments you find clear are nearly always confusing to me. This is not universally true, and I'm not saying it to bash you -- I'm saying it because I need you to be more direct and comprehensive in explaining your assertions. Jwrosenzweig 00:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Plato discerned that “Persia and Athens show the fundamental elements of all political life exaggerated as far as possible in one direction and the other(the one monarchical, the other democratic)…the merit of Sparta is that she has been trying to blend them, and has therefore maintained herself for a long time.” (17) A republic is really the golden mean between the extremes of democracy and Asian monarchical despotism.

(17) Padeia, The Ideals of Greek Culture, Werner Jaeger, translated by Gilbert Highet, Oxford University Press, NY, l944. Vol III, pg 236. References to Plato’s Laws 693d-e

We can't talk about "Asian monarchical despotism" in an article -- that's rather biased, don't you think? And in that quotation, I don't see Plato defining Sparta as a republic, although I certainly do admit that he didn't see Sparta as despotic or democratic. Neither did Aristotle. I never made that assertion. The assertion I made is that, according to Aristotle, they remain a monarchy even when not despotic. Jwrosenzweig 00:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is not only Aristotle but you need to read Plato also. I do not have the Loeb but the Hamilton edition. Werner Jaeger is a Classicist par-excellence and he acknowledges that Sparta is the "golden mean" between the extremes of democracy and monarchy. Werner Jaeger wrote in l946. Plato writes of Sparta at 692a as "how monarchy of your own Laconian state came to be a MIXTURE of the right ingredients. At 692c "The power to limit sovereignties and make ONE OF THREE". Aristotle titles Sparta as a Politea. A state composed of different classes. The royalty, the aristocracy, the ephors-the demos. One of Three.

Most of the translators we're referring to are "classicists par-excellence" -- Jaeger no more so than Jowett (or less so, I should think). Jaeger's opinion on Plato is interesting, I admit, but that doesn't really connect the chain. The opinions we need for this article are those of the Greeks themselves -- where is Plato's clearest statement of what a republic is, and how does Sparta meet or fail to meet that definition? Given Plato's pro-Sparta leanings, I wouldn't be shocked if Sparta met his definition of a republic, but I'd like to see the actual quotation. Jwrosenzweig 00:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Plato says Mix. Aristotle says Mix. Cicero says Mix. Scipio says Mix. Polybius says Mix. Diarechus titled the treatise "Tripoliticus". The title alone says volumes on the subject matter at hand. What Sparta had was new and the Greeks were trying to get a handle on the matter. Diarechus got a handle on it. The title of his work is everything.WHEELER 15:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For what feels like the tenth time, "mixed government", "politeia", and "republic" have not been demonstrated by you to be synonymous terms. On the contrary, the fact that most of Aristotle's translators eschew the word "republic" in favor of "mixed government" or "polity" to translate "politeia" indicates to me that they are likely not synonymous. Cicero and Scipio, again, are not Greek. Dicaearchus (note: not "Diarechus") has almost no extant work, to my limited knowledge, and I am not aware that the contents of Tripoliticus are available now. Have you an edition? Certainly the title alone doesn't seem like evidence to me -- if it, in fact, is "everything" that survives of the work, I'd say the title was of little use to us. I think there is something important to say about Greek ideas of government. What I continue to fail to see is that we can classify all modern governments according to Aristotelian or Platonic principles: it is too hard to discern the nature of a "politeia", and your efforts to make it synonymous with "republic", and then further attach governments like that of the United Kingdom to the idea of a "republic" because they resemble Spartan government in a few ways feels like a "slippery slope argument" to me. I would like to slow down and sort out what is known about "politeia" before we deal with why you believe that word should be translated as "republic". Jwrosenzweig 00:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From the Harpers Dictionary of Classical Literature:

"The constitution of Lycurgus laid the foundation of Sparta's greatness; yet this constitution, traditionally ascribed to Lycurgus, is not to be regarded as wholly due to him. It represents the union of three distinct principles: the monarchical principle was represented by the kings, the aristocracy by the Senate, and the democractical element by the assembly of the people, and subsequently by their representatives, the ephors."

Both H. Rachman and this editor of the Dictionary call the council of thirty, the gerousia, the Senate. The proof is now overwhelming.

References to this article is to the expert and classicist, a German by the name of Muller, of Dorians. He wrote two books, Die Dorier and one in English called The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Eng. trans. 2 vols. (Oxford, 1830)WHEELER 23:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see, once again, how demonstrating that Sparta had a semblance of tripartite government automatically means that they were a republic, and that all of your subsequent points are thereby established. That a few classicists call the council a "Senate" does not mean that they are accurately describing the council, or that its powers were roughly equivalent to modern legislative bodies: furthermore, we have not established that the presence of a legislative body demands that a society be called a "republic". You move too quickly for me: I may in fact agree with you, but you're skipping too many steps. Once again, all the translators being cited by both of us are expert in this field. It does not make them infallible. Jwrosenzweig 00:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I move fast. Carpe Diem. In The Dictionary of the History of Ideas five volume set, l973 in an article in Vol II called 'Freedom of Speech in Antiquity' by Arnoldo Momigliano, pg 254, "Carthage was a republicas early as the fifth century B.C." Just above this writer writes of Aristotle and says Aristotle noticed that the constitution of Carthage was similar to that of Greek cities. Carthage is a Republic. Aristotle defined it as such. Any thing with a "mixed government" is a Republic.WHEELER 16:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Everything with mixed government is a republic, by your definition, right?

Alright. Well, how about running through the CIA World Factbook ? We would find that practically every modern nation is a republic by your definition.

That's fine. I don't mind my definitions much, as long as it's clear what the definition is. Well, that, and the definition should be useful (see my semi-rant at the end of Talk:Scientific skepticism sometime ;-P ).

Now I'm not sure what to do with your (ancient greek) version of republic in current day use. I think it's unwieldy. It doesn't do anything sophisticated about dividing up nations into different classes we understand. So in that sense the ancient greek philosophies on republic are a kind of POV.

Mind you, they're a VERY interesting POV!

At the time, there weren't that many republics, so the definition was useful. And that's all that's important on this page.

I'll be very interested to see what you write here. Kim Bruning 16:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you even comment on the above quote from the Dictionary of Ideas. The author says Carthage is a Republic since the 5 cent. B.C.

I say again, if you read the definition of the site Kim, America is no longer a Republic since l913. It is now a pure democracy. When England gets rid of the monarchy and the House of Lords, then it turns into a democracy, until then it is a Republic. Only those governments that include the "Aristocracy" and/or "Monarchy" with the "Demos" is MIXED government. All state governments in America are democracies.

Third point Kim, the wikipedia definition doesn't have a single reference to it. It is plain garbage. Yet, you want to attack me some more. Why don't you use your powers to attack that article.WHEELER 19:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What part of "It's a VERY interesting point of view" would you call an attack? :-)

That was a compliment. :-)

Keep up the good work!

In the mean time, *do* take a break eh? Remember to have fun :-)

Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 20:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like Plato; Plato is a taperecorder. If you understand Plato and knew how he wrote, he is a taperecorder; i.e. his interlocutors are real people. His dialogues are for his day. People would notice that words of his interlocutors are those of the interlocutors. That is one of the purposes of Plato.

Now listen, to one of the few recorded Spartan speeches:

Megillus the Spartan: Why sir, when I consisder our Lacedaemonian constitution, I really cannot tell you offhand which would be the proper name for it. It actually seems to have its resemblances to an autocracy--in fact, the power of our ephors is astonishingly autocratic--and yet at times I think it looks like the most democratic of all societies. Again, it would be sheer paradox to deny that it is an aristocracy, while yet again a feature of it is a life monarchy, asserted by all mankind, as well as ourselves, to be the very oldest of such insititutions.

Clinias the Cretan: I find myself in the same perplexity as you, Megillus. I am quite at a loss to identify our Cnossian constitution confidently with any of them.

The Athenian (Plato): That, my friends, is because you enjoy real constitutions, whereas the types we have specified are not constitutions, but settlements enslaved to the domination of some component section, each taking its designation from the dominant factor. The Laws, 712d and following.

Plato: Conducted in this way, the election will strike a mean between monarchy and democracy, as a constitutional system always should. The Laws 756e-757aWHEELER 15:22, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From Christianity and Classical Culture Charles Cochrane said, "to the theory of mixed constitution, he recognized that this in itself was no adequate safeguard of freedom." pg 58. WHEELER 18:44, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Roman section needs a little more body but this is what an encyclopaedic article is all about. Total all-around knowledge that is well documented which is of course NPOV. Thorough and all encompassing. Someone can read that and know exactly what he is talking about. Any college or high school student reading this is but filled with knowledge and certainty about the subject.WHEELER 19:22, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This Article needs to replace the current definition of Republic. This is the true and right definition of a Republic. I need concurrence on this: Will anyone support?WHEELER 15:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, I think this is a decent article that needs work, as I've said to you. I wouldn't call this "what an encyclopaedic article is all about", I'm afraid. It lacks a good structure and so its transitions seem abrupt. It becomes too much like a persuasive essay at times. It makes assumptions that I have repeatedly said are unwarranted -- there is no reason that I can see to assert that the only republic is a "mixed government" that looks exactly like what Aristotle described. Most translators, in fact, do not equate "republic" and "mixed government" -- though I certainly admit they must be relatively closely related. But this article asserts things that I have already discussed with you, where I demonstrated fairly clearly, I thought, that you _may_ be right, but that there was enough uncertainty that you couldn't simply assert your idea as fact. And yet this article does, on occasion, make those assertions. It is certainly a decent article, but I can't pretend this is the pinnacle of Wikipedia's articles. And I do not support this supplanting Republic, as the word "republic" is now used in a fashion that would make this article very confusing for anyone going to Republic looking for an understanding of the modern Republic. I would suggest that this page move to Classical Definition of Republic, as "classic" isn't quite right, I think. Jwrosenzweig 16:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is a fair article covering the classic definition of republic. It doesn't cover modern (as in <1000 years of age) republics or monarchies at all, so I'm sticking with my guns and firmly suggesting it should reside at Classical definition of republic. Kim Bruning 17:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Should this article be listed under NPOV disputes? It seems full of POV to me, what does everyone else think? Cadr

By all means. Can someone create Wikiessay so that Wheeler and others can go there and write argumentative essays? :) AndyL 21:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In WHEELER's defense, there is a core of good information in this article. I do agree with your edits to it, AndyL, and I also agree that WHEELER still does not seem to realize that many of the things he sees as neutral fact are actually his own POV on the truth. But I also think we need to recognize that WHEELER is making attempts to fit in here, and that he is making a number of valuable contributions. Jwrosenzweig 21:12, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't disagree - I just think WHEELER is still looking for an outlet for his opinions. If he starts his own blog or something where he can broadcast his findings then he won't see the need (hopefully) to propagate them here and will be able to stick to factual contributions. AndyL 22:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AndyL is committed to his side. He doesn't like contrary information. I Quote from a Classical dictionary and he goes bonkers. Sorry.WHEELER 00:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a fantasy world for Andy called Wikiessay so he can propagate his ideology that Nazism and Fascism are rightist and christian conspiracies. Take your own medicine Andy.WHEELER 00:41, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think WHEELER has done some good work here. I hope he doesn't mind the necessary tweaking AndyL 03:14, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the good editing and the last section of the misconception is improved. I like this. Thanks. Everyone has done a good job.

There is a big problem in American education when the classics are dropped from schools and universities. No one reads or understands anymore.
I understand that Nebraska has a unicarmel house. That doesn't make it right. The law demands Republican government in all the states. NONE of the states have a republican government. NO ONE is obeying the constitution. Complete lawlessness. Just Like Socrates predicted.WHEELER 15:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Heh. We seem to be doing just fine without hewing to your extremist reading of the constitution and what a republic is, thank you very much. older ≠ wiser 15:43, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Disagreement between here and Republic

You're not making my life easier by directly contradicting what's said in republic :-/

So could you please help me sort out what democracy means in old texts and what republic means , and what perhaps anarchy , tyranny and so means. It looks like meanings have shifted through time. (No surprise there after 2000 years. It's surprising some of the words even still exist :-) )

word                  >~1800 C.E.       <~1500 C.E.
-------------------------------------------------------------
tyrant/dictator       oppressor       a temporary "president"
republic              no king         rule by people?
democracy             diverse forms   majority rule only.
                      of rule by the
                      people.
aristocracy           subset of       diverse meanings
                      citizens        through time.
                      with additional
                      duties, archaic
                      institution.

Note that these words and systems exist in european history only! It'd be interesting to see parralels through history in other cultures.

It's ok to edit the republic article to correct misconceptions. Just remember that the word *HAS* moved in meaning through time. :-) Kim Bruning 15:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

On the Classic Definition of Republic: The Classic definition is what the Founding Fathers intended. What Nebraska instituted was parlimentarianism. A unicameral house is the product of parlimentarianism not a Classic Republic. You are misleading the Term. I wish to direct you to read Wikipedia:Principles of Definition. A word means only what it means. If one can manipulate words all he wants to; words really have no meaning.WHEELER 14:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Kim I did not change anything at the Wikipedia Republic site. Read Aristotle's politics and Plato, the Laws and Polybius. None of them confused democracy with republic. Read what Plato said. Read the Athenian constitution. "At this date, therefore, the state had advanced to this point, growing by slow stages with the growth of the democracy." Pg 71 in the Loeb. Democracy is not a Republic. The Politiea under a constitution was by "gradual steps" converted to a democracy. Plato had no problems either. Plato said Sparta is a the mean between democracy and oriental despotism. Well, if Sparta was not a democracy, what was it??????WHEELER 14:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

All political terms come from the Greeks. Only the Greeks define them what is this 1800BC junk?WHEELER 15:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

1800 CE, not BC. :-) Read more carfully will you?
Um, and wrt to politics, it's not true that all political terms come from greek. For instance the german word for emporer (kaiser) and the russian word for emporer (tsar) are derived from different pronunciations of caesar (a family of famous roman emporers). The word emporer in english comes from the latin imperator.
That aside, interestingly, if you actually knew either modern or ancient greek (or both), we wouldn't be having this argument at all. Languages differ between times and places. Kim Bruning 07:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

"It is not, however, correct to say that the sentiment of the Convention was undemocratic. Members did not propose to set up an unlimited democracy as did the Pennsylvannia constitution; but they insisted on giving democracy its share in what they intended to be a 'mixt' government , with the democratic, aristocratic, and authoritative elements properly balanced. That was the recipe of all leading political writers since Polybius for the successful constitution of a state, whether Repbulican or monarchical in form. There was no question of course, that the United States should be a republic Alexander Hamilton might think monarchy the best form of government but he realized that it was wholly unsuited to America..." The Growth of the American Republic, Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, Oxford University Press, first printed l930 and throughout till 1962.WHEELER 17:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Indirect source. Are the original reports from these conventions not written in readable english? Give those a shot! Kim Bruning 07:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
First, I am at a small public library in Michigan. I have no recourse to original documents. I wish I was in New York or something.
You have this great library at your fingertips called the world wide web. If you have a title of a document that was written prior to 1923 (CE), you have a good chance at finding it online using google.com. (see also: Project Gutenberg)
Second, I don't get your 1500 bc or 1800 bc diagram. Self-government only existed among the Greeks,Carthiginans and Romans. Before then, there was only oriental despotism. I do not know what you are trying to get at.
Your inability to accurately read what I have written worries me. I wrote C.E., not B.C. or B.C.E. (see also above, where I already provided this answer). There is a trifeling difference between 1500 BCE (or BC) and 1500 CE (or AD if you will), of roughly 3000 years.
I say again, The Greeks defined government by the dominant element. A Republic does not have a dominant element. Democracy is so named because the common people are the dominant element in Government. That is the definition of democracy. WHEELER 15:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Fine by me, this is article is about the classic definition of republic after all. I'm trying to understand how the meanings of words have changed through time and to apply that understanding to other articles. I hope you're willing to help me at least. :-) Kim Bruning 16:06, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Things have been screwed up because of political battles all due to the French Revolution and Roussea. I am so exasperated right now with knowing that someone put Western Culture site up for deletion. I am just sick to my stomach. Next, I am tired of fighting people who cannot define and divide. The hallmark of Western man. Now someone has written that a republic is a unicameral house as well. Well, if a Republic is a unicameral house then that means that there is nothing to distinguish it from parlimentarianism. So, democracy is a Republic is parlimentarianism is anything you want it to mean. Just make it up as you go along. The meaning of words is a no-win situation.WHEELER 00:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
If you are referring to me, I'd prefer it if you did not imply that I said things that I did not say. First, the meanings of words change, there's no two ways about it, and folks can argue from here to eternity about just exactly what it was that the words meant and you are still going to have different perspectives on things. You appear to be arguing that the U.S. consitution requires that states have bicameral legislatures, and all I'm saying is that the fact not all do is prima facie evidence that what the constitution meant by a "Republican Form of Government" is not so cut and dried as you would like readers to believe. older≠wiser 00:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Please read both the Athenian Constitution and Politics by Aristotle. In both, he talked about "gradualism". The Athenians were also a "Republic". Solon in his constitution had two houses. Athens under Solon was a Republic of the Classical kind. Aristotle talks of the *gradual* shift to democracy. He talks of the constitution being undermined gradually in the Politics. If you/we want, we can add Athens under Solon as a Republic.WHEELER 17:12, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

My apologies Kim Bruning my mind has been on the Fritz. I am moving and concentrating on reading books on Fascism so my mind has left me. I am a ditz in confusing CE with BC. I am used to BC and when I saw CE-I saw BC. I am not used to modern term CE.

I supposed Rousseau mangled the term and the rest of the French philosophes. A Republic in a modern term would be either based on the Spartan or Roman modell. The definition of a republic is anything with a bicameral house with the upper house being aristocratic and not elected by the people. It then makes no sense to have a bicameral house any way. Please read Harpers Magazine, the article "What Democracy, The Case for Abolishing the United States Senate" by Richard N. Rosenfeld.

I quote from page 39, "For eighteenth-century Americans as well as for the Englich, the purpose of a second chamber was really to protect wealth and aristocracy form the demans of a democratic majority. As historian Jackson Main has written, "The theory of balanced government suited colonial political figures because it justified their resistance to both monarchy and democracy, and at the same time it also justified upper-class rule."WHEELER 17:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

In the modern, there are now movements in both America and England to abolish the upper house. It makes sense. Parlimentarianism rules the day. According to the Greeks, the dominant factor defines political institutions. England stopped being a republic in 1832 when the House of Lords was stripped of its powers to veto. The continous reforms of parliment esp. 1911, solidified these changes and increased the power of parliment. In 1913, The US was converted to a democracy when the common people became dominant. Burma is ruled by a King. When the communists finally uproot him, The Kyklos will turn into a democracy.WHEELER 17:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

All I have to say is that this article is now destroyed. I worked hard here with over 30 quotes and references and this guy screws it up. I can't stand it.

Mr. TRuendiedkawep;lfhsdalgal;srejh didn't add any information no quotes just fucks it up with his nonsense. Why do I even bother?????????????????/WHEELER 14:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mr Trudeau is at it again. He doesn't add to the article he adds commentary.

Note, however, that many modern historians consider Sparta to be the first totalitarian state in history (as it was a highly regimented and militaristic society), and argue that the Spartans could not be said to have been "free" to begin with - much less retaining their freedom.

So I have to add my own commentary.
(Note, but most others think that Sparta was not a totalitarian state, they were just obedient to their Laws instead of to men like Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin. Edith Hamilton writes that the Spartans would never obey unjust orders so to her they were not totalitarian. The ancient Greeks thought of Sparta having the right amount of Freedom and many Greeks were philodorian. The Spartans were never imperialistic and showed how excellence the state can be.)

I mean this is getting quite stupid. This is a definition not a running commentary on if we approve of the spartans or not. Does anybody out there understand what a definition does? If a Republic is mixed goevernment and it stops being *mixed* it stops being a republic and becomes something else. There is no POVing or NPOVing. A Republic is a Republic. That's it.WHEELER 18:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fine. But if we're going to remove my criticism of Sparta, then let's also remove Polybius's slavish admiration, shall we? After all, commentary by Polybius is still commentary.
- Mihnea Tudoreanu

Which part of "NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW" don't you understand?

Since our dispute remains unresolved, WHEELER, I've reverted some of your edits, put up a neutrality warning, and I'm taking the discussion here. Let me show you exactly what was wrong with your version:

"A republic, in the classical form, is a type of government that is made up of a mixture of the best elements of the monarchy, aristocracy and democracy."

"Best" elements? SAYS WHO?

"Aristocracy [...] is needed [...] in every intstitution."

SAYS WHO?

"A republic is really the Golden mean..."

"Golden mean?" SAYS WHO?

In other words, the problem with your article, WHEELER, is that it makes value judgements about different types of government, claiming that one (a classical republic) is better than the others. This is POV and thus unacceptable on Wikipedia. Do you understand?

Also, POV by Aristotle or Polybius is still POV. Do you understand that, as well?

- Mihnea Tudoreanu


Mr. Tudoreanu, This is the "Classical" definition. What part of "Classical" do you not understand? Polybius is the historical record. It is his comment not POV. You have not studied the classical works and so you have no understanding of this article.

Plato said it was the mean.
Diarechus, Plato, Arius, and others. Read the ancients. I can't help it if you don't understand the ancients.WHEELER 22:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You talk of "the ancients" as if they were gods. I understand them perfectly, and I also understand my right and the right of everyone else to disagree with them - not regarding the definition of a classical republic, but regarding the perceived benefits of such a government system. The ancients have their own POV, as do you and as do I.

Saying that a classical republic combines "the best" elements of other systems is pure, undilluted POV. It does not belong in a Wikipedia article. And the same applies to the many other POV comments you've inserted.

As I have explained before, the fact that "X historical figure said it" does not make it any less of a POV. Would you consider it appropriate to base the Nazism article, for example, on the POV of that ideology's creator? Should we quote Adolf Hitler and define Nazism along the lines of "the only hope for the survival of the Aryan race" or "a bastion against the forces of Judeo-Bolshevism"?

This is sadly turning into a revert war, and if it goes on for much longer, I will ask for a moderator to intervene.

- Mihnea Tudoreanu

Mr. Tudoreanu it is you who are turning this into a revert war. You don't know what you are talking about. Have you read any of the classical books?WHEELER 14:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, yes, of course I have, otherwise I wouldn't be here. Second of all, ad hominem's won't help you. Your competence or my competence are irrelevant issues. What matters is the content of the article. You see, having a thorough reading of a certain subject does not automatically make you an authority in the field, and it certainly doesn't make your POV any less POV.

The proof you seek for the goodness of a Classical republic is that the Founding Fathers of America copied their system.

I had to read this a couple of times just to convince myself that someone could indeed be as insane as to use such an absurd [Appeal to Authority Fallacy] and claim with a straight face that it represents a valid argument. "X is good because Y supports it" does not constitute a rational argument, my logically-challenged friend. Besides, you're implying that the original United States - complete with slavery, slaughters of Native Americans, etc. - is somehow a model to be followed. I couldn't disagree more.

They hated democracy. Read the article.

If the "founding fathers of America" hated democracy, then, in my opinion, they were either delusional idiots or malevolent elitists. And if you hate democracy, the same applies to you. But I also recognize that my opinion is my opinion, and it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article - something which you seem to fail to understand.

Do you dispute the fact that the Founding Fathers started a republic based on Classical lines?WHEELER 14:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what your beloved "founding fathers" established. You see, I, unlike you, am not an intellectual slave to the whims of some deified ancestors. And neither is the American people. What the founding fathers wanted is irrelevant. Only the desires of present-day Americans are relevant. America belongs to living Americans, not to the dead. In other words:
"...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
In addition, you should be aware that I, along with 5,7 billion other people, are what you would call non-Americans. I'm sure this comes as a surprise to you, but there are actually other countries in the world.

The silliness of your position that Aristotle, Polybius et al are all POV. You should then erase the whole article because it is all based on Aristotle and the other Greeks. This is what they saw and meant. Listen to yourself. What other meaning do you want? It is kind of hard to define what a classical republic is if you reject all the ancient authorities.WHEELER 20:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I said before: I don't dispute their definitions, I dispute their opinions regarding the perceived benefits of a classical republic. They should not be presented as fact. Furthermore, the opinions of their opponents should also be included.

Mr. Tudoreanu do you have any classical reading? Do you have a thorough understanding of Spartan and Cretan culture and society?WHEELER 22:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course I do. And I find Sparta, in particular, to be utterly repugnant. But this is not a question of knowledge, is it? It is a question of your unbridled admiration for classical republics, and your refusal to accept that your opinion is not, in fact, NPOV.
- Mihnea Tudoreanu

In addition, I wish to inform you that I will make a request for moderation. - Mihnea Tudoreanu

Okay, I am by no means an authority and don't plan to act like one. However, I just thought I would throw in my two cents in the matter (which appears to be dealing much more with the abstract matter of NPOV and not the more concrete matter of what historical figures said.)

Wikipedia says that articles should be NPOV. From my POV, if you attribute a POV that is not neutral to a source, you have just made it NPOV. If you state it as fact because that source said it, then it is point of view. An encyclopedia article should contain nothing but fact. If a subject does not have the luxury of clear fact, then the points of view of historical scholars should be stated for the reader to interpret what is fact. If any Wikipedian can put in a historical scholar with a differing point of view, that should be included as well (e.g. "Aristotle says this... [Insert famous scholar here] says this...) As long as you don't put debatable information outside of quotes, I'd say you have NPOV covered.

I agree with everytime it has been said above that anything Aristotle said in, indeed, POV. Scholars have argued with almost every one of Aristotle's teachings over the many centuries. Plato, in fact, argued with many of Aristotle's teaching, from what I know. Even if it is argued by a scholar who is not well-known, if it can be debated, it is by definition POV. If it were neutral, there would be no possibility for debate because no one else would have a point of view differing... Saying that Aristotle said something is not POV. If it's on paper, it is fact. But saying that what he says is fact in POV, because others have their own POV about whether what he says is fact.

It seems like most of this argument has not been about making the article better, but about flexing intellectual muscle. Who cares who is smarter or knows more. The point is not to prove who knows more about history or the classics or Aristotle or even about republics. The point of this discussion is to make the article NPOV. Every character typed regarding anything other than fixing NPOV is just wasting space.

That's my POV right there. Now I am going to duck before the verbal onslaught ensues. Skyler 20:28, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

A visitor's observations

This is an interesting talk page -- I stopped by, because it is on the "Requests for Comment" page. I certainly don't buy the definition of a republic as it currently stands at the beginning of the article; I think that most people would agree that a republic (classical definition, as opposed to, say, "peoples republic") is qualititatively different than a monarchy or aristocracy, rather than being a mixture of them with a dollop of democracy.

However, some of the issues raised on this talk page are rather difficult. I don't consider Aristotle to be the last word on a republic, because I think of him as an opponent of the idea. On the question of whether Sparta was a republic, my first impulse was to go back to the essay by Schiller entitled "The Legislation of Lycurgus and Solon" [1]. To my surprise, he calls Sparta a republic -- but then again, much of what he says about Sparta is intended ironically. Does he really mean that Sparta was a republic?

I also disagree strongly with the idea from WHEELER that Plato is a "tape recorder" -- he was a dramatist. He conveys ideas through the interplay of the characters, and I would certainly believe that he would modify the character to clarify the idea. His dialogues are like the history plays of Shakespeare or Schiller -- Plato was not a stenographer.

On the other hand, I thought that it was rather insightful of WHEELER to say that the British Commonwealth "mimics" the Spartan model. Not that I think either of them is a republic. Weed Harper 21:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In my response to Mr. Harper, Aristotle is an eminent authority. Who else would know the meaning of Greek words and their definitions if it isn't a very smart Greek. Aristotle does second the thoughts of Plato. So there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato. That "dominance" does define a particular government and that a republic is seperate from democracy. Prof. Karl Otfried Müller wrote his book The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race (1839) to correct many misperceptions of Schiller.
Any government that has a mixed government with a constitition is a Republic. England at certain times was a republic a mix of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.
If you read Werner Jaeger, another eminent classicist, he does say that Plato, far from creating "plays". Plato wrote his works precisely to "*capture*" the character and style of Socrates, his hero, friend, and mentor--the wisest man of Greece.WHEELER 16:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Aristotle is an eminent authority on Aristotle (obviously), but his views are not "THE truth", as you often try to present them. No man is infallible (or, at least, no man should be considered infallible by any serious encyclopedia). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More Confirmation

New information!!!

Cicero titled the Spartan Government a Republic.

In The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Muller quotes Cicero on Vol II, pg 190.

In Republica II. 23., Cicero writes "respublica Lacedaemoniorum". That means that the Latin word "Republic" is same/similar to the Greek word "politea".

This is great news!!!

Sparta is a republic. This is great confirmation! WHEELER 23:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You mean Sparta is a republic according to Cicero. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So pray tell, Mr. Tudoreanu, Cicero Studied in Greece. Cicero Read the "Tripolicus" which we have lost, and your snide Skepticism is to overrule Cicero? Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Hamilton all use the same word and concepts. The Founding Fathers of America don't share your deconstructionism and your skepticism. They borrowed heavily from Cicero. Cicero wrote heavily on politics, he wrote the book 'Res publica' and you tell me that Cicero doesn't know what he is talking about??? What???WHEELER 16:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From Government By the People; The Dynamics of American National, State, and Local Government, James MacGregor Burns and Jack Walter Peltson, Sixth edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963. pg 50: "All agreed that society was divided along class lines and the "'the most common and durable source of factions'" was "'the various and unequal distribution of property'", as Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10. The common philosophy accepted by most of the delegates was that of balanced government. They wanted to construct a national government in which no single interest would dominate the others. Since the men in Philadelphia represented groups alarmed by the tendencies of the agrarian interests to interfere with property, they wer primarily concerned with balancing the government in the direction of protection for property and business." This "balancing" mirrors what the Doric Greeks did also. WHEELER 16:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)