Following is my understanding.
Our word comes from Latin, Res Publica, which means "things pertaining to the public".
The Latin, in turn, is a translation of the title of Plato's dialogue, Politeia. (I've heard that Cicero did the translation.) In Attic Greek, Plato's title means "system of government", "constitution" or "matters pertaining to the citizen". The Latin, Res Publica, seems to approximate one of these Greek meanings.
Ironically, Plato's Politeia championed totalitarian monarchy as the ideal form of government, whereas we use our term "republic" to refer to non-monarchial governments of free citizens.
I speculate as to the reason. Apparently, for both the Greeks and the Romans, "republic" did not refer to a type of government but rather only to the title of Plato's dialogue. Possibly, we did not begin usage in terms of types until the end of the Middle Ages when we sought an alternative to the feudal notion that countries were personal possessions of rulers. "No," we might have said at the time, "republics belong to the public, not the ruler."
Don
Republic
It certainly took some time from translating Plato's dialogue until republic had its current meaning.republic
1604, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica "public interest, the state," from res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public" (see public). Republican (adj.) "belonging to a republic" is recorded from 1712; in noun sense of "one who favors a republic" it is recorded from 1697; and in sense of a member of a specific U.S. political party (the Anti-Federalists) from 1782, though this was not the ancestor of the modern Republican Party, which dates from 1854. Republicrat in U.S. political jargon usually meaning "moderate," is attested from 1940.
As to your original point, totalitarian regimes often claim to have the public interest at heart, in fact they usually claim to be the only body that understands what the public interest is. (Although a simple way to find out might just be to ask the public.)
"Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening all at once. Lately it hasn't been working."
Anonymous
Anonymous
Everyone agrees that "republic" comes from the Latin, res publica, meaning (roughly) 'things pertaining to the public'. Dictionaries say this, I said it, and Perry said it. There's no uncertainty or disagreement as to that point.
The question is: What does this have to do with our notion that "republic" refers to a type of government -- specifically, a non-monarchial type of government? Does anyone claim the Romans meant this when they said "res publica"? I doubt it. Is that what Plato meant when he entitled his dialogue? Clearly not. So whence arises our usage, referring to non-monarchial government?
Don
The question is: What does this have to do with our notion that "republic" refers to a type of government -- specifically, a non-monarchial type of government? Does anyone claim the Romans meant this when they said "res publica"? I doubt it. Is that what Plato meant when he entitled his dialogue? Clearly not. So whence arises our usage, referring to non-monarchial government?
Don
Am I understanding the question correctly: how does a term describing an assembly of people become a description of governing that people?
Concepts evolve with time; words change their meaning. I am not surprised that the contemporary, industrialized Western usage of "republic" does not strictly conform to classical Greek or Roman usages.
Perhaps this will help:
republic
democracy
gailr
Wikipedia has a concise article and definitions sidebar on forms of governmentwith more of these terms.
Concepts evolve with time; words change their meaning. I am not surprised that the contemporary, industrialized Western usage of "republic" does not strictly conform to classical Greek or Roman usages.
Perhaps this will help:
republic
compare and contrast withNOUN: 1a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. b. A nation that has such a political order. 2a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. b. A nation that has such a political order. 3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France. 4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation. 5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.
democracy
Both of these concepts are more ideals than reality, especially if you factor in the Classical Greek definition of "citizen".NOUN: 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
gailr
Wikipedia has a concise article and definitions sidebar on forms of governmentwith more of these terms.
Republic
gailr -
You're getting closer, but still don't seem to me to focus on the right questions.
1. "[H]ow does a term describing an assembly of people become a description of governing that people?"
You seem to insinuate a false premise. It's not clear to me that "republic" in its various languages ever did describe an assembly of people. It didn't for Plato: as I said originally, "Politeia" for him was the title he chose for his dialogue, and the word means something like "system of government" or "constitution". There's no suggestion it means "assembly" (especially so, given the distain for democracy and its assemblies that Plato expressed in that dialogue and others that he wrote). And I don't see that the Romans used "republic" to describe assemblies. They had other words for that purpose; and, as I said in my original post, "res publica" apparently was just an attempt at a literal translation of Plato's Greek word, "politeia".
2. You wonder if it might help to compare and contrast dictionary definitions of "republic" and "democracy".
I don't see that it does help. Your dictionary definition of "republic" centers on non-monarchial government (as I originally said, and as others all have recognized). My question is: whence does that definition arise? Not, I suggest, from Plato. Apparently not, I have suggested, from the Romans (although Cicero appears, in attempting to translate Plato's title, to have coined the Latin term "res publica"). So again: how is it that we have come to use this word to refer to non-monarchial forms of government?
In my original post, I speculatively suggested an answer to this latter question -- namely, that our modern usage might have arisen at the end of the Middle Ages, when we needed a term to provide an alternative to the feudal notion that the state, its territory and its inhabitants, all were presonal posessions of the lord. This suggestion was, however, sheer speculation; and no one seems to have endorsed it.
Don
You're getting closer, but still don't seem to me to focus on the right questions.
1. "[H]ow does a term describing an assembly of people become a description of governing that people?"
You seem to insinuate a false premise. It's not clear to me that "republic" in its various languages ever did describe an assembly of people. It didn't for Plato: as I said originally, "Politeia" for him was the title he chose for his dialogue, and the word means something like "system of government" or "constitution". There's no suggestion it means "assembly" (especially so, given the distain for democracy and its assemblies that Plato expressed in that dialogue and others that he wrote). And I don't see that the Romans used "republic" to describe assemblies. They had other words for that purpose; and, as I said in my original post, "res publica" apparently was just an attempt at a literal translation of Plato's Greek word, "politeia".
2. You wonder if it might help to compare and contrast dictionary definitions of "republic" and "democracy".
I don't see that it does help. Your dictionary definition of "republic" centers on non-monarchial government (as I originally said, and as others all have recognized). My question is: whence does that definition arise? Not, I suggest, from Plato. Apparently not, I have suggested, from the Romans (although Cicero appears, in attempting to translate Plato's title, to have coined the Latin term "res publica"). So again: how is it that we have come to use this word to refer to non-monarchial forms of government?
In my original post, I speculatively suggested an answer to this latter question -- namely, that our modern usage might have arisen at the end of the Middle Ages, when we needed a term to provide an alternative to the feudal notion that the state, its territory and its inhabitants, all were presonal posessions of the lord. This suggestion was, however, sheer speculation; and no one seems to have endorsed it.
Don
Republic
Regarding my suggestion that our modern usage of "republic" might have arisen at the end of the Middle Ages, to provide an alternative to feudal conceptions.
Recall that Hobbes and Rousseau, each in his own way, propose theories of government where the people are sovereign (instead of some divinely ordained monarch), but which are profoundly totalitarian and undemocratic. Hobbes starts off with a compact theory of government, but winds up on that basis justifying dictatorship; Rousseau, with his "popular will", was a proto-facist.
So "non-monarchial", at the dawn of the modern era, did not necessarily mean "democratic".
Don
Recall that Hobbes and Rousseau, each in his own way, propose theories of government where the people are sovereign (instead of some divinely ordained monarch), but which are profoundly totalitarian and undemocratic. Hobbes starts off with a compact theory of government, but winds up on that basis justifying dictatorship; Rousseau, with his "popular will", was a proto-facist.
So "non-monarchial", at the dawn of the modern era, did not necessarily mean "democratic".
Don
The point of my original quote was not that the origin is the Latin res publica, but rather that as of 1604, this was understood to be a "state in which supreme power rests in the people". Perhaps someone here with an historical bent knows what transpired in Europe at the time to lead to this new meaning for an old word?republic
1604, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica "public interest, the state," from res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public" (see public).
"Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening all at once. Lately it hasn't been working."
Anonymous
Anonymous
Republic
1. Sorry, Perry. I had overlooked your 1604 date. I agree with your observation that apparently, by that time or earlier, "republic" was widely regarded as a form of government where authority resides with the people rather than in a monarch. That is, I think, consistent with the second of my posts today: Hobbes' Leviathan is dated 1660; and I believe he would have regarded the dictatorship he authorized as a republic rather than a monarchy.
2. " . . . what transpired in Europe?"
Various cities, especially in Italy, were known as republics. For example, Venice was a republic as of the 13th century.
My understanding is that cities, as collections of merchants, did not fit neatly in with the agrarian-based feudal society then prevailing. Kings issued charters of self-government to cities like London and Brussels (though these were not known as "republics").
That's the best I can do.
Don
2. " . . . what transpired in Europe?"
Various cities, especially in Italy, were known as republics. For example, Venice was a republic as of the 13th century.
My understanding is that cities, as collections of merchants, did not fit neatly in with the agrarian-based feudal society then prevailing. Kings issued charters of self-government to cities like London and Brussels (though these were not known as "republics").
That's the best I can do.
Don
As this discussion develops, Don, it appears that you have given this matter serious thought and have researched several pieces of this particular linguistic and political puzzle.
Based on my readings of history (Graeco-Roman, European or otherwise) neither republics nor democracies are natural forms of government. Those with the will to wield serious power, especially if bolstered by religious beliefs, are disinclined to share that power with the masses. While it is possible that some European serfs up and decided that "countries were [not] personal possessions of rulers", those with any sense of self-preservation kept it to themselves.
"And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. ... Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
If you are seeking expert opinions on the evolution of Republic you might also consult the appropriate department at your local college. M. Henri Day would probably be your best bet here in the Agora, but he is occupied with other interests at this time. Meanwhile, responses often point to etymological resources; they also reflect varying POVs (and language jokes wherever they can be extracted).
As this thread develops, I see you broadening the scope of your reference while simultaneously restricting the scope of the responses you will accept. This is always a stimulating technique. Please keep us updated on the historical and linguistic evidence you glean from all your sources.
-gailr
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
Based on my readings of history (Graeco-Roman, European or otherwise) neither republics nor democracies are natural forms of government. Those with the will to wield serious power, especially if bolstered by religious beliefs, are disinclined to share that power with the masses. While it is possible that some European serfs up and decided that "countries were [not] personal possessions of rulers", those with any sense of self-preservation kept it to themselves.
That would have been the debate of scholars and those aspiring to greater governing roles themselves, not the (then) illiterate and superstitious public. To suggest otherwise invokes the opening of Monty Python and the Holy Grail."No," we might have said at the time, "republics belong to the public, not the ruler."
"And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. ... Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
If you are seeking expert opinions on the evolution of Republic you might also consult the appropriate department at your local college. M. Henri Day would probably be your best bet here in the Agora, but he is occupied with other interests at this time. Meanwhile, responses often point to etymological resources; they also reflect varying POVs (and language jokes wherever they can be extracted).
As this thread develops, I see you broadening the scope of your reference while simultaneously restricting the scope of the responses you will accept. This is always a stimulating technique. Please keep us updated on the historical and linguistic evidence you glean from all your sources.
-gailr
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
Return to “Good Word Suggestions”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests
