• Human Character and the Formation of the State:Reconsidering Machiavelli and Polybius 6
• Jeffrey Dymond

This article aims to contribute to a growing debate over the sources of a crucial opening chapter in Machiavelli's Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (1517)—a chapter widely regarded as foundational for the political theory developed in the book. Until recently, commentators have largely agreed that Book 6 of Polybius's Histories is the principal source for the account of the formation of the state found in Discorsi 1.2, offering as evidence Machiavelli's discussion of the mixed constitution and the cycle of constitutions (anacyclosis) that supports it.¹ But, over the last decade, [End Page 29] some historians have moved away from this traditional interpretation. Citing a number of perceived substantive differences between the two texts as well as the long-standing uncertainty over how Machiavelli accessed the contents of Book 6, these readers have suggested Lucretius and Dionysius of Halicarnassus as other possible sources.² At the same time, and contrastingly, recent research into the textual transmission of Book 6 has made others increasingly confident that there is an explicit textual connection between the two books.³ The present article will contribute to this debate by reconstructing the interpretation of Polybius 6 that emerged in early sixteenth-century Florence before re-examining the Discorsi within this context. While not precluding additional sources from the chapter, it will argue, first, that Machiavelli was indeed immersed in an environment in which a common reading of Polybius 6 circulated and that, second, Discorsi 1.2 is indebted to this interpretation, although it is a substantially different interpretation of Polybius than previous commentators have typically assumed.

The traditional understanding of Discorsi 1.2's debt to Polybius 6 claims that anacyclosis and the mixed constitution are the most significant Polybian ideas in the chapter, with a number of reasons offered for why Machiavelli uses them. In two essays that first appeared in 1967, "Machiavelli e la teoria dell'Anacyclosis" and "Machiavelli e Polibio," Gennaro Sasso argues that Machiavelli takes from Polybius a theoretical defense of [End Page 30] the mixed constitution and that this serves as a foundation for the political theory developed throughout the Discorsi. More specifically, Sasso says, Discorsi 1.2 relies on Polybian anacyclosis to demonstrate the pervasiveness of the tensions between two social groups, the popolo and the grandi, and that they can only be stabilized through the imposition of a mixed constitution.⁴ J. G. A. Pocock's 1975 The Machiavellian Moment offers an alternative interpretation emphasizing the historical claims of Book 6. Pocock argues that Machiavelli is drawn primarily to Polybius's assertion that Rome's mixed constitution developed over time, with each part emerging in response to a different historical contingency. This, according to Pocock, provided Machiavelli with a framework through which a fundamentally historical political theory could operate.⁵

While the traditional interpretation rightly sees a connection between Polybius 6 and Machiavelli's discussion of anacyclosis and the mixed constitution, it is limited by the assumption that these two phenomena represent the only extractable theoretical content of Book 6, an assumption that owes more to the image of Polybius sketched by F. W. Walbank than to early modern readings. Walbank, whose interpretation was dominant for much of the twentieth century, argues that the theoretical content of Book 6 is both limited and superficial. At its heart is anacyclosis, which he understands to be a historical illustration of Polybius's "fundamental principle," derived from "experience," that all states follow a life cycle of origin, peak, and decline and which the mixed constitution has successfully been able to "brake."⁶ The particular reasons behind this are, however, beyond Polybius's scope; Polybius, Walbank says, was a "man of action," "not a philosopher."⁷

Contrastingly, early modern readers treated Polybius as a considerably more sophisticated author.⁸ For example, and in stark opposition to Walbank, Francesco Patrizi's 1560 Della historia diece dialoghi explicitly categorizes Polybius as a "philosopher" due to the Greek historian's emphasis [End Page 31] on historical causation,⁹ a sentiment echoed by Jean Bodin in 1566¹⁰ and François Hotman in...

• 人的性格与国家的形成：重新考虑马基雅维利和波利比乌斯6
• 杰弗里·戴蒙德（Jeffrey Dymond）

本文旨在就马基雅维利（Machiavelli）的迪斯科利·迪维托·里维奥（Distorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio，1517年）中至关重要的开篇章节的源源不断展开辩论，该章节被广泛认为是该书中发展的政治理论的基础。直到最近，评论家们大多同意书波里比阿的6史是该帐户的状态形成的主要来源，发现Discorsi 1.2，提供作为证据马基雅维里的混合政体的讨论和宪法（周期anacyclosis支持）它。¹但是，在过去十年中，[结束第29页]一些历史学家已经摆脱了这种传统的解释。读者引用了两个文本之间的许多实质性差异，以及关于马基雅维利如何获取第六册内容的长期不确定性，这些读者提出了Halicarnassus的Lucretius和Dionysius作为其他可能的来源。²同时，与此形成对比的是，最近对第六本书的文本传输的研究使其他人越来越相信，两本书之间存在明确的文本联系。³本文将通过重新诠释16世纪初佛罗伦萨出现的波利比乌斯6的解释，然后再重新审视迪斯科舞厅，来为这场辩论做出贡献。在这种情况下。尽管不排除本章中的其他来源，但它首先指出，马基雅维利确实沉浸在一种普遍传播波利比乌斯6的环境中，其次，迪斯科尔西1.2属于这种解释，尽管这实际上是一个实质性的解释。与以前的评论员通常所假设的不同，对波利比乌斯的解释是不同的。

传统上对Discorsi 1.2欠Polybius 6的债务的理解是，混语和混合宪法是本章中最重要的Polybian思想，并提供了许多为什么Machiavelli使用它们的原因。在1967年首次发表的两篇文章中，“纳基利（ Machiavelli e la teoria dell'Anacyclosis） ”和“纳基利（Machiavelli e Polibio）”，根纳罗·萨索（Gennaro Sasso）辩称，纳基利从波利比乌斯（Polybius）那里为[End Page 30]混合体质提出了理论辩护，为整个Discorsi所发展的政治理论奠定了基础。Sasso说，更具体地说，Discorsi 1.2依赖于Polybian anacyclosis展示两大社会群体，之间的矛盾的普遍性Popolo广场和格兰迪，他们只能通过混合政体强加稳定。⁴ JGA Pocock的1975年Machiavellian Moment提供了另一种解释，着重强调了Book 6的历史主张。Pocock认为Machiavelli的主要提法是波利比乌斯的主张，即罗马的混合宪法随着时间的流逝而发展，每一部分都因不同的历史偶然性而出现。根据Pocock的说法，这为马基雅维利提供了一个框架，通过该框架可以运行具有根本历史意义的政治理论。⁵

尽管传统的解释正确地看到了波利比乌斯6和马基雅维利对类比和混合结构的讨论之间的联系，但受这两种现象代表着第六本书唯一可提取的理论内容的假设的限制，该假设更多地归因于第二本书的图像。波比比乌斯由沃尔班克（FW Walbank）速写，而不是早期的现代读物。沃尔班克（Walbank）的解释在整个20世纪的大部分时间都是占主导地位的，他认为第六本书的理论内容既有限又肤浅。其核心是分析他认为这是波利比乌斯（Polybius）从“经验”中衍生出来的“基本原理”的历史说明，即所有州都遵循起源，高峰和衰落的生命周期，并且混合宪法成功地实现了“制动”。⁶然而，这背后的特殊原因超出了波利比乌斯（Polybius）的范围；沃尔班克说，波利比乌斯是“行动人物”，“不是哲学家”。⁷

相比之下，早期的现代读者将波利比乌斯视为一位更为成熟的作家。⁸例如，与沃尔班克形成鲜明对比的是，弗朗切斯科·帕特里齐（Francesco Patrizi）的1560年德拉·戴斯托里亚对话（Della historia diece dialoghi）明确将波比比乌斯归类为“哲学家”，原因是希腊历史学家对历史因果关系的重视[End Page 31] ⁹，让·博丁（Jean Bodin）在1566年表示赞同。¹⁰和弗朗索瓦·霍特曼（FrançoisHotman）在...