Can anyone help me???
The theme of this research was already in past the subject of considerable attention from scholars of the Greek and Roman antiquity - as is easily seen from the (inevitably) limited bibliography given in the relevant section. In addition to the publications (books, articles), there have been scientific meetings where the issue has been treated or at least touched. Moreover, the opposition of classes, "parties", “ordines”, military powers,... and the subsequent effort of composition have much characterized the ancient history. The direct historical experiences inspired to politicians, but also to theoreticians of politics, to philosophers, historians, acts and/or reflections, aimed from time to time to solve the serious problems that arose, or at least to propose theoretical ( often utopian) solutions.
Bipolar for excellence in the history of the greek world was, for example, the second half of the fifth century B.C., when the socio-political, institutional, ideological dialectic draws summits culminating in the 'Peloponnesian War', with the division of Greece in the doric and ionic-attic blocks, and discouraging temptations of neutrality. It was then, however, which imposed the "kratistic" concept - and practice – of the rule (arché / tyrannis) to the detriment of the "nomistic" one.
At the same time Herodotus produces the famous “tripolitikos logos” (3, 80-82) in which Darius, Otanes, Megabizos are respectively samples of three different forms of government (monarchy, democracy, oligarchy), inaugurating a form that echoes in Dio Cassius (52, 1-41, with Agrippa, Maecenas, Octavianus), in Philostratus (V.A. 5, 31-37, with interlocutors Vespasian, Apollonius of Tiana, Euphrates and Dio of Prusa) until the “Lettres Persanes” of Montesquieu. And the concept of mesos / mesotes / metaxy, distinctive of the ethics of Delphi, already at the base of Solon policy and the system of thought of Pythagoras, appears in backlighting in the debate that lacerates Athens in the final years of the war, and reappears overbearingly –and with different connotations - in of Plato’s and Aristotle’s political reflections.
It is above all through Polybius (and you can easily state this through a reading of the famous book VI of his "Histories") that the discussions of which was said first spread in the Roman world, which is also heavily torn by tensions and contradictions of all kinds, from politics to social security, both internally and in its relations with the outside world. The bipolarism, the socio-political, institutional, ideological dialectics as everyone knows, will reach at Rome their acme in the II and in the I century B.C. Just think of the age of the Gracchi or civil wars.
As has been widely noted, the idea of the composition, of unity (and therefore of "mesotes", consequently of tolerance), also typical the Stoic philosophy, reappears in a few passages of Cicero and especially in Diodorus Siculus (exactly in the famous proem of the VI book of the “Bibliotheca Historica” almost certainly of posidonian ascendancy).
Such issues spread in the modern age through the reading of these and other ancient writers, considered ideal models of inspiration and practice. Numerous studies (of historians, philosophers of history or of politics) devoted to historical and political characteristics of this age have fully revealed as the Greek and Roman historians (in some cases even more than the few ancient theorist of politics) contributed to training ethical, cultural, military and political men of the modern age. And this even after that, with Cartesianism and historiographical Pirronism, the crisis began in the authority of the ancients and in particular in the idea that history was "magistra vitae”. Studies on the political thought of modern skepticism have clarified many issues. Few have focused instead on the weight that the issue of polarization and its composition had in the ideas and political theories (individualism, absolutism) of Montaigne, Le Mothe Le Vayer, Charron, Bayle.... It's basically about these authors (without neglecting others, belonging to others cultural fields: Hobbes, Fazello, Torsellini...) that will focus this research in the hope of opening and developing prospects for research enabling a better understanding of historical, political, ideological and cultural events of the modern age; but also (by inverting the perspective, as can not fail to scholars of ancient history as the proponents of this research) a better understand of the ancient authors that will be taken into account.
Can anyone help me???
I'll PM you a revision soon.