You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In his historical writings, Polybius (c. 201-120 B.C.) posited six basic kinds of governments that embody his cyclical theory of history.1 While his theory possesses the Platonic structure of eternal recurrence whereby the end of a given historical process returns to an archetypal beginning, it also contains a dynamic pattern of the sequential relationship of alternatingly good and bad forms of government. Three forms of good government have respectively their corrupt analogues. The chronological succession of good/ bad is as follows: monarchy/tyranny; aristocracy/oligarchy; democracy/ochlocracy. When the last stage is reached, that intolerable form (ochlocracy) brings a new, strong patriarchal figure (monarch) to the fore who assumes the role of organizer and thus the cycle repeats itself.2 This constitutes Polybius' theory which he terms “anacyclosis.” Moreover, Polybius views monarchy as the primal model of government from which all others evolved.
Furthermore, in his assessment of the Romans and their republic, Polybius emphasized that Rome was unique in that it had incorporated the three positive forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) and had in fact created a new political entity. Monarchy found its expression in the institution of the Consul, aristocracy in the Senate, and democracy in the Tribunes. This unique historical accomplishment was for Polybius an unprecedented and welcome break in the cycle; better, it was a monumental new creation based on the cycle. This unusual event was an affirmation of a peculiar kind; it meant that men striving virtuously within the framework of history could shape and effect history in a positive manner. They could stop the cycle and build something new atop this primal