Sparks Commentary: Some of the credit for “separation of powers” should go to Polybius

“It is well known that in the Roman republic the legislative authority, in the last resort, resided for ages in two different political bodies not as branches of the same legislature, but as distinct and independent legislatures, in each of which an opposite interest prevailed: in one the patrician; in the other, the plebian. Many arguments might have been adduced to prove the unfitness of two such seemingly contradictory authorities, each having power to ANNUL or REPEAL the acts of the other. … And yet these two legislatures coexisted for ages, and the Roman republic attained to the utmost height of human greatness.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 34)

In the second century BC, there was an armed uprising against the rule of the “Roman Republic,” by an alliance of Greek states known as the “Achaean League.” There had been close military and religious ties between the two groups before this time; but they were soon cast aside in a conflict known as the “Achaean War.” This was a bitter conflict, in which the Romans quickly crushed the Achaean League; to make sure that all of Greece would soon be under their control. Greece was quickly annexed by the Roman Republic in 146 BC, the same year that Rome was laying siege to the city of Carthage in faraway North Africa. When the city of Carthage was finally sacked in the spring of that same year (after three long years of siege), the last of the three Roman wars with Carthage finally ended. The Roman Republic now controlled much of the Mediterranean.

Roman villas built on the site of Carthage

Polybius was present at the Fall of Carthage in 146 BC

One of the men present at the Sack of Carthage was a Greek historian named Polybius, who would later write an influential work called the Ἱστορίαι (“Historiai”), or “The Histories.” This famous work would cover the history of the Roman Republic from 264 BC to 146 BC, and conclude with his eyewitness account of the fall of Carthage in 146 BC. This work was originally written in his native Koine Greek as 40 different “books,” but only the first five of these “books” have survived in their entirety. The rest of these books survive only in bits and pieces, and it is the surviving portion of the sixth book that I will be focusing on today. (This is the book in which he talked about separation of powers in the Roman Republic.) His analysis of checks and balances in this republic that had conquered his homeland would have a powerful influence on men like Montesquieu and Madison. By extension, it would thus eventually influence the United States Constitution as well.

Polybius

Aristotle had once discussed the theoretical possibility of a “mixed government” …

In an earlier century, the Greek philosopher Aristotle had undertaken to discuss several different forms of government in a work called the ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΩΝ ("Politics,") and to discuss their advantages and disadvantages with regards to one another. He believed that there were exactly three different forms of government that he called the “true constitutions,” which (in his view) aimed for the common good. These were royalty (government of the one), aristocracy (government of the few), and what he called “constitutional government” (or the government of the many). A royalty, when corrupted, became a “tyranny” for Aristotle. An aristocracy, when corrupted, became an “oligarchy” for him. And a “constitutional government,” when corrupted, became a “democracy” for him – a word that meant something slightly different to him than it does to us. Aristotle had also mentioned the idea of a “mixed government” (or “hybrid government”), which he believed would draw upon the elements of all three of these things. At this point, this was more of a theoretical possibility than an empirical reality; and even Aristotle's study of the unwritten constitutions of Ancient Greek city-states could not yield much in the way of empirical evidence. Thus, Aristotle had not gone into much detail about the advantages and disadvantages of this “mixed” form of government. But he did set the stage for Polybius to do so when Polybius later wrote his “Histories” in the second century BC.

Aristotle

… but Polybius may have been the first one who recognized its advantages

Specifically, Polybius believed that Rome's government had monarchical, aristocratic, and popular elements existing in stable equilibrium with one another. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that the Republic's legislative authority had resided for ages in two different political bodies as “distinct and independent legislatures, in each of which an opposite interest prevailed: in one the patrician; in the other, the plebian.” (Source: Federalist No. 34) The plebeian assemblies were the most popular of the elements, while the patrician Senate (at this time) was something like an aristocracy. The magistrates may have been a sort of “monarchical” element that was then charged with enforcing the laws. But Polybius would identify the three classes slightly differently from this; by splitting them into the consuls, the Senate, and the people. Either way, though, he was referring to Rome's government as a sort of “mixed constitution” (in language borrowed and modified from Aristotle), and he saw it as an improvement over a pure form of any one of these elements. For example, Polybius himself said that “when any one of the three classes becomes puffed up, and manifests an inclination to be contentious and unduly encroaching, the mutual interdependency of all the three, and the possibility of the pretensions of any one being checked and thwarted by the others, must plainly check this tendency: and so the proper equilibrium is maintained by the impulsiveness of the one part being checked by its fear of the other” (Source: “The Histories,” Book VI, Section 18). Other ancient writers, such as Cicero, echoed Polybius's support for a separation of powers.

Representation of Cicero addressing the Roman Senate

James Madison or Alexander Hamilton would later use Polybius as a source in the Federalist Papers …

Polybius is best known today as a historian, and it was in his capacity as a historian that he was used as a source in the Federalist Papers. Specifically, James Madison or Alexander Hamilton would later write that “The Tribunes of Rome, who were the representatives of the people, prevailed, it is well known, in almost every contest with the senate for life, and in the end gained the most complete triumph over it. The fact is the more remarkable, as unanimity was required in every act of the Tribunes, even after their number was augmented to ten. It proves the irresistible force possessed by that branch of a free government, which has the people on its side. To these examples might be added that of Carthage, whose senate, according to the testimony of Polybius, instead of drawing all power into its vortex, had, at the commencement of the second Punic War, lost almost the whole of its original portion.” (Source: Federalist No. 63) Thus this author used Polybius as a source for this discussion of classical history. But it may have been his discussion of classical politics that would prove most important for Madison and Montesquieu.

James Madison

… and Montesquieu had already used Polybius as a source in “The Spirit of Laws”

When Montesquieu later set forth his own theory of separation of powers, he talked (among other things) about a great government from his own time, which was the government of Great Britain. But he also talked about the government of the Roman Republic as well, and drew upon Polybius as a source for this discussion. In “The Spirit of Laws,” for example, Montesquieu would write that “So great was the share the senate took in the executive power, that, as Polybius [45] informs us, foreign nations imagined that Rome was an aristocracy. The senate disposed of the public money, and farmed out the revenue; they were arbiters of the affairs of their allies; they determined war or peace, and directed in this respect the consuls; they fixed the number of the Roman and of the allied troops, disposed of the provinces and armies to the consuls or prætors, and upon the expiration of the year of command had the power of appointing successors; they decreed triumphs, received and sent embassies: they nominated, rewarded, punished, and were judges of kings; gave them, or declared they had forfeited, the title of allies of the Roman people.” (Source: Book XI, Chapter 17) The number “[45]” that follows Polybius’s name here in this excerpt – which I have transcribed here in a smaller font – is a reference to Montesquieu’s own source in the footnote. This footnote gives the source as “Book vi” of an unspecified Polybius work (Source: “The Spirit of Laws,” Book XI, Chapter 17). Presumably, this work is "The Histories," since there are no other works known to have been written by him. Thus Montesquieu cited Polybius as an authority on classical politics, just as the Federalist Papers later would.

Baron de Montesquieu

Who gets the credit for this theory? (In a way, all of them do … )

This “separation of powers” idea is most associated in the public mind today with Montesquieu, and Montesquieu does deserve some credit for making this idea popular in the eighteenth century. As Madison would later write in the Federalist Papers, “the oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu. If he be not the author of this invaluable precept in the science of politics, he has the merit at least of displaying and recommending it most effectually to the attention of mankind.” (Source: Federalist No. 47) Madison acknowledged here, though, that Montesquieu may not have been the true “author” of this invaluable precept in the “science of politics” (as these previous quotes show). I'm not sure Montesquieu would have considered himself the “author” of this, either. I don't know who the originator of this theory really is, because the discussion of a “mixed constitution” goes back before Polybius to Aristotle's work the “Politics” (as noted earlier). But Polybius may have been the first to recognize that this style of government was really the best that was possible for us, so some credit is due to Polybius as well for his remarkable insights into the matter.

James Madison

Footnote to this blog post:

One of the founders of the Roman Republic was a man named Publius Valerius Publicola (the last name is also spelled Poplicola). Long before the time of Polybius, Publius had helped to overthrow the Roman monarchy, and then replace it with a better form of government that was the Republic.

More than 2,000 years later, the American writers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay would write a series of anonymous “letters to the editor[s]” of newspapers known as the “Federalist Papers.” Rather than write under their own names, these three men used a secret pen name that was none other than “Publius,” which was named after this great Roman statesman from the previous time. (More on that in a later post of this series.)

Disclosure: I am an Amazon affiliate marketer, and can sometimes make money when you buy the product using the link(s) above.

If you liked this post, you might also like:

Publius: The secret pen name of three Founding Fathers

So what are the "Federalist Papers," anyway?

The Federalist Papers on the difference between a "democracy" and a "republic"

How to prevent tyranny: Separation of powers and checks & balances

Do checks and balances actually conflict with separation of powers?

Part of a series about the

U. S. Constitution