著者

定森 亮

出版者

慶應義塾経済学会

雑誌

三田学会雑誌 = Mita journal of economics (ISSN:00266760)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.110, no.1, pp.37-64, 2017-04

---

本稿では, 16世紀前半のイタリアに生きたマキァヴェッリと18世紀前半のフランスに生きたモンテスキューにおける, 古代ローマの共和政から帝政への歴史的変容に関する分析の相違を明らかにする。マキァヴェッリは『ディスコルシ』で, 共和政ローマの公民権の基礎となる土地所有を重視した結果, 動産に関する経済分析を欠落させたのに対して, モンテスキューは『法の精神』で貨幣の導入, 相続法の歴史を議論する。これらの関心の相違が各々のローマ史解釈にどのように反映されているかが主題となる。In this study, we will clarify the analytical differences between Machiavelli in Italy in the first half of the 16th century and Montesquieu in France in the first half of the 18th century with respect to the historical transformation of ancient Rome from a Republic into an Empire. Machiavelli's The Discourses lacks an economic analysis of movables because of its emphasis on land ownership, which is the foundation of Republican Roman citizenship, while Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws casts light on the importance of the introduction of money in Rome and addresses its history of inheritance laws. This study demonstrates how these differences of interest in each thinker are reflected in their respective ways of interpreting Roman history.論説

著者

定森 亮

出版者

The Japanease Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.49, no.1, pp.19-36, 2007-06-30 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

21

---

In The Spirit of the Laws Montesquieu discusses two important regimes from the perspective of the historical formation of the realm of the “civil”: on the one hand England, and on the other, the French monarchy. In the case of the former, with regard to the formation of the “civil, ” he recognizes the emergence of republican government through the development of commercial society from the end of the 15th to the latter half of the 17th century. In the case of the French monarchy, the “civil” developed in context of the formation of feudal society itself, principally from the decline of the Roman Empire to the end of the 10th century; it was this period that gave birth to the class of nobility that sustained the juridical system and constituted the intermediate power in this regime. Here, present a clear, explicit statement of the objectives and argument of the paper.In this context, a comparison between Montesquieu and James Harrington appears to have crucial meaning for the reconsideration of republicanism, which is usually thought to be inherited from Greco-Roman tradition. Harrington, in The Commonwealth of Oceana, wants to revive ancient republics in the modern world and presents a theoretical model for contemporary 17th-century England. In contrast to Harrington, Montesquieu, in a more strictly historical approach, traces the foundations of both the contemporary English and French regimes back to feudal society and there finds the origin of institutions such as the representation system and independent judicial power, which form the basis of moderate government in both countries. In this context, Montesquieu situates the German tribes especially as described by Caesar and Tacitus at the starting point of feudalism.Montesquieu attempts to demonstrate that modern Europe was formed after the decline of Roman Empire through a process of historical contamination from both Roman and German inheritances, and it is through this perspective that we can reconsider the above-mentioned republicanism, whose genealogy until now has been limited to the Greco-Roman tradition.