Contrary to what is often thought t

Contrary to what is often thought today, the political use of lot was
not peculiar to the Athenian democracy. Prior to the invention of
representative government, most political systems where power
was exercised by citizens, rather than by an hereditary monarch,
had used lot in varying degrees and in a variety of forms. Lot
played a part (albeit a limited one) in the assemblies (comitia) of the
Roman people. The Italian republics of the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance often chose their magistrates by lot. In Florence, the
intellectual center of civic humanism and republican renewal, the
selection of magistrates by lot was a key institution of the republican
system. Finally, Venice - the Most Serene Republic whose stability
and longevity fascinated observers - continued to practice a form of
lot until its fall in 1797} The new representative governments might
call themselves republics (as the United States did from the beginning
of the revolution, or as France did from 1792); they were
nevertheless breaking with the republican tradition in finding no
place for lot.
Yet that republican tradition was still alive in the political culture
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. At the very least, it was
a subject of debate. The Venetian republic had not yet collapsed.
So, at the time when representative government was invented, it was not unknown that lot had been practiced in more places than
just Athens and was in fact still in use. Political theorists reflected on
the republican experiments past and present.
Harrington, a fervent admirer of Venice and an assiduous reader
of Machiavelli, searched the republican tradition for models that
might guide future free governments. Montesquieu concluded that
republican government was a thing of the past and that the future
belonged more to monarchies or to systems along the English lines.
He reached this conclusion, however, only with something approaching
nostalgia - he venerated Rome, in particular - and after a
careful study of republican systems. Rousseau, for his part, was
fond of recalling that he had been born a citizen of a republic and,
his disputes with the Genevan authorities notwithstanding, retained
a well-informed interest in and attachment to the institutions of his
native city. He also knew Venice, having spent some time there as
secretary to the French ambassador. Finally, he was enthusiastic
about Rome and proclaimed that: "every legitimate government is
republican." All three were familiar with the republican tradition,
and none saw lot as being something odd, explicable only by the
distinctive features of Greek culture. To them it was an institution
capable of being analysed in a general way, and with relevance for
other cultures and systems of government. Lot, in their eyes, was
one of the tried and tested methods of conferring power in a nonhereditary
manner. It fell into the same category as election, and
they compared the characteristics and effects of the two institutions.

ผลลัพธ์ (ไทย) 1:

Contrary to what is often thought today, the political use of lot wasnot peculiar to the Athenian democracy. Prior to the invention ofrepresentative government, most political systems where powerwas exercised by citizens, rather than by an hereditary monarch,had used lot in varying degrees and in a variety of forms. Lotplayed a part (albeit a limited one) in the assemblies (comitia) of theRoman people. The Italian republics of the Middle Ages and theRenaissance often chose their magistrates by lot. In Florence, theintellectual center of civic humanism and republican renewal, theselection of magistrates by lot was a key institution of the republicansystem. Finally, Venice - the Most Serene Republic whose stabilityand longevity fascinated observers - continued to practice a form oflot until its fall in 1797} The new representative governments mightcall themselves republics (as the United States did from the beginningof the revolution, or as France did from 1792); they werenevertheless breaking with the republican tradition in finding noplace for lot. Yet that republican tradition was still alive in the political cultureof the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. At the very least, it wasa subject of debate. The Venetian republic had not yet collapsed.So, at the time when representative government was invented, it was not unknown that lot had been practiced in more places thanjust Athens and was in fact still in use. Political theorists reflected onการทดลองสาธารณรัฐสังคมนิยมในอดีต และปัจจุบันแฮริงตัน คนที่ชอบการร้องของเวนิสและการอ่าน assiduousของมาเคียเวลลิ ค้นหาประเพณีพลรุ่นที่อาจแนะนำฟรีรัฐบาลในอนาคต Montesquieu ได้ที่รัฐบาลพลถูกสิ่งของอดีตและอนาคตอยู่มาก monarchies หรือระบบพร้อมภาษาอังกฤษเขาถึงใจ อย่างไรก็ตาม เท่ากับสิ่งที่กำลังความคิดถึง - เขา venerated โรม โดยเฉพาะ อย่างยิ่ง - และหลังการการศึกษาระบบพลระวัง Rousseau ในส่วนของเขา ถูกเรียกว่า เขามีการเกิดเป็นพลเมืองชาตินิยม และข้อโต้แย้งของเขากับเจ้าหน้าที่ Genevan ถึงกระนั้น สะสมสนใจห้องพักทราบในและแนบกับสถาบันของเขาเจ้าเมือง เขายังรู้ว่าเวนิส ไม่ใช้บางเวลามีเป็นเลขานุการเอกอัครราชทูตฝรั่งเศส สุดท้าย เขามีความกระตือรือร้นเกี่ยวกับโรม และประกาศที่: "ทุกรัฐบาลที่ถูกต้องคือพล" ทั้งสามได้คุ้นเคยกับประเพณีพลไม่เห็นมากเป็นสิ่งแปลก อธิบายโดยเท่าคุณสมบัติที่โดดเด่นของวัฒนธรรมกรีก ให้มันเป็นสถาบันการความสามารถในการ analysed แบบทั่วไป และ ที่เกี่ยวข้องสำหรับวัฒนธรรมอื่น ๆ และระบบของรัฐบาล มาก ในตา ถูกหนึ่งในวิธีการทดลอง และทดสอบของ conferring ในการ nonhereditaryลักษณะการ มันตกในประเภทเดียวกันเป็นการเลือกตั้ง และthey compared the characteristics and effects of the two institutions.