Investigating the Interpretation of Machiavelli from Interwar Authoritarian Figures onto the Present Day (original) (raw)
Related papers
Working Paper, 2023
In 1516, Niccolo Machiavelli, the advisor of tyrants already infamous for The Prince, joined a circle of humanist literati who met on the outskirts of Florence in the gardens of the Rucellai family. They called themselves the Orti Oricellari, and their discussions focused on classical republican texts-Cicero, Titus Livy, and others-and the applicability of Roman lessons to contemporary politics. Indeed, reports of participants in the Orti confirm that the primary concern of these learned men was the sustenance of precious liberties in fragile republican states, such as their recently toppled Florentine Republic. It was in this circle of learning that Machiavelli was drawn back towards the humanist pursuits which had formed the core of his own education, before he had entered the world of power politics as a Florentine emissary at the courts of some of Italy's great and terrible autocratic rulers. And it was because of these discussions that the bloody political realism which dripped from the pages of The Prince took on a new character, infused with a renewed love for liberty, and became the humanistic, republican doctrines of his Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy. Yet, the standard scholarly interpretations of Machiavelli's two most famous works link them inseparably, as two sides of one coin, even going so far as to suppose that these two tracts with such different political ends were written at the same time, in 1513. Machiavelli is seen either as the "murderous Machiavel" of The Prince and his republicanism is discounted, or he is seen as the truly patriotic republican of the Discourses who regrettably erred (or wrote ironically, or deviously) when advising tyrants. But I have pursued another vein of interpretation here: there is credible textual and historical evidence that Machiavelli's Discourses were written later than The Prince, in a time when he was under the sway of the Orti and of classical thought. Furthermore, there is historical evidence that Machiavelli's humanist, republican thought did deepen as his years outside of government service passed. Jumping off from these textual and historical starting points, one can begin to see that Machiavelli's different views in his two main works are evidence of a true, growing concern for liberty. Nevertheless, despite the influence of the Orti, Machiavelli's liberty was not precisely that of his humanist, republican contemporaries. I argue that Machiavelli's republicanism has eluded explanation by historicist interpreters (who write histories of political thought by showing how a thinker fits within a "paradigm" of thought which was active in his time) precisely because he found the answers to his political preoccupations (and found intellectual kin to his realist politics) in Roman political thinkers, not necessarily in his interlocutors in the Rucellai gardens. Machiavelli's institutional thought as well as his psychology of founders, rulers, and citizens alike was deeply touched by the Romans on whom he discoursed. One cannot, then, understand Machiavelli without understanding Roman republican thought: he was engaged in recovering a Roman republican conception of liberty which was very different from the paradigms of liberty current in his own times (and most certainly different from the liberty of our times). As evidence of this claim, I argue here for a "Development Thesis" which traces Machiavelli's change from a power politician's negative view of the capacity of the subject for autonomy (befitting Machiavelli in 1513), to a politically-realistic, yet humanistically-informed view of the same capacity in the citizen (a role Machiavelli had embraced by 1516).
Accusations of "Machiavellianism" abound. The term is a forceful condemnation of a political opponent, suggesting unparalleled deceit and inevitable treachery. Despite this association, politicians ranging from Emmanuel Macron to Steven Bannon still refer to their knowledge of Machiavelli to imply political skillfulness. While Machiavelli has become an integral part of our everyday political vocabulary, we lack a sense of what he said and how it has been interpreted. Machiavelli has been called many things: master of statecraft, teacher of evil, quintessential republican, and radical democrat. These many Machiavelli's often tell us as much about the thinker engaging with the work of Machiavelli as they tell us about the Renaissance Florentine himself. This course reads Machiavelli's core political texts alongside debates that have unfolded through his work. We will follow the ways his thought has informed conversations about the role of the people in the polity, ideas of morality and politics, the nature of political knowledge, and the relationship between war, power, and authority, among other issues. Revisiting the debates around Machiavelli's political thought alongside the original text provides us not only with a chance to dispute earlier interpretations but also offers a map of major concepts in political theory. Drawing on the interventions of his many interpreters, we will consider how Machiavelli might speak to our contemporary political moment. Where do love and fear arise in our political life? How do we build a polity that can endure? Who is the new Prince, and what would it mean to apply this concept today?
Niccoló Machiavelli's Political Thought: Amoral or Ultra Moral? Some Reflections
This revisionist paper seeks to place the controversial but popular Machiavellism in its historical perspective. Based on a careful reading of his writings, most importantly, his Il Principe, this study reassesses the implicit and explicit connotation of his arguments in his counsel to the rulers. Far from being a notorious upholder of the principle “means justifying ends” the author of this infamous booklet emerges as genuine nationalist and a supporter of a strong, pragmatic, and cautious but shrewd ruler who is neither a heedless militant and avaricious predator against his neighbors nor an upholder of dysfunctional morality and nonviolence. Standing squarely between his medieval forbears and the leading thinkers of the Early Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli appears as one of the most influential heralds of modern political thought.
2016
Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince is one of the most celebrated and notorious books in the history of Western political thought. It continues to influence discussions of war and peace, the nature of politics, and the relation of private ethics to public duties. Ostensibly a sixteenth-century manual of instruction on certain aspects of princely rule and behavior, The Prince anticipates and complicates modern political and philosophical questions. What is the right order of society? Can Western politics still be the model for progress toward peace and prosperity, or does our freedom to create our individual purposes and pursuits undermine our public responsibilities? Are the characteristics of our politics markedly different, for better or for worse, than the politics of earlier eras? Machiavelli argues that there is no ideal, transcendent order to which one can conform, and that the right order is merely the one that has the capacity to persist over time. The Prince's emphasis on the importance of an effective truth over any abstract ideal marks it as one of the first works of modern political philosophy. Machiavelli's Legacy situates Machiavelli in general and The Prince in particular at the birth of modernity. Joining the conversation with established Machiavelli scholars are political theorists, Americanists, and international relations scholars, ensuring a diversity of viewpoints and approaches. Each contributor elucidates different features of Machiavelli's thinking, from his rejection of classical antiquity and Christianity, to his proposed dissolution of natural roles and hierarchies among human beings. The essays cover topics such as Machiavelli's vision for a heaven-sent redemptive ruler of Italy, an argument that Machiavelli accomplished a profoundly democratic turn in political thought, and a tough-minded liberal critique of his realistic agenda for political life, resulting in a book that is, in effect, a spirited conversation about Machiavelli's legacy.
Don't Judge a Book by Its Cover, Or A Man by His Book: In Defense of Niccolo Machiavelli
In contemporary discourse, the figure of Machiavelli has become the caricature of the unethical politician, who serves self-interest regardless of moral implications. However, this representation of his character is hasty and not founded upon the realities of historical evidence. This paper will argue that popular contemporary perceptions of Machiavelli and " Machiavellianism " are misguided, by examining its validity vis a vis biographical and textual evidence within Machiavelli's works, and the influence of external actors and forces.
Morality and Politics: Machiavelli’s Prince an ideal manual for modern politicians?
2019
This paper analyzes that Machiavelli's Justification of immoral act in Politics is plausible for two reasons. First, a prince could be immoral, if necessary, for the purpose of maintaining power. Second, a prince can act immorally to preserve his state's stability. However, some defects can also be seen in his justification. Machiavelli guides a ruler to carry immoral acts for the common
The place of the tyrant in Machiavelli's political thought and the literary genre of the prince
History of Political Thought, 2008
Contrary to the common interpretation, Machiavelli's notion of tyranny is quite elusive, for it is not based on moral or legal considerations. Machiavelli does not obliterate the difference between tyranny and principality, but he judges regimes and political behaviour according to the circumstances and to the end pursued by the statesman. His major political writings can be construed as aiming at the permanent education of the real statesman, to furnish him with a vision of the correct aim to pursue and, at the same time, to enable him to master 'the quality of the times'.
Machiavelli on Liberty and Conflict —Edited volume, Introduction
University of Chicago Press, 2017
More than five hundred years after Machiavelli wrote The Prince, his landmark treatise on the pragmatic application of power remains a pivot point for debates on political thought. While scholars continue to investigate interpretations of The Prince in different contexts throughout history, from the Renaissance to the Risorgimento and Italian unification, other fruitful lines of research explore how Machiavelli’s ideas about power and leadership can further our understanding of contemporary political circumstances. With Machiavelli on Liberty and Conflict, David Johnston, Nadia Urbinati, and Camila Vergara have brought together the most recent research on The Prince, with contributions from many of the leading scholars of Machiavelli, including Quentin Skinner, Harvey Mansfield, Erica Benner, John McCormick, and Giovanni Giorgini. Organized into four sections, the book focuses first on Machiavelli’s place in the history of political thought: Is he the last of the ancients or the creator of a new, distinctly modern conception of politics? And what might the answer to this question reveal about the impact of these disparate traditions on the founding of modern political philosophy? The second section contrasts current understandings of Machiavelli’s view of virtues in The Prince. The relationship between political leaders, popular power, and liberty is another perennial problem in studies of Machiavelli, and the third section develops several claims about that relationship. Finally, the fourth section explores the legacy of Machiavelli within the republican tradition of political thought and his relevance to enduring political issues. Introduction