The Trajectory of Machiavelli's Concept of State in Early Modern Politics (original) (raw)
Related papers
Trajectory of Machiavelli’s Concept of State in Early Modern Politics
Dialogi Polityczne
This paper suggests that the trajectory that Machiavelli’s concept of the state took by later political thinkers active in reshaping the character of the political order they were working with fundamentally the shape and direction of the political development of Early Modern Europe. Looking at how later thinkers used Machiavelli’s concept and reframed it for their given political traditions and contexts often lead to how the concept evolved over time. This paper argues that there was a clear arch of how Machiavelli’s concept of the state was reformulated and repackaged by such key legal and political thinkers such as Gentile, Bodin, Grotius and finally Hobbes, whose reformation of Machiavelli’s state is it fundamentally alters it so it radically transformed from what Machiavelli coined.
THE PRINCE OF MACHIAVELLI: AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATECRAFT
NLSIU, 2018
Politics is one of the most crucial aspects of human civilization and it has been a tool to control human life and society since time immemorial. The statecraft a statesman employs in governing a state is a delicate tool and should be used wisely. A nation’s economy, society, politics and the rest are largely dependent on the statecraft employed in governing the state. This research paper is an analysis of one such statecraft envisioned by the Italian diplomat and political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli.
Machiavelli at a Crossroads. The Birth of Modern Thinking
2012
This paper is an attempt of clarification on Machiavelli's place in the History of Philosophy and, more specifically, to reflect on his role in the birth of Modern Thought. Assuming that Machiavelli is an innovator of political philosophy, the question is if he is also a modern thinker. In this paper, I uphold the idea that this controversy happens because Machiavelli positioned himself at a crossroads by taking a tradition (a Roman and, in a certain sense, a Greek one too) and trying to adapt it to a new context: the Florence of the early 16th century. This gave rise to a set of complex, sometimes apparently contradictory ideas, different aspects of which were taken up by some of the 17th century's most important thinkers as Descartes or Spinoza, leading to differing concepts of man's position in relation to the state.
In his book, The Prince, written in 1513, Niccolò Machiavelli argued for the autonomy of politics from religion and ethics, essentially creating the discipline of political sciences. His ideas enjoyed a great popularity in the following centuries, and were admired, and more often criticized and also despised, by a large number of philosophers and politicians. Our purpose in this paper is to examine the reception and interpretation of Machiavelli's ideas in Europe in the interwar period, in particular in the authoritarian ideologies of fascist political actors.
Democratic Moments, 2018
Against the common opinion that says that peoples, when they are princes, are varying, mutable, and ungrateful, I affirm that. .. a prince unshackled from the laws will be more ungrateful, varying, and imprudent than a people. The variation in their proceeding arises not from a diverse nature-because it is in one mode in all-but from having more or less respect for the laws.. .. A people is more prudent, more stable, and of better judgment than a prince.. .. If a people hears two orators who incline to different sides, when they are of equal virtue, very few times does one see it not take up the better opinion.. .. If it errs in mighty things or those that appear useful,. .. often a prince errs too in his own passions, which are many more than those of peoples. It is also seen in its choices of magistrates to make a better choice by far than a prince; a people will never be persuaded that it is good to put up for dignities an infamous man of corrupt customs-of which a prince is persuaded easily.. .. Beyond this, one sees that cities in which peoples are princes make exceeding increases in a very brief time, and much greater than those that have always been made under a prince.. .. This cannot arise from anything other than that governments of peoples are better than those of princes.. .. If princes are superior to peoples in ordering laws, forming civil lives, and ordering new statues and
Machiavelli and Hobbes, on the concept of liberty and its role for the state
Hobbes, it will analyze Machiavelli's confounding concept of liberty, its meaning, expression and attainment through the dual analysis of states and the populace. Hobbesian absolute monarchy is suitable for the conservation and utilization of his orderly " negative liberty " with the sole goal of securing peace and security for its subjects. Machiavelli's advocacy for the republic, as the only " free " form of government that provides the best political conditions for the exercise of freedom, is undermined and contradicted by his own account of human nature. This paper argues that Hobbes provides a more plausible definition of freedom, thus his argument for absolute monarchy is more consistent and convincing when juxtaposed to Machiavelli's account of republic, while both depart from the same pragmatic vision of human nature. This paper reveals Machiavelli's true intentions behind his advocacy for the deliberative assembly, the instrumental implementation of which promises the mobilization of support and resources for the state's imperial expansion. Machiavelli is less concerned with liberty for its sake, he is more captivated with its role in pursuing the end goals of state's expansion and maximization of state's power. This paper will conclude by illuminating the ambiguity of Machiavelli's perplexed inclinations towards " liberty of necessity " and " liberty of choice " for the states, thus unveiling the incompatibility of security and liberty as a dilemma in contemporary international politics.
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.