The parallels between Machiavelli's The Prince and Cicero's -- De Officiis have been frequently noted but seldom studied. An examination of the parallels suggests that Machiavelli intended The Prince to offer an improvement on Cicero's defence of the active life. He thus completes Cicero's intention in De Officiis to treat political life on its own terms, independent of philosophy. In so doing, he uncovers inconsistencies and tensions in the Ciceronian account of the ‘intermediate’ virtues of the statesman, tensions that are (...) the product of the classical framework within which Cicero is working. The statesman's activity secures the good of the polity, but to achieve the good one must know what is good. Ultimately for Cicero the statesman must depend on knowledge of the good that is the province of philosophy. In The Prince, Machiavelli shows how these tensions may be resolved. (shrink)

The paper challenges the fashionable interpretation of Machiavelli as an idealistic champion of liberty and self-governance, and tries to demonstrate -- through textual analysis -- that the ideology of Italian fascism is permeated by Machiavellian themes and principles. Although this convergence is generally ignored in the scholarly literature on fascism and was rarely acknowledged by Mussolini or Gentile themselves, it is evident in their hostility to metaphysical abstractions, their contempt for the idea of moral progress, their indifference to conventional moral (...) pieties, their reduction of politics to underlying power struggles, their view of the patria as the foundation of existence, and their desire to rescue Italy from its present enfeeblement by recreating the glories of the Roman past. Machiavelli, often depicted as an essentially left-wing figure, can be seen as a precursor of fascism. (shrink)

Francis Bacon, lawyer, statesman, and philosopher, remains one of the most effectual thinkers in European intellectual history. We can trace his influence from Kant in the 1700s to Darwin a century later. The Advancement of Learning , first published in 1605, contains an unprecedented and thorough systematization of the whole range of human knowledge. Bacon’s argument that the sciences should move away from divine philosophy and embrace empirical observation would forever change the way philosophers and natural scientists interpret their world.

The paper examines two aspects of empire in Machiavelli's thought. First, Machiavelli's model of the empire-building state is analysed.Machiavelli's answer to a classical question of the best form of government is discussed, establishing (1) why Machiavelli prefers a republic to a principality, and (2) why he prefers the expansionistic model of the republic based on Rome over the non-expansionistic model based on Sparta and Venice. In both cases, it is argued, Machiavelli's choice is dictated by his understanding of greatness: the (...) Roman Republic is the ultimate example because it has achieved the greatest empire the world has ever seen. Accordingly, Machiavelli develops his political ideal, the model of the expansionistic republic that should closely follow the Roman example. The crucial role of Machiavelli's reading of the ancient historians, Livy, Sallust and, particularly, Polybius, is strongly emphasised. A second thread is developed later in the paper. Following Pocock's account(s), the author examines various causes of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire that Machiavelli offers in different places in his opus, trying to find a description of the most general cause, that would encompass all others. In the final part of the paper both threads converge; a key passage from Arte della guerra is analysed, with important conclusions reached: (1) It is shown that Machiavelli fully realised the unavoidable final destiny that awaits his model state. (2) Machiavelli also described the 'main', most general cause for Rome's downfall; a general mechanism of this process is outlined. (shrink)

Although Machiavelli would appear to be only a minor figure in Foucault's genealogy of modernity, this article examines his 1977–1978 lectures at the Collège de France and argues that the author of The Prince plays a pivotal role in the development of ‘governmental reason’ and its critique. These lectures indicate how The Prince serves as the negative touchstone for the emergence of an extensive and evolving discourse on government, confirming that Machiavelli was more than a passing interest for Foucault. I (...) consider two ‘Anti-Machiavellian’ episodes in Foucault's genealogy as especially significant: the sixteenth-century discourses of the state and the eighteenth-century discourses of political economy. These moments are significant both in showing how the idea of government hinges on a repudiation of the political lessons of The Prince and in establishing the link between governmentality and another term so important for Foucault's thinking in this period – biopower. Finally, I show how the art of critique – or, what Foucault describes as ‘the art of not being governed quite so much’ – finds a timely resource in the figure of Machiavelli. (shrink)

Torna il commento puntuale di Machiavelli alla narrazione liviana: tre libri che pongono l'accento su origine, organizzazione e decadenza della grande repubblica romana, e di ogni repubblica, intesa come ordinamento statale capace di armonizzare le tendenze e gli interessi particolaristici. Così, sotto la veste apparentemente dimessa di un commento a Livio, viene articolandosi una visione del mondo coerente, che pur illustrando in termini inconsueti il nesso fra società, storia e natura, rifugge da ogni sistemazione dottrinale legata a rivelazioni provvidenzialistiche o (...) ad astratte speculazioni filosofiche. (shrink)

Rousseau's praise for Machiavelli in the Social Contract goes along with his condemnation of partial association and political conflicts. Yet Machiavelli builds his theory precisely around the idea of the constructive role of conflicts, seeing the irreducible multiplicity of the many as the source of a positive conflictuality. Is the ontological primacy of Rousseau's singularity in the general will compatible with the political primacy of Machiavelli's conflictual multiplicity? By exploring Rousseau's strategy in his use of Machiavelli, this article argues that (...) the key to interpreting the ambiguities of Rousseau's reading lies in the evaluation of the differences in the relationship between multiplicity and singularity in both authors. While the people produces an immanent and conflictualistic ground for power in Machiavelli, in Rousseau it is subjected to a transcendent process of ontological submission to the general will. (shrink)

The considerable interest with which Machiavelli treats public oaths, executions and religious or civic cults in general indicates the major role he gives to ritualized gestures in the fabrication of the political spectacle. This study argues that Machiavelli's conception of religion has tended to be analysed with the assumption that religion is a matter of faith — or that civic religion is a device of ideological indoctrination or propaganda. A ritual-oriented reading of Machiavelli, however, not only demonstrates how political drama (...) periodically transforms the 'irksomeness of constraint into the love of virtue' it also emphasizes the fact that Machiavelli promotes a ritualized polity without aiming to produce a religious or a political consensus. (shrink)

L’auteur s’efforce de montrer que les notions de fortune et de virtù ouvrent une relation dialectique qui, de prime abord, semble bousculer la cohérence de cette nouvelle science politique centrée sur l’action efficace que Machiavel entendait créer. L’idée de fortune ne rend-t-elle pas caduque toute sagesse politique en consacrant le règne de l’irrationalisme? Par ailleurs, au sein de cet univers de mutabilité, le concept de virtù peut-il tenir les promesses que lui prête Machiavel? L’auteur pense que oui.

Discussions of the problem of emergency powers often assume that norms and exceptions constitute its conceptual structure. This perspective is both self-undermining and dangerous. Because even the critics of emergency powers often rely on this dichotomy, clarifying the conceptual terrain might contribute to the development of a safer approach to emergencies. Hence, this article explores the origins and logic of modern exceptionalism by examining instances of its careful articulation in the history of political thought: in the “republican” exceptionalism of Machiavelli (...) and Rousseau and the “decisionist” exceptionalism of Schmitt and Hobbes. (shrink)