Almost from its composition, The Prince has been notorious for its seeming recommendations of cruelty; its seeming prioritization of autocracy or at least centralized power over more republican or democratic forms; its seeming lionization of figures such as Cesare Borgia and Septimius Severus; its seeming endorsements of deception and faith-breaking; and so forth. Indeed, it remains perhaps the most notorious work in the history of political philosophy. But the meaning of these manipulations, and indeed of these appearances, remains a scholarly question.

Interpreters of the caliber of Rousseau and Spinoza have believed The Prince to bear a republican teaching at its core. Some scholars have gone so far as to see it as an utterly satirical or ironic work. Others have insisted that the book is even more dangerous than it first appears. There is reason to suspect that Machiavelli had begun writing the Discourses as early as ; for instance, there seems to be a reference in The Prince to another, lengthier work on republics P 2.

And since the Discourses references events from as late as , it seems to have still been a work in progress by that point and perhaps even later. Evidence suggests that manuscript copies were circulating by and perhaps earlier. It bears no heading and begins with a paragraph that our other manuscripts do not have. It is typically retained in English translations. As with The Prince , there is a bit of mystery surrounding the title of the Discourses. The book appeared first in Rome and then a few weeks later in Florence, with the two publishers Blado and Giunta, respectively seemingly working with independent manuscripts.

Machiavelli refers simply to Discorsi in the Dedicatory Letter to the work, however, and it is not clear whether he intended the title to specifically pick out the first ten books by name. Today, the title is usually given as the Discourses on Livy or the Discourses for short.

This is a curious coincidence and one that is presumably intentional. But what is the intent? Scholars are divided on this issue. A second, related curiosity is that the manuscript as we now have it divides the chapters into three parts or books. However, the third part does not have a preface as the first two do. As with the dedicatory letter to The Prince , there is also a bit of mystery surrounding the dedicatory letter to the Discourses. It is noteworthy that the Discourses is the only one of the major prose works dedicated to friends; by contrast, The Prince , the Art of War , and the Florentine Histories are all dedicated to potential or actual patrons.

However, it is a strange kind of commentary: At the end of the first chapter D 1. He further distinguishes between things done by private and public counsel. Finally, he claims that the first part or book will treat things done inside the city by public counsel. The first part, then, primarily treats domestic political affairs. Machiavelli says that the second book concerns how Rome became an empire, that is, it concerns foreign political affairs D 2.

If Machiavelli did in fact intend there to be a third part, the suggestion seems to be that it concerns affairs conducted by private counsel in some manner. It is noteworthy that fraud and conspiracy D 2. At first glance, it is not clear whether the teaching of the Discourses complements that of The Prince or whether it militates against it. Scholars remain divided on this issue. Some insist upon the coherence of the books, either in terms of a more nefarious teaching typically associated with The Prince ; or in terms of a more consent-based, republican teaching typically associated with the Discourses.

The Discourses nevertheless remains one of the most important works in modern republican theory. It had an enormous effect on republican thinkers such as Rousseau, Montesquieu, Hume, and the American Founders. The Art of War is the only significant prose work published by Machiavelli during his lifetime and his only attempt at writing a dialogue in the humanist tradition. It was probably written in It takes the literary form of a dialogue divided into seven books and preceded by a preface. The action of the Art of War takes place after dinner and in the deepest and most secret shade AW 1.

Bernardo filled the gardens with plants mentioned in classical texts AW 1. Notably, the gardens were the site of at least two conspiracies: The other dedicatee of the Discourses , Zanobi Buondelmonti, is also one of the interlocutors of the Art of War. But perhaps the most important and striking speaker is Fabrizio Colonna.

However, Colonna was also the leader of the Spanish forces that compelled the capitulation of Soderini and that enabled the Medici to regain control of Florence. In the preface to the work, Machiavelli notes the vital importance of the military: And he laments the corruption of modern military orders as well as the modern separation of military and civilian life AW Pref. Roughly speaking, books 1 and 2 concern issues regarding the treatment of soldiers, such as payment and discipline.

Books 3 and 4 concern issues regarding battle, such as tactics and formation. Book 5 concerns issues regarding logistics, such as supply lines and the use of intelligence. Book 6 concerns issues regarding the camp, including a comparison to the way that the Romans organized their camps. Book 7 concerns issues regarding armament, such as fortifications and artillery. And his only discussion of science in The Prince or the Discourses comes in the context of hunting as an image of war D 3.

But the technical nature of its content, if nothing else, has proved to be a resilient obstacle for scholars who attempt to master it, and the book remains the least studied of his major works. It was not his first attempt at penning a history; Machiavelli had already written a two-part verse history of Italy, I Decennali , which covers the years But the Florentine Histories is a greater effort. It is written in prose and covers the period of time from the decline of the Roman Empire until the death of Lorenzo the Magnificent in Machiavelli presented eight books to Clement and did not write any additional ones.

They were not published until Although Giulio had made Machiavelli the official historiographer of Florence, it is far from clear that the Florentine Histories are a straightforward historiographical account. Books 2, 3, and 4 concern the history of Florence itself from its origins to In Book 1, Machiavelli explores how Italy has become disunited, in no small part due to causes such as Christianity FH 1.

The rise of Charlemagne is also a crucial factor FH 1. Machiavelli notes that Christian towns have been left to the protection of lesser princes FH 1.


  1. .
  2. ?
  3. ;
  4. .
  5. .

Scholars have long focused upon how Machiavelli thought Florence was wretched, especially when compared to ancient Rome. But recent work has begun to examine the ways in which Machiavelli thought that Florence was great, as well; and on the overlap between the Histories and the Discourse on Florentine Affairs which was also commissioned by the Medici around Book 2 also examines the ways in which the nobility disintegrates into battles between families e.

The rise of Castruccio Castracani, alluded to in Book 1 e. Machiavelli also narrates the rise of several prominent statesmen: Yet in fact Machiavelli devotes the majority of Books 5 and 6 not to the Medici but rather to the rise of mercenary armies in Italy compare P 12 and D 2. Among the topics that Machiavelli discusses are the famous battle of Anghiari FH 5.

Books 7 and 8 principally concern the rise of the Medici—in particular Cosimo; his son, Piero the Gouty; and his son in turn, Lorenzo the Magnificent. Cosimo also loved classical learning to such an extent that he brought John Argyropoulos and Marsilio Ficino to Florence. Additionally, Cosimo left a strong foundation for his descendants FH 7. Piero is highlighted mainly for lacking the foresight and prudence of his father; for fomenting popular resentment; and for being unable to resist the ambition of the great.

Lorenzo is noted for his youth F 7. The Histories end with the death of Lorenzo. The Histories has received renewed attention in recent years, and scholars have increasingly seen it as not merely historical but also philosophical—in other words, as complementary to The Prince and the Discourses. Every single work is not listed; instead, emphasis has been placed upon those that seem to have philosophical resonance.

In the early s, he wrote several reports and speeches. They are notable for their topics and for the way in which they contain precursors to important claims in later works, such as The Prince. Among other things, Machiavelli wrote on how Duke Valentino killed Vitellozzo Vitelli compare P 7 ; on how Florence tried to suppress the factions in Pistoia compare P 17 ; and how to deal with the rebels of Valdichiana. The most obvious changes are found in the final part, where Machiavelli attributes to Castruccio many sayings that are in fact almost exclusively drawn from the Lives of Diogenes Laertius.

Also around , Machiavelli wrote the Discourse on Florentine Affairs. Recent work has suggested the proximity in content between this work and the Florentine Histories. Also of interest is On the Natures of Florentine Men , which is an autograph manuscript which Machiavelli may have intended as a ninth book of the Florentine Histories. Toward the end of his tenure in the Florentine government, Machiavelli wrote two poems in terza rima called I Decennali.

The first seems to date from and concerns the history of Italy from to It is the only work that Machiavelli published while in office. The second seems to date from around and concerns the history of Italy from to Among other things, they are precursors to concerns found in the Florentine Histories. In general, between and , Machiavelli turned more consciously toward art. Mandragola was probably written between and ; was first published in ; and was first performed in While original, it hearkens to the ancient world especially in how its characters are named e.

It is by far the most famous of the three and indeed is one of the most famous plays of the Renaissance. It contains many typical Machiavellian themes, the most notable of which are conspiracy and the use of religion as a mask for immoral purposes. It was probably written in the early s. In recent years, scholars have increasingly treated all three of these plays with seriousness and indeed as philosophical works in their own right. In addition to I Decannali , Machiavelli wrote other poems. I Capitoli contains tercets which are dedicated to friends and which treat the topics of ingratitude, fortune, ambition, and opportunity with virtue being notably absent.

The Ideal Ruler is in the form of a pastoral. Between and , Machiavelli wrote several sonnets and at least one serenade. There are some other miscellaneous writings with philosophical import, most of which survive in autograph copies and which have undetermined dates of composition. Machiavelli wrote a Dialogue on Language in which he discourses with Dante on various linguistic concerns, including style and philology. Articles for a Pleasure Company is a satire on high society and especially religious confraternities.

Belfagor is a short story that portrays, among other things, Satan as a wise and just prince. An Exhortation to Penitence unsurprisingly concerns the topic of penitence; the sincerity of this exhortation, however, remains a scholarly question. The Legations date from the period that Machiavelli worked for the Florentine government The personal letters date from to Particularly notable among the personal letters are the September letter to Giovanbattista Soderini, the so-called Ghiribizzi al Soderini Musings to Soderini ; and the 10 December letter to Francesco Vettori, wherein Machiavelli first mentions The Prince.

Machiavelli insists upon the novelty of his enterprise in several places e. As a result, some interpreters have gone so far as to call him the inaugurator of modern philosophy. But all philosophers are to some degree in conversation with their predecessors, even or perhaps especially those who seek to disagree fundamentally with what has been thought before.

Thus, even with a figure as purportedly novel as Machiavelli, it is worth pondering historical and philosophical influences. Although Machiavelli studied ancient humanists, he does not often cite them as authorities. But Cicero is never named in The Prince although Machiavelli does allude to him via the images of the fox and the lion in P and is named only three times in the Discourses D 1.

Other classical thinkers in the humanist tradition receive similar treatment. Juvenal is quoted three times D 2. This trend tends to hold true for later thinkers, as well. One may see this relative paucity of references as suggestive that Machiavelli did not have humanist concerns. But it is possible to understand his thought as having a generally humanist tenor.

Though they did treat problems in philosophy, they were primarily concerned with eloquence. The revival of Greek learning in the Italian Renaissance did not change this concern and in fact even amplified it. New translations were made of ancient works, including Greek poetry and oratory, and rigorous and in some ways newfound philological concerns were infused with a sense of grace and nuance not always to be found in translations conducted upon the model of medieval calques.

A notable example is Coluccio Salutati, who otherwise bore a resemblance to medieval rhetoricians such as Petrus de Vineis but who believed, unlike the medievals, that the best way to achieve eloquence was to imitate ancient style as concertedly as possible.

But what exactly is this imprint? What exactly is Machiavellian eloquence? Fellow philosophers have differed in their opinions. Finally, increasing attention has been paid to other rhetorical devices, such as when Machiavelli speaks in his own voice; when he uses paradox, irony, and hyperbole; when he modifies historical examples for his own purposes; when he appears as a character in his narrative; and so forth.

And some scholars have gone so far as to say that The Prince is not a treatise compare D 2. In short, it is increasingly a scholarly trend to claim that one must pay attention not only to what Machiavelli says but how he says it. One reason for this lacuna might be that Plato is never mentioned in The Prince and is mentioned only once in the Discourses D 3. What exactly is meant here, however?

There are few, if any, doctrines that all Platonists have held, as Plato himself did not insist upon the dogmatic character of either his writings or his oral teaching. To which specific variety of Platonism was Machiavelli exposed? Plethon visited Florence in and due to the Council of Florence, the seventeenth ecumenical council of the Catholic Church Plethon himself opposed the unification of the Greek and Latin Churches. Ficino became a priest in , and Lorenzo later made him canon of the Duomo so that he would be free to focus upon his true love: Like Plethon, Ficino believed that Plato was part of an ancient tradition of wisdom and interpreted Plato through Neoplatonic successors, especially Proclus, Dionysius the Areopagite, and St.

Some scholars believe that Machiavelli critiques both Plato and Renaissance Platonism in such passages. Aristotle is never mentioned in The Prince and is mentioned only once in the Discourses in the context of a discussion of tyranny D 3. This has led some scholars to claim that Machiavelli makes a clean and deliberate break with Aristotelian philosophy.

As with the question concerning Plato, the question of whether Aristotle influenced Machiavelli would seem to depend at least in part on the Aristotelianism to which he was exposed. Scholars once viewed the Renaissance as the rise of humanism and the rediscovery of Platonism, on the one hand; and the decline of the prevailing Aristotelianism of the medieval period, on the other. Italian scholastic philosophy was its own animal.

Italy was exposed to more Byzantine influences than any other Western country. Furthermore, unlike a country such as France, Italy also had its own tradition of culture and inquiry that reached back to classical Rome. It is simply not the case that Italian Aristotelianism was displaced by humanism or Platonism. Indeed, perhaps from the late 13th century, and certainly by the late 14th, there was a healthy tradition of Italian Aristotelianism that stretched far into the 17th century. The main difference between the Aristotelian scholastics and their humanist rivals was one of subject matter.

Whereas the humanists were rhetoricians who focused primarily on grammar, rhetoric, and poetry, the scholastics were philosophers who focused upon logic and natural philosophy. And the Eudemian Ethics was translated for the first time. It seems likely that Machiavelli did not agree fully with the Aristotelian position on political philosophy. Recent work has explored this final candidate in particular.

Xenophon is mentioned only once in The Prince P However, he is mentioned seven times in the Discourses D 2. Machiavelli refers the reader explicitly to two works of Xenophon: This kind and gentle vision of Cyrus was not shared universally by Renaissance Italians. At least two of these virtues are mentioned in later chapters of The Prince.

Nonetheless, humanity is also one of the five qualities that Machiavelli explicitly highlights as a useful thing to appear to have P 18; see also FH 2.

An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.

Thus, Machiavelli may have learned from Xenophon that it is important for rulers and especially founders to appear to be something that they are not. This might hold true whether they are actual rulers e. He says that he will leave out what is imagined and will instead discuss what is true. It is worth noting that Scipio, who imitates Cyrus, is criticized for excessive mercy or piety; P It also raises the question as to whether Machiavelli writes in a manner similar to Xenophon D 3. However, the text was not widely read in the Middle Ages and did not obtain prominence until centuries later, when it was rediscovered in by Poggio Bracciolini.

It seems to have entered broader circulation in the s or s, and it was first printed in These two works, along with other snippets of Epicurean philosophy already known from Seneca and Cicero, inspired many thinkers—such as Ficino and Alberti—to ponder the return of these ideas. Adriani deployed Lucretius in his Florentine lectures on poetry and rhetoric between and Lucretius also seems to have been a direct influence on Machiavelli himself.

Although Machiavelli never mentions Lucretius by name, he did hand-copy the entirety of De rerum natura drawing largely from the print edition. He omits the descriptive capitula—not original to Lucretius but common in many manuscripts—that subdivide the six books of the text into smaller sections. He also adds approximately twenty marginal annotations of his own, almost all of which are concentrated in Book 2. Recent work has noted that it is precisely this section of the text that received the least attention from other Renaissance annotators, many of whom focused instead upon Epicurean views on love, virtue, and vice.

Among other possible connections are P 25 and 26; and D 1. Machiavelli does not seem to have agreed with the classical Epicurean position that one should withdraw from public life e. But what might Machiavelli have learned from Lucretius? One possible answer concerns the soul.

Niccolò Machiavelli (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Machiavelli never treats the topic of the soul substantively, and he never uses the word at all in either The Prince or the Discourses he apparently even went so far as to delete anima from a draft of the first preface to the Discourses. For Lucretius, the soul is material, perishable, and made up of two parts: But each part, like all things in the cosmos, is composed only of atoms, invisibly small particles of matter that are constantly in motion. From time to time, these atoms conglomerate into macroscopic masses. Human beings are such entities.

But when they perish, there is no longer any power to hold the atoms of the soul together, so those atoms disperse like all others eventually do. A second possible aspect of Lucretian influence concerns the eternity of the cosmos, on the one hand, and the constant motion of the world, on the other. Machiavelli ponders the question of the eternity of the world D 2.

He at times claims that the world has always remained the same D 1. He also at times claims that worldly things are in motion P 10 and FH 5. As recent work has shown, reading Lucretius in the Renaissance was a dangerous game. In , the Fifth Lateran Council condemned those who believed that the soul was mortal; those who believed in the unity of the intellect; and those who believed in the eternity of the world. It also made belief in the afterlife mandatory. There is no comprehensive monograph on Machiavelli and Savonarola. While there has been some interesting recent work, particularly with respect to Florentine institutions, the connection between the two thinkers remains a profitable area of research.

Girolamo Savonarola was a Dominican friar who came to Florence in and who effectively ruled the city from to from the pulpits of San Marco and Santa Reparata. He was renowned for his oratorical ability, his endorsement of austerity, and his concomitant condemnation of excess and luxury. As a result, Florence would hang and then burn Savonarola with two others at the stake, going so far as to toss his ashes in the Arno afterward so that no relics of him could be kept.

In the Discourses , Machiavelli is more expansive and explicit in his treatment of the friar. Machiavelli conspicuously omits any explicit mention of Savonarola in the Florentine Histories. While it is true that Machiavelli does use bugie only in a negative context in the Discourses D 1. But, again, nuances and context may be important. Machiavelli does indeed implicate two other friars: Ponzo for insanity and Alberto for hypocrisy. To what extent the Bible influenced Machiavelli remains an important question.

He laments that histories are no longer properly read or understood D 1. Furthermore, he explicitly speaks of reading the Bible in this careful manner again sensatamente ; D 3. Recent work has explored what it might have meant for Machiavelli to read the Bible in this way. Additionally, recent work has explored the extent to which Machiavelli engaged with the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. Machiavelli, however, uses the passage to refer to David. Elsewhere in the Discourses , Machiavelli attributes virtue to David and says that he was undoubtedly a man very excellent in arms, learning, and judgment D 1.

Machiavelli offers a gloss of the story of David and Goliath which differs in numerous and substantive ways from the Biblical account see I Samuel He is mentioned at least five times in The Prince P 6 [4x] and 26 and at least five times in the Discourses D 1. Chapter 6 of The Prince is famous for its distinction between armed and unarmed prophets.

However, recent work has noted that it does in fact follow exactly the order of Psalms Machiavelli speaks at least twice of the prophet Mohammed FH 1. He discusses various Muslim princes—most importantly Saladin FH 1. The main aim of this article is to help readers find a foothold in the primary literature. A second, related aim is to help readers do so in the secondary literature.

It has followed the practice of many recent Machiavelli scholars—for whom it is not uncommon, especially in English, to say that the views on Machiavelli can be divided into a handful of camps. Many of the differences between these camps appear to reduce to the question of how to fit The Prince and the Discourses together. Five are outlined below, although some scholars would of course put that number either higher or lower.

Readers who are interested in understanding the warp and woof of the scholarship in greater detail are encouraged to consult the recent and more fine-grained accounts of Catherine Zuckert , John T. Scott , and Erica Benner The first camp takes The Prince to be a satirical or ironic work. The 16th century Italian jurist Alberico Gentili was one of the first interpreters to take up the position that The Prince is a satire on ruling. Rousseau and Spinoza in their own respective ways also seemed to hold this interpretation. Members of this camp typically argue that Machiavelli is a republican of various sorts and place special emphasis upon his rhetoric.

The most notable recent member of this camp is Erica Benner a, b, , and , who argues that The Prince is thoroughly ironic and that Machiavelli presents a shocking moral teaching in order to subvert it. However, members of this camp do not typically argue that The Prince is satirical or ironic. They do typically argue that The Prince presents a different teaching than does the Discourses ; and that, as an earlier work, The Prince is not as comprehensive or mature of a writing as the Discourses.

The most notable member of this camp is Quentin Skinner , , and Pocock and , Hans Baron and , and David Wootton could be reasonably placed in this camp. Maurizio Viroli , , , , and could also be reasonably placed here, though he puts additional emphasis on The Prince. In other words, members of this camp typically claim that Machiavelli presents the same teaching or vision in each book but from different starting points. However, members of this camp do not typically argue that The Prince and Discourses begin from different starting points. The most notable member of this camp is Leo Strauss Mansfield , , , and , Catherine Zuckert and , John T.

Scott , , and , Vickie Sullivan , , and , Nathan Tarcov , , a, b, , , , , and , and Clifford Orwin and could be reasonably placed here. The fifth camp is hermeneutically beholden to Hegel, which seems at first glance to be an anachronistic approach. The most notable member of this camp is Claude Lefort []. Miguel Vatter , , and could be reasonably placed here and additionally deserves mention for his familiarity with the secondary literature in Spanish an unusual achievement for Machiavelli scholars who write in English. Below are listed some of the more well-known works in the scholarship, as well as some that the author has found profitable but which are perhaps not as well-known.

They are arranged as much as possible in accordance with the outline of this article. It goes without saying that there are many important books that are not mentioned. Some examples include Benner a , Celenza , Black and , Atkinson , Skinner , Viroli , , and , de Grazia , and Ridolfi Vivanti offers an intellectual biography. Other good places to begin are Nederman , Viroli , Mansfield , , and , Skinner and , Prezzolini , Voegelin , and Foster Johnston, Urbinati, and Vergara and Fuller are recent, excellent collections.

Lefort and Strauss are daunting and difficult but also well worth the attempt. Skinner , Benner , and Mansfield discuss virtue. Spackman and Pitkin discuss fortune, particularly with respect to the image of fortune as a woman. Biasiori and Marcocci is a recent collection concerning Machiavelli and Islam. Nederman examines free will. Blanchard discusses sight and touch. Regarding various other political themes, including republicanism, see McCormick , Slade , Barthas , Rahe , , and , Patapan , Sullivan and , Forde and , Bock , Hulliung , Skinner , and Pocock Palmer , and de Alvarez On deception, see Dietz and Langton and Dietz Mansfield and Walker are the two notable commentaries.

Anyone who wants to learn more about the intellectual context of the Italian Renaissance should begin with the many writings of Kristeller e. See also Hankins , Cassirer [] , and Burke Regarding humanist educational treatises, see Kallendorf Regarding Ficino, see the I Tatti series edited by James Hankins especially , , , and Regarding Xenophon, see Nadon and Newell Regarding Lucretius, see A. Palmer , Brown a and b , and Rahe The most comprehensive recent treatment of Savonarola can be found in Jurdjevic Those interested in the Italian scholarship should begin with the seminal work of Sasso , , and Lastly, Ruffo-Fiore has compiled an annotated bibliography of Machiavelli scholarship from to The Youth Machiavelli was born on May 3, , to a somewhat distinguished family.

The Official Not long after Savonarola was put to death, Machiavelli was appointed to serve under Adriani as head of the Second Chancery. The Philosopher In late , Machiavelli was accused of participating in an anti-Medici conspiracy. Machiavelli died on June 21, His body is buried in the Florentine basilica of Santa Croce.

Philosophical Themes If to be a philosopher means to inquire without any fear of boundaries, Machiavelli is the epitome of a philosopher. The Humors Machiavelli is most famous as a political philosopher. Republicanism Some scholars claim that Machiavelli is the last ancient political philosopher because he understands the merciless exposure of political life.

Discourses on Livy There is reason to suspect that Machiavelli had begun writing the Discourses as early as ; for instance, there seems to be a reference in The Prince to another, lengthier work on republics P 2. Art of War The Art of War is the only significant prose work published by Machiavelli during his lifetime and his only attempt at writing a dialogue in the humanist tradition.

Possible Philosophical Influences on Machiavelli Machiavelli insists upon the novelty of his enterprise in several places e. Renaissance Humanism Although Machiavelli studied ancient humanists, he does not often cite them as authorities. Renaissance Aristotelianism Aristotle is never mentioned in The Prince and is mentioned only once in the Discourses in the context of a discussion of tyranny D 3.

Xenophon Xenophon is mentioned only once in The Prince P Savonarola There is no comprehensive monograph on Machiavelli and Savonarola. Contemporary Interpretations The main aim of this article is to help readers find a foothold in the primary literature. References and Further Reading Below are listed some of the more well-known works in the scholarship, as well as some that the author has found profitable but which are perhaps not as well-known. The Art of War , ed. University of Chicago Press, The Chief Works and Others. Duke University Press, []. The Comedies of Machiavelli , ed.

David Sices and James B. Discourses on Livy , trans. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. University of Chicago Press, []. Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio , ed. Florentine Histories , trans. Banfield and Harvey C. Princeton University Press, Their Personal Correspondence , ed.

Atkinson and David Sices. Northern Illinois University Press, The Prince with Related Documents , trans. The Prince , second edition, trans. Il Principe , ed. Secondary Sources Abensour, Miguel. Democracy Against the State: Marx and the Machiavellian Moment.

Polity Press, []. Yale University Press, []. The Human Condition , second edition. Cambridge University Press, Ascoli, Albert Russell, and Victoria Kahn, eds.


  • Love and Revolution: A Novel About Song Qingling and Sun Yat-sen (Modern Chinese Literature from Taiwan)!
  • Die besten 5 In-Ear-Kopfhörer: 1hourbook (German Edition);
  • Sie haben das Recht zu schweigen: Wie Lügner überführt werden (German Edition)?
  • Dreaming of Roses (The Rose Cabaret Book 2)?
  • Self-Esteem (Current Issues in Social Psychology)!

    • Machiavelli and the Discourse of Literature. Cornell University Press, In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism. The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance. Be Like the Fox: Machiavelli's Lifelong Quest for Freedom. University of Chicago Press, b. Oxford University Press, Essays in the History of Ideas , Oxford University Press, []. Biasiori, Lucio, and Giuseppe Marcocci, eds. Machiavelli, Islam and the East: Reorienting the Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Machiavelli's Modification of Platonic Epistemology. Edited by John M.

    Cambridge University Press, a. The Return of Lucretius to Renaissance Florence. Harvard University Press, b. The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy. Harvard University Press, Machiavelli and the Renaissance , trans. Bowes and Bowes, Machiavelli e La 'Lingua Fiorentina. Nuovi Studi sul Linguaggio del Machiavelli. Studi sul Linguaggio del Machiavelli. De Alvarez, Leo Paul. A Commentary on The Prince. Northern Illinois University Press, []. Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception. The Critique of Cicero in Machiavelli's Discourses.

    Feminist Interpretations of Machiavelli. Penn State University Press, On Dionysius the Areopagite Volume 1 , ed. Commentaries on Plato, Volume 2, Part 1 , ed. Commentaries on Plato, Volume 1 , ed. Platonic Theology, Volume 1 , ed. James Hankins and William Bowen and trans. Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism. Masters of Political Thought, Volume 1: Houghton Mifflin Company, University of Pennsylvania Press, Machiavelli's Prince and Its Forerunners. Duke University Press, Politics and History in Sixteenth-Century Florence. History, Choice, and Commitment. The Belknap Press, Note sul Machiavelli, sulla politica e sullo stato moderno.

    A Great and Wretched City: From the Counter-Reformation to Milton. Harvard University Press, []. Renaissance Thought and Its Sources , ed.

    Columbia University Press, Papers on Humanism and the Arts. Harper and Row, The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains. University of Toronto Press, Langton, John, and Mary Dietz. Trapping or Teaching the Prince. Reassessing the Military Reflections. Machiavelli in the Making , trans. Northwestern University Press, Machiavelli and the Ancients.

    Machiavelli's New Modes and Orders: A Study of the Discourses on Livy. Machiavelli and Traditions of Renaissance Theater. Fortune is a River: Machiavelli, Leonardo, and the Science of Power.

    Niccolò Machiavelli

    University of Notre Dame Press, Republic and Empire in the Cyropaedia. University of California Press, Lucretius and the Early Modern. Reading Lucretius in the Renaissance. Revisioned Essays in Political Philosophy. Yale University Press, The Critique of Christianity in The Prince. University of Rochester Press, The Modern Politics of Love and Fear. Fortune is a Woman: The Republic as Ideal and as History.

    Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Against Throne and Altar: Machiavelli and Political Theory under the English Republic. Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy. Machiavelli e gli antichi e altri saggi. Apologetic Writings , ed. Trattato sul Governo di Firenze. Franco Cesati Editore, Selected Writings of Girolamo Savonarola: Religion and Politics, , ed. Anne Borelli and Maria Pastore Passoro.

    Sometimes, he says, the control offortuna depends on the possession of a particular knowledge or skill. In a letter to Francesco Vettori, Machiavelli says: Allan Gilbert New York, , p. BALABAN On the other hand, when Machiavelli states in his History of Florence that f ortuna brought the Florentines more advantages from defeat than from victOlY, he seems to be saying thatfortuna was not a consequence of the will of the Florentines, but rather came to them in spite of themselves.

    In The Disco urses, when Machiavelli praises the virtue of Camillus, and asserts that 'fickleness of fOltune has no power ' over a truly great man who 'always preserves a firm courage' , he seems to be saying that men can master their fortunes by courage. But this line of thinking would seem to be very alien to the spirit of Machiavelli 's thought, as well as to common sense.

    Nevertheless, even this view may be found among Machiavelli 's wlitings - namely that courage does not depend upon the subject's will, since human beings have a given nature that may or may not dispose them to being courageous; or given habits of mind and behaviour which they are unable to change if experience has taught them that they succeed in attaining their aims without altering these manners of thinking and conduct.

    Thus we are told by Machiavelli that a republic ' which relies more upon the chances of fortune than upon the valor of her citizens, will experience all the vicissitudes of fortune '. In speaki ng about Rinaldo degli Albizzi, Machiavelli observes that after Rinaldo had settl ed in Ancona, in order to gain admission to the celestial country, having lost the terrestrial , he performed a pilgrimage to the holy sepulcher; whence having returned , he died suddenly while at table at the celebration of the marriage of one of his daughters; an instance of fortune's favour, in removing him from the troubles of this world upon the least sorrowful day of his exile.

    Rinaldo d' Albizzi appeared respectable under every change of condition; and would have been more so had he lived in a uni ted city, for many qualities were injurious to him in a factious community, which in an harmoni ous one would have done him honour. Engli sh edi tion: The Prince and The Discourses, tran s. Dermoid New York, , p. Machi avelli, Discorsi, Book I, ch.

    Speaking in the same spirit, Machiavelli asserts in The Prince that when bad fortuna is due to cowardice, it is not fortuna that is to blame but men. So, in peacetime, men do not bebeve that times can change, and when confronted by adversity they think only of how to escape the evil turn of events rather than of how to defend themselves against it. Cowardice is thus represented as a wilful act, consisting in the decision to run away, and not the effect of illfortuna.

    Machiavelli tells us that ' if his measures were not successful, it was through no fault of his own but only by the most extraordinary malignity of fortune'. If this is so, why does Machiav elli question the attitude of PI utarch, who ' held the opinion that the people of Rome were more indebted in the acquisition of their empire to the favors of Fortune than to their own merits '? JO For in the preceding book of the Discorsi, Machiavelli appears to subscribe to the classical idea of fortuna as representing destiny: II Thus Machiavelli appears never to tire of contradicting himself.

    In still another place,fortuna would seem to be represented by him as a consequence of the laws men create for themselves. So, for example, the piety of Numa in Rome 'gave rise to good laws, and good laws bring goodfortuna, and from goodfortuna results happy success in all enterprises '. Machiavelli, ' ll Principe', in Turte Ie opere, e h. Th e Lercers of Ma chiavelli , trans.

    Lui gi Ricci, p. To resolve this ambiguity scholars have used two alternative tactics commonly applied to concepts pertaining to foreign cultures, such as Machiavelli 'sfortuna, a term used in the Italian Renaissance: By the first method , they succeed in avoiding ambiguity, but fail to elucidate the author's use of a single term for the two or more senses. They change the text, but do not explain it.

    The second method reducing the different senses to one and the same sense avoids ambiguity by imposing a new meaning on the text, by forcing it so say what it in fact does not say. I propose to attempt a third way - to remain faithful to the text and use the same term for the different senses. I shall assume that the different, even contradictory, senses of fortuna derive from the reader's own inadequate thought patterns rather than from a lapse on the part of the author. Accordingl y, I shall try to justify Machiavelli's use of one and the same term for apparently different meanings.

    Howev er, the apparently contradictory senses in which fortuna is used have given rise to a controversy among modern scholars as to Machiavelli's intended meaning. Some scholars maintain that fortuna is ungovernable. Machiavelli conceives of fortuna as a force that is external to human will and consciousness, upon which it operates. As such it is vatiously treated by Machiavelli as destiny, providence, chance or accident.


    • .
    • The Homeric Hymns A New Prose Translation; and Essays, Literary and Mythological.
    • Sizzle And Burn: Number 3 in series (Arcane Society)!
    • The Lord is There: Studies in the Book of Ezekiel!

      • Although these concepts are in some respects contradictory, they all refer to the whole domain of circumstances that are external to men 's will. So regarded, neither good nor bad fortuna can be voluntatily set aside or altered, and are at best manageable only within highly circumscribed limits. From this point of view ,fortuna is insmmountable. Other scholars maintain that fortuna is governable. Although not a product of human activity fortuna can nevertheless be changed by means of virtu, which may be taken to be both the consciousness offortuna and misfortune, and the means of overcoming it.

      Thusfortuna is fully controllable by human action when it is informed by experience. Ultimately good and illfortuna exists because it is unknown, and may thus be reduced to ignorance. But once the effects offortuna at'e understood, men can act in a way to smmount it and take their destiny into their own hands. I shall now proceed to describe the various interpretations of Machiavelli's use of f ortuna in terms of its reference to human will, that is to say, in terms of being or not being governable by will.

      Fortune uses men as an instrument English edition, p. Accordingly, iffortuna is taken to be altogether ungovernable, then it is a matter of providence, destiny or chance. On the other hand, if it is considered to be governable, even if only to some extent, then it can be revoked at will once complete awareness of its existence has been achieved , and the appropriate measures have been taken to counteract it.

      In either event,fortuna is not a product of human activity. Leo Strauss considers that Machiavelli conceived of fo rtuna as being in some ways amenable to human control. According to Strauss,fortuna acts where men are ignorant, and it can be overcome once knowledge is attained. Fortuna is therefore demystified; and since it originates in ignorance of practical affairs, it is governable by virtue. The cause of goodforruna is 'human virtue and good institutions, i. Therefore 'genuine " good fortune" can arise only from a man 's having knowledge of " the world", i.

      Thus in Strauss's view, Machiavelli intended thatfo rtuna should supplant the idea of divine providence, and in thi s process of being secularized and demystified God is reduced to the idea of chance, 'u nderstood as the cause of simply unforeseeable accidents '. Fortuna is therefore a natmal force , and like all natural forces it is governable to a certain extent and within limits.

      The interpretation advanced by Strauss is naturalistic, according to which fortuna has the char'acter of a manageable extrinsic accident; that is to say it is treated as a universal ontological category rather than a product of human activity. Although by their activity men can control fo rtuna up to a point, they cannot create it. Rather they discover fortuna empirically. In other words, Strauss regards as self-evident what actually needs to be explained - namely, the origin ofj'ortuna. According to Ernest Cassirer 's interpretation,fortuna assumes a mythic character in Machiavelli's political philosophy.

      The lesson learnt by Machiavelli from political experience, accord ing to Cassirer, was the opposite of modern scientific determin- ism: Things will go their own way; they will thwart aU our wishes and purposes.

      Who was Niccolo Machiavelli? - What are the Machiavellian principles?

      BALA BAN cunning schemes are liable to failure; they may, suddenly and unexpectedly, be crossed by the course of events. This uncertainty in the affairs of men seems to make all political science impossibl e. Here we are living in an inconstant, inegular, capricious world that defies all our efforts of calculation and predic- tion. Robert On proposes that Machiavelli maintained two different concepts of fortu na, one in his pl ays and stories, and the other in his political writings. Thus in his literary works,fortuna implies merely chance - that which is fortuitous and therefore inexplicable - not only as that whk h men cannot predict, but that which they cannot retrodict, an event that they can neither foresee nor account for even after it has happened.

      And the relationship is understood as implying anythi ng but passivity on the part of men. Neal Wood regards virtu and fortuna to represent two principles that are in continuous contest; thus vil"tue 'represents the principle of freedom, of conscious, self-directed energy and movement' , whereasfortuna 'symbolizes the unforeseeable and the uncontrollable'. In Wood's will-dependent interpretation, fortuna is not an extrinsic force acting upon human beings. Rather, fortu na comes into play where virtue is absent, and declines in influence in the presence of virtue.

      In other words,fortuna and virtue are inversely relative tenns. See also Federico Chabod, Machiavelli and lhe Renaissance, crans. David Moore New York, , pp. Anthony Parel Toronto and Buffalo, , p. Martin Fleisher London , , p. Fortune ' is neither a goddess nor a personification, neither an allegory nor a metaphor..

      It is an abstract and secular concept.. Fortuna for Machiavelli is sometimes a goddess, sometimes a liver or storm , often in conflict with virtl2, problematic in her relationship to human action. But for him, fortune is no longer, as in the medieval Christian view, the agent of divine providence in an ordered, hierarchal universe, nor is she a goddess in the Roman sense. Thereby he not only anthropomorphizes and sexualizes the givens and the outcomes of human action in history but invests them with those specific desires, fears, and attitudes hi s male readers already bear toward woman - as umeliable nurturer, as sexual object, as 'other'.

      The consequence is both empowering and con- straining; it promotes the slli ving for autonomy yet renders that goal inacces- sible. Fortune, she observes, is part of a vision of human reality th at underlies th e entire body of [Machiavelli's] thought, a vision of embattled men struggling to preserve condi tion of political success in conquest or internal admini stration. Viml is its active counterpart.

      They are substitutes of the concepts of acti ve and passive'. Leonardo O lschki , Machiavelli rhe Sciemisr Berkeley, , pp. It should be remarked that, quite apart from the reader 's attitudes on 'machismo', Machiavelli 's choice of the analogy of fortune as a woman is principally motivated by his desire to make a point abollt fortune. Pilkin has confu sed the analogisr with the analogy. Let us suppose that male readers of Machiavelli did not regard women to be sexual objects. Thi s wou ld in no way change Machiavelli's concept of poLi tics , but would on ly mean th at a different an alogy was required.

      Fortune is in point of fac t neither a river no r a women. These are mere literary images suitable to the mentality of Machiavelli 's contemporaries. Were Machiavelli speaking to feminists, he m ight have described fortune as, say, an impetuous man who, when turbulent, destroys, plunders and creates disorders ; every one flees before him, and everything yields to his fu ry without bein g able to oppose it; and yet though he is of such a kind, still when he is quiet, women can make provisions against him, so that when hi s fury is roused again , he will not be so wild and dangerou s cf.

      Pitkin is therefore criticizin g not Machi avelli 's poli tical theory, but o nl y hi s analogy. Flanagan is right in observing that Machiavelli 's comparison of fortune to a woman is an ' obvio us literary device' Flanagan , 'The Concept of Fortuna ', p. BALABAN themselves, their masculinity, their autonomy, and the achievements of civili- zation, against almost overwhelming odds.

      For him, according to Pitkin,fortuna ' does not represent any transcendent order. Rather, she acts on the basis of famili ar human motives, impulses, and desires'. She can give or deny a man good " judgmen t" and "sense". According to Pitkin, what defines events as fortuna for Machiavelli ' is not their inexplicability or mysteriousness of the apparent need for supernatural explanation of them, but simply that they could not have been foreseen by the actors involved in the particular situation Machiavelli has been describing'.

      If certain consequences of actions and events are absolutely impossible to foresee, thenjortuna would be independent of will and Machiavelli 's view of it would therefore be naturalistic. If, on the contrary, such consequ ences were merely unforeseen but might nevertheless have been anticipated, then in Machiavelli's view fortuna would have a will-dependent nature. What is lacking in Pitkin 's approach, in my opinion, is a critical explanation of the concept. That is to say, she fails to address herself to the question of why the unexpected should supervene.

      I, on the other hand, shall argue thatjortuna does not merely consist in unexpected turns of events; but in those events which are the by-product of action, and that as an unintended result of action it assumes a nature-like guise. Flanagan critically examines the approaches of each opposing interpretation of Machiavelli 's use of fortuna. According to Flanagan, fortuna is immanent in human activity, in the sense that man 'can transcend Fortune through refusing to play her game '. Indeed, he takes issue with the extreme will-dependent interpretation of Charles Tarlton, who asserts that fortuna can be 'completely overcome'.

      Niccolò Machiavelli (1469—1527)

      We live in an unpredictable world, and so our actions often do not turn out as we planned. What is common to all of the interpretati ons offortuna in Machiavelli is that they treat as self-evident what in fact needs to be explained; that is, they fail to distinguish between fortuna and what men do intentionally. The situation is accurately summed up - although unaccounted for- by Robelt Orr, who observes thatfortuna 'appears to humans always as the producer of what they have not foreseen ' Y Orr is not speaking here aboutfortuna, but about the manner in which it is grasped by human consciousness.

      III Textual evidence may be found in Machi avelli 's work to support both the interpre- tation thatfortuna is governable, and the opposite view. There is no decisive evidence favouring either of the interpretations, and there is some evidence for rejecting both. Consequently there is room for considering a third interpretation in which these contradictions might be mitigated to the point of insignificance or altogether elimi- nated.

      Thus rather than ask if the 34 Flanagan, 'The Concept of Fortuna', p. BALABAN actions of men can counteractfortuna or alter its course in order to accommodate it to, say, the requirements of political power, we have to address ourselves to a more fundamental issue.

      Doesfortuna transcend human activity and represent a kind of 'destiny' or 'chance' , or is it the fruit of human action? I will try to show that in Machiavelli's view men createfortuna, although only indirectly and unintentionally. I will now propose a model by which the apparent disparity in Machiavelli between fortuna and human action can be accounted for. In doing so I hope to resolve the difficulties created by Machiavelli's apparently contradictory assertions in regard to fortuna.

      For this purpose I have chosen only those types of human activity which are conscious and voluntary, and which are directed towards a particular goal. I call such goal-directed actions 'teleological activities'. Moreover, in addressing myself to Machiavelli 's concept of fortuna, I consider these activities only from the point of view of their results. There are two aspects to teleological activity: Teleological activity produces two kinds of results: I refer to the fonner a as goals, and to the latter b as the by-products. For the moment I wi ll deal with the results of teleological activity, and will consider the aspects at the conclusion of this discussion.

      In goal-directed activities it is the goals that define, and bestow meaning upon, the activities. They are the necessary conditions of action. The will is mobilized in behalf of an activity - that is, there is a disposition to employ means if and only if the goal is consciously intended. Given the will to achieve an end, once it is achieved we regard the activity to have been concluded.

      This we take as manifest evidence that the activity was undertaken in regard to the goal.