Никколо макиавелли был автором сочинения

antique_european Николо Макиавелли Сочинения

Предлагаемая читателю книга избранных сочинений выдающегося мыслителя, историка и литератора эпохи Возрождения Никколо Макиавелли включает произведения:

· «О том, как надлежит поступать с восставшими жителями Вальдикьяны»;

· «Описание того, как избавился герцог Валентино от Вителлоццо Вителли, Оливеретто Да Фермо, синьора Паоло и герцога Гравина Орсини»;

· «Жизнь Каструччо Кастракани из Лукки»;

· «Рассуждения о первой декаде Тита Ливия»;

· «История Флоренции»;

· «Золотой осел».

Воплотив в себе широкое мировоззрение, глубокий анализ политической жизни и тонкий психологизм, эти сочинения навсегда вошли в золотой фонд духовного наследия человечества.

1515 ru it Алексей Дживелегов Галина Муравьева Надежда Я. Рыкова Р. Хлодовский Ю. Добровольская jurgennt FBE MMVI 297D3F62-4DDC-469F-8348-3A2141904074 1.0 Сочинения Фолио Харьков 2001 966-03-0283-5

О том, как надлежит поступать с восставшими жителями Вальдикьяны

Когда Луций Фурий Камилл вернулся в Рим после победы над жителями Лациума, много раз восстававшими против римлян, он пришел в Сенат и сказал речь, в которой рассуждал, как поступить с землями и городами латинян. Вот как передает Ливий его слова и решение Сената:

«Отцы сенаторы, то, что должно было свершить в Лациуме войной и мечом, милостью богов и доблестью воинов наших ныне окончено. Воинство врагов полегло у Педа и Астуры, земли и города латинян и Анциум, город вольсков, взяты силой или сдались вам на известных условиях. Мы знаем, однако, что племена эти часто восстают, подвергая отечество опасности, и теперь нам остается подумать, как обеспечить себя на будущее время: воздать ли им жестокостью или великодушно их простить. Боги дали вам полную власть решить, должен ли Лациум остаться независимым или вы подчините его на вечные времена. Итак, подумайте, хотите ли вы сурово проучить тех, кто вам покорился, хотите ли вы разорить дотла весь Лациум и превратить в пустыню край, откуда не раз приводили вы в опасное время на помощь себе войска, или вы хотите, по примеру предков ваших, расширить республику Римскую, переселив в Рим тех, кого еще они победили, и этим дается вам случай со славой расширить пределы города. Я же хочу сказать лишь следующее: то государство стоит несокрушимо, которое обладает подданными верными и привязанными к своему властителю; однако дело, которое надо решить, должно быть решено быстро, ибо перед вами множество людей, трепещущих между надеждой и страхом, которых надо вывести из этой неизвестности и обратить их умы к мыслям о каре или о награждении. Долгом моим было действовать так, чтобы и то и другое было в вашей власти; это исполнено. Вам же теперь предстоит принять решение на благо и пользу республики».

Сенаторы хвалили речь консула, но сказали, что дела в восставших городах и землях обстоят различно, так что они не могут говорить обо всех, а лишь о каждом отдельно, и, когда консул доложил о делах каждой земли, сенаторы решили, что ланувийцы должны быть гражданами римскими и получить обратно священные предметы, отнятые у них во время войны; точно так же дали они гражданство римское арицинам, номентанам и педанам, сохранили преимущества тускуланцев, а вину за их восстание возложили на немногих, наиболее подозрительных. Зато велитерны были наказаны жестоко, потому что, будучи уже давно римскими гражданами, они много раз восставали; город их был разрушен, и всех его граждан переселили в Рим. В Анциум, дабы прочно укрепить его за собой, поселили новых жителей, отняли все корабли и запретили строить новые. Можно видеть по этому приговору, как решили римляне судьбу восставших земель; они думали, что надо или приобрести их верность благодеяниями, или поступить с ними так, чтобы впредь никогда не приходилось их бояться; всякий средний путь казался им вредным. Когда надо было решать, римляне прибегали то к одному, то к другому средству, милуя тех, с кем можно было надеяться на мир; с другими же, на кого надеяться не приходилось, они поступали так, что те уже никак и никогда не могли им навредить. Чтобы достигнуть этой последней цели, у римлян было два средства: одно — это разрушить город и переселить жителей в Рим, другое — изгнать из города его старых жителей и прислать сюда новых или, оставив в городе старых жителей, поселить туда так много новых, чтобы старые уже никогда не могли злоумышлять и затевать что-либо против Сената. К этим двум средствам и прибегли римляне, когда разрушили Велитернум и заселили новыми жителями Анциум. Говорят, что история — наставница наших поступков, а более всего поступков князей, что мир всегда населен был людьми, подвластными одним и тем же страстям, что всегда были слуги и повелители, а среди слуг такие, кто служит поневоле и кто служит охотно, кто восстает на господина и терпит за это кару. Кто этому не верит, пусть посмотрит на Ареццо и на всю Вальдикьяну, где в прошлом году творились дела, очень схожие с историей латинских племен. Как там, так и здесь было восстание, впоследствии подавленное, и хотя в средствах восстания и подавления есть довольно заметная разница, но самое восстание и подавление его схожи. Поэтому, если верно, что история — наставница наших поступков, не мешает тем, кто будет карать и судить Вальдикьяну, брать пример и подражать народу, который стал владыкой мира, особенно в деле, где вам точно показано, как надо управлять, ибо как римляне осудили различно, смотря по разности вины, так должны поступить и вы, усмотрев различие вины и среди ваших мятежников. Если вы скажете: мы это сделаем, я отвечу, что не сделано главное и лучшее. Я считаю хорошим решение, что вы оставили правящие органы в Кортоне, Кастильоне, Борго, Фойано, обошлись с ними ласково и сумели благодеяниями вернуть их приязнь, ибо нахожу в них сходство с ланувийцами, арицинами, номентанами и тускуланцами, насчет которых римляне решили почти так же. Но я не одобряю, что аретинцы, похожие на велитернов и анциан, не подверглись такой же участи, как и те. И если решение римлян заслуживает хвалы, то ваше в той же мере заслуживает осуждения. Римляне находили, что надо либо облагодетельствовать восставшие народы, либо вовсе их истребить, и что всякий иной путь грозит величайшими опасностями. Как мне кажется, вы не сделали с аретинцами ни того, ни другого: вы переселили их во Флоренцию, лишили их почестей, продали их имения, открыто их срамили, держали их солдат в плену — все это нельзя назвать благодеянием. Точно так же нельзя сказать, что вы себя обезопасили, ибо оставили в целости городские стены, позволили пяти шестым жителей остаться по-прежнему в городе, не смешали их с новыми жителями, которые держали бы их в узде, и вообще не сумели так поставить дело, чтобы при новых затруднениях и войнах нам не пришлось тратить больше сил на Ареццо, чем на врага, который вздумает на нас напасть. Вспомните опыт 1498 года, когда еще не было ни восстания, ни жестокого усмирения этого города; все же, когда венецианцы подошли к Биббиене, вам пришлось, чтобы отстоять Ареццо, отдать его войскам герцога Миланского, и если бы не ваши колебания, то граф Рануччо со своим отрядом мог бы воевать против врагов в Казентино и не понадобилось бы отзывать из-под Пизы Паоло Вителли, чтобы послать его в Казентино. Однако ненадежность аретинцев заставила вас на это решиться, и вам пришлось встретиться с очень большими опасностями, помимо огромных расходов, которых вы бы избежали, если бы аретинцы остались верными. Сближая, таким образом, то, что было тогда, с тем, что мы видели позже, и с условиями, в которых вы находитесь, можно заключить наверняка, что если на вас, упаси Боже, кто-нибудь нападет, то Ареццо восстанет или вам будет так трудно удержать его в повиновении, что расходы окажутся для города непосильными. Не хочу обойти молчанием и вопрос, можете ли вы подвергнуться нападению или нет и есть ли человек, который рассчитывает на аретинцев.

Читать дальше

Niccolò Machiavelli
Portrait of Machiavelli by Santi di Tito
Born	3 May 1469 Florence, Republic of Florence
Died	21 June 1527 (aged 58) Florence, Republic of Florence
Notable work	The Prince Discourses on Livy
Spouse	Marietta Corsini ​ (m. 1502)​
Era	Renaissance philosophy
Region	Western philosophy
School	Classical realism Republicanism
Main interests	Politics and political philosophy, military theory, history
Notable ideas	Classical realism, virtù, multitude, national interest
Influences Xenophon, Plutarch, Petrarch, Tacitus, Polybius, Sallust, Livy, Thucydides, Dante Alighieri, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Zafar, Gemistos Plethon, Marsilio Ficino
Influenced Political realism, Bacon, Hobbes, Harrington, Rousseau,[1] Vico, Spinoza, Edward Gibbon, David Hume, John Adams, Marquis de Sade,[2] Vincenzo Cuoco, Hegel, Nietzsche, Pareto, Bakunin,[3] Gramsci, Althusser, T. Schelling, Negri, Waltz, Denis Diderot,[4] Carl Schmitt, Giulio Andreotti, Philip Pettit, Strauss, Weber,[5] Sismondi, Hannah Arendt
Signature

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli ( MAK-ee-ə-VEL-ee, MAHK—,^[6][7] Italian: [nikkoˈlɔ mmakjaˈvɛlli]; 3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527), occasionally rendered in English as Nicholas Machiavel ( MAK-ee-ə-vel, MAHK—; see below), was an Italian diplomat, author, philosopher and historian who lived during the Renaissance. He is best known for his political treatise The Prince (Il Principe), written in about 1513 but not published until 1532.^[8] He has often been called the father of modern political philosophy and political science.^[9]

For many years he served as a senior official in the Florentine Republic with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He wrote comedies, carnival songs, and poetry. His personal correspondence is also important to historians and scholars of Italian correspondence.^[10] He worked as secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence from 1498 to 1512, when the Medici were out of power.

After his death Machiavelli’s name came to evoke unscrupulous acts of the sort he advised most famously in his work, The Prince.^[11] He claimed that his experience and reading of history showed him that politics have always been played with deception, treachery, and crime.^[12] He also notably said that a ruler who is establishing a kingdom or a republic, and is criticized for his deeds, including violence, should be excused when the intention and the result is beneficial to him.^[13][14][15] Machiavelli’s Prince has been surrounded by controversy since its release. Some considered it to be a straightforward description of the evil means used by bad rulers; many read in it evil recommendations to tyrants to help them maintain their power.^[16] Even into recent times, some scholars, such as Leo Strauss, have restated the traditional opinion that Machiavelli was a «teacher of evil».^[17]

The term Machiavellian often connotes political deceit, deviousness, and realpolitik. Even though Machiavelli has become most famous for his work on principalities, scholars also give attention to the exhortations in his other works of political philosophy. While much less well known than The Prince, the Discourses on Livy (composed c. 1517) has been said to have paved the way of modern republicanism.^[18] It has also significantly influenced authors who have attempted to revive classical republicanism,^[19] including Hannah Arendt.^[20]

Life[edit]

Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy, the third child and first son of attorney Bernardo di Niccolò Machiavelli and his wife, Bartolomea di Stefano Nelli.^[21] The Machiavelli family is believed to be descended from the old marquesses of Tuscany and to have produced thirteen Florentine Gonfalonieres of Justice,^[22] one of the offices of a group of nine citizens selected by drawing lots every two months and who formed the government, or Signoria; he was never, though, a full citizen of Florence because of the nature of Florentine citizenship in that time even under the republican regime. Machiavelli married Marietta Corsini in 1502.^[23]

Machiavelli was born in a tumultuous era. The Italian city-states, and the families and individuals who ran them could rise and fall suddenly, as popes and the kings of France, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire waged acquisitive wars for regional influence and control. Political-military alliances continually changed, featuring condottieri (mercenary leaders), who changed sides without warning, and the rise and fall of many short-lived governments.^[24]

Machiavelli was taught grammar, rhetoric, and Latin, by his teacher, Paolo da Ronciglione.^[25] It is unknown whether Machiavelli knew Greek even though Florence was at the time one of the centers of Greek scholarship in Europe.^[26] In 1494 Florence restored the republic, expelling the Medici family that had ruled Florence for some sixty years. Shortly after the execution of Savonarola, Machiavelli was appointed to an office of the second chancery, a medieval writing office that put Machiavelli in charge of the production of official Florentine government documents.^[27] Shortly thereafter, he was also made the secretary of the Dieci di Libertà e Pace.

In the first decade of the sixteenth century, he carried out several diplomatic missions, most notably to the Papacy in Rome. Florence sent him to Pistoia to pacify the leaders of two opposing factions which had broken into riots in 1501 and 1502; when this failed, the leaders were banished from the city, a strategy which Machiavelli had favored from the outset.^[28] From 1502 to 1503, he witnessed the brutal reality of the state-building methods of Cesare Borgia (1475–1507) and his father, Pope Alexander VI, who were then engaged in the process of trying to bring a large part of Central Italy under their possession.^[29] The pretext of defending Church interests was used as a partial justification by the Borgias. Other excursions to the court of Louis XII and the Spanish court influenced his writings such as The Prince.

At the start of the 16th century, Machiavelli conceived of a militia for Florence, and he then began recruiting and creating it.^[30] He distrusted mercenaries (a distrust that he explained in his official reports and then later in his theoretical works for their unpatriotic and uninvested nature in the war that makes their allegiance fickle and often unreliable when most needed),^[31] and instead staffed his army with citizens, a policy that was to be repeatedly successful. By February 1506 he was able to have marching on parade four hundred farmers, suited (including iron breastplates), and armed with lances and small fire arms.^[30] Under his command, Florentine citizen-soldiers defeated Pisa in 1509.^[32]

Machiavelli’s success did not last. In August 1512, the Medici, backed by Pope Julius II, used Spanish troops to defeat the Florentines at Prato.^[33] In the wake of the siege, Soderini resigned as Florentine head of state and left in exile. The experience would, like Machiavelli’s time in foreign courts and with the Borgia, heavily influence his political writings.
The Florentine city-state and the republic were dissolved, and Machiavelli was deprived of office and banished from the city for a year.^[34] In 1513, the Medici accused him of conspiracy against them and had him imprisoned.^[35] Despite being subjected to torture^[34] («with the rope», in which the prisoner is hanged from his bound wrists from the back, forcing the arms to bear the body’s weight and dislocating the shoulders), he denied involvement and was released after three weeks.

Machiavelli then retired to his farm estate at Sant’Andrea in Percussina, near San Casciano in Val di Pesa, where he devoted himself to studying and writing his political treatises. He visited places in France, Germany, and Italy where he had represented the Florentine republic.^[34] Despairing of the opportunity to remain directly involved in political matters, after a time, he began to participate in intellectual groups in Florence and wrote several plays that (unlike his works on political theory) were both popular and widely known in his lifetime. Politics remained his main passion and, to satisfy this interest, he maintained a well-known correspondence with more politically connected friends, attempting to become involved once again in political life.^[36] In a letter to Francesco Vettori, he described his experience:

When evening comes, I go back home, and go to my study. On the threshold, I take off my work clothes, covered in mud and filth, and I put on the clothes an ambassador would wear. Decently dressed, I enter the ancient courts of rulers who have long since died. There, I am warmly welcomed, and I feed on the only food I find nourishing and was born to savour. I am not ashamed to talk to them and ask them to explain their actions and they, out of kindness, answer me. Four hours go by without my feeling any anxiety. I forget every worry. I am no longer afraid of poverty or frightened of death. I live entirely through them.^[37]

Machiavelli died on 21 June 1527 at the age of 58 after receiving his last rites.^[38][39] He was buried at the Church of Santa Croce in Florence. In 1789 George Nassau Clavering, and Pietro Leopoldo, Grand Duke of Tuscany, initiated the construction of a monument on Machiavelli’s tomb. It was sculpted by Innocenzo Spinazzi, with an epitaph by Doctor Ferroni inscribed on it.^[40] The Latin legend reads: TANTO NOMINI NULLUM PAR ELOGIUM («So great a name (has) no adequate praise» or «No eulogy (would be) a match for such a great name» or «There is no praise equal to so great a name.»)

Major works[edit]

The Prince[edit]

Machiavelli’s best-known book Il Principe contains several maxims concerning politics. Instead of the more traditional target audience of a hereditary prince, it concentrates on the possibility of a «new prince». To retain power, the hereditary prince must carefully balance the interests of a variety of institutions to which the people are accustomed.^[41] By contrast, a new prince has the more difficult task in ruling: He must first stabilise his newfound power in order to build an enduring political structure. Machiavelli suggests that the social benefits of stability and security can be achieved in the face of moral corruption. Machiavelli believed that public and private morality had to be understood as two different things in order to rule well.^[42] As a result, a ruler must be concerned not only with reputation, but also must be positively willing to act unscrupulously at the right times. Machiavelli believed that, for a ruler, it was better to be widely feared than to be greatly loved; a loved ruler retains authority by obligation, while a feared leader rules by fear of punishment.^[43] As a political theorist, Machiavelli emphasized the «necessity» for the methodical exercise of brute force or deceit, including extermination of entire noble families, to head off any chance of a challenge to the prince’s authority.^[44]

Scholars often note that Machiavelli glorifies instrumentality in state building, an approach embodied by the saying, often attributed to interpretations of The Prince, «The ends justify the means».^[45] Fraud and deceit are held by Machiavelli as necessary for a prince to use.^[46] Violence may be necessary for the successful stabilization of power and introduction of new political institutions. Force may be used to eliminate political rivals, to destroy resistant populations, and to purge the community of other men strong enough of a character to rule, who will inevitably attempt to replace the ruler.^[47] Machiavelli has become infamous for such political advice, ensuring that he would be remembered in history through the adjective, «Machiavellian».^[48]

Due to the treatise’s controversial analysis on politics, the Catholic Church banned The Prince, putting it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Humanists also viewed the book negatively, including Erasmus of Rotterdam. As a treatise, its primary intellectual contribution to the history of political thought is the fundamental break between political realism and political idealism, due to it being a manual on acquiring and keeping political power. In contrast with Plato and Aristotle, Machiavelli insisted that an imaginary ideal society is not a model by which a prince should orient himself.

Concerning the differences and similarities in Machiavelli’s advice to ruthless and tyrannical princes in The Prince and his more republican exhortations in Discourses on Livy, a few commentators assert that The Prince, although written as advice for a monarchical prince, contains arguments for the superiority of republican regimes, similar to those found in the Discourses. In the 18th century, the work was even called a satire, for example by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.^[49][50]

Scholars such as Leo Strauss and Harvey Mansfield have stated that sections of The Prince and his other works have deliberately esoteric statements throughout them.^[51] However, Mansfield states that this is the result of Machiavelli’s seeing grave and serious things as humorous because they are «manipulable by men», and sees them as grave because they «answer human necessities».^[52]

Another interpretation is that of Antonio Gramsci, who argued that Machiavelli’s audience for this work was not even the ruling class, but the common people, because rulers already knew these methods through their education.

Discourses on Livy[edit]

The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, written around 1517, published in 1531, often referred to simply as the Discourses or Discorsi, is nominally a discussion regarding the classical history of early Ancient Rome, although it strays very far from this subject matter and also uses contemporary political examples to illustrate points. Machiavelli presents it as a series of lessons on how a republic should be started and structured. It is a much larger work than The Prince, and while it more openly explains the advantages of republics, it also contains many similar themes from his other works.^[53] For example, Machiavelli has noted that to save a republic from corruption, it is necessary to return it to a «kingly state» using violent means.^[54] He excuses Romulus for murdering his brother Remus and co-ruler Titus Tatius to gain absolute power for himself in that he established a «civil way of life».^[55] Commentators disagree about how much the two works agree with each other, as Machiavelli frequently refers to leaders of republics as «princes».^[56] Machiavelli even sometimes acts as an advisor to tyrants.^[57][58] Other scholars have pointed out the aggrandizing and imperialistic features of Machiavelli’s republic.^[59] Nevertheless, it became one of the central texts of modern republicanism, and has often been argued to be a more comprehensive work than The Prince.^[60]

Originality[edit]

Commentators have taken very different approaches to Machiavelli and not always agreed. Major discussion has tended to be about two issues: first, how unified and philosophical his work is, and second, concerning how innovative or traditional it is.^[61]

Coherence[edit]

There is some disagreement concerning how best to describe the unifying themes, if there are any, that can be found in Machiavelli’s works, especially in the two major political works, The Prince and Discourses. Some commentators have described him as inconsistent, and perhaps as not even putting a high priority in consistency.^[61] Others such as Hans Baron have argued that his ideas must have changed dramatically over time. Some have argued that his conclusions are best understood as a product of his times, experiences and education. Others, such as Leo Strauss and Harvey Mansfield, have argued strongly that there is a very strong and deliberate consistency and distinctness, even arguing that this extends to all of Machiavelli’s works including his comedies and letters.^[61][62]

Influences[edit]

Commentators such as Leo Strauss have gone so far as to name Machiavelli as the deliberate originator of modernity itself. Others have argued that Machiavelli is only a particularly interesting example of trends which were happening around him. In any case Machiavelli presented himself at various times as someone reminding Italians of the old virtues of the Romans and Greeks, and other times as someone promoting a completely new approach to politics.^[61]

That Machiavelli had a wide range of influences is in itself not controversial. Their relative importance is however a subject of on-going discussion. It is possible to summarize some of the main influences emphasized by different commentators.

I. The Mirror of Princes genre

Gilbert (1938) summarized the similarities between The Prince and the genre it obviously imitates, the so-called «Mirror of Princes» style. This was a classically influenced genre, with models at least as far back as Xenophon and Isocrates. While Gilbert emphasized the similarities, however, he agreed with all other commentators that Machiavelli was particularly novel in the way he used this genre, even when compared to his contemporaries such as Baldassare Castiglione and Erasmus. One of the major innovations Gilbert noted was that Machiavelli focused upon the «deliberate purpose of dealing with a new ruler who will need to establish himself in defiance of custom». Normally, these types of works were addressed only to hereditary princes. (Xenophon is also an exception in this regard.)

II. Classical republicanism

Commentators such as Quentin Skinner and J.G.A. Pocock, in the so-called «Cambridge School» of interpretation, have asserted that some of the republican themes in Machiavelli’s political works, particularly the Discourses on Livy, can be found in medieval Italian literature which was influenced by classical authors such as Sallust.^[63][64]

III. Classical political philosophy: Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle

The Socratic school of classical political philosophy, especially Aristotle, had become a major influence upon European political thinking in the late Middle Ages. It existed both in the Catholicised form presented by Thomas Aquinas, and in the more controversial «Averroist» form of authors like Marsilius of Padua. Machiavelli was critical of Catholic political thinking and may have been influenced by Averroism. But he rarely cites Plato and Aristotle, and most likely did not approve of them. Leo Strauss argued that the strong influence of Xenophon, a student of Socrates more known as an historian, rhetorician and soldier, was a major source of Socratic ideas for Machiavelli, sometimes not in line with Aristotle. While interest in Plato was increasing in Florence during Machiavelli’s lifetime, Machiavelli does not show particular interest in him, but was indirectly influenced by his readings of authors such as Polybius, Plutarch and Cicero.

The major difference between Machiavelli and the Socratics, according to Strauss, is Machiavelli’s materialism, and therefore his rejection of both a teleological view of nature and of the view that philosophy is higher than politics. With their teleological understanding of things, Socratics argued that by nature, everything that acts, acts towards some end, as if nature desired them, but Machiavelli claimed that such things happen by blind chance or human action.^[65]

IV. Classical materialism

Strauss argued that Machiavelli may have seen himself as influenced by some ideas from classical materialists such as Democritus, Epicurus and Lucretius. Strauss however sees this also as a sign of major innovation in Machiavelli, because classical materialists did not share the Socratic regard for political life, while Machiavelli clearly did.^[65]

V. Thucydides

Some scholars note the similarity between Machiavelli and the Greek historian Thucydides, since both emphasized power politics.^[66][67] Strauss argued that Machiavelli may indeed have been influenced by pre-Socratic philosophers, but he felt it was a new combination:

…contemporary readers are reminded by Machiavelli’s teaching of Thucydides; they find in both authors the same «realism,» i.e., the same denial of the power of the gods or of justice and the same sensitivity to harsh necessity and elusive chance. Yet Thucydides never calls in question the intrinsic superiority of nobility to baseness, a superiority that shines forth particularly when the noble is destroyed by the base. Therefore Thucydides’ History arouses in the reader a sadness which is never aroused by Machiavelli’s books. In Machiavelli we find comedies, parodies, and satires but nothing reminding of tragedy. One half of humanity remains outside of his thought. There is no tragedy in Machiavelli because he has no sense of the sacredness of «the common.» — Strauss (1958, p. 292)

Beliefs[edit]

Amongst commentators, there are a few consistently made proposals concerning what was most new in Machiavelli’s work.

Empiricism and realism versus idealism[edit]

Machiavelli is sometimes seen as the prototype of a modern empirical scientist, building generalizations from experience and historical facts, and emphasizing the uselessness of theorizing with the imagination.^[61]

He emancipated politics from theology and moral philosophy. He undertook to describe simply what rulers actually did and thus anticipated what was later called the scientific spirit in which questions of good and bad are ignored, and the observer attempts to discover only what really happens.

— Joshua Kaplan, 2005^[68]

Machiavelli felt that his early schooling along the lines of a traditional classical education was essentially useless for the purpose of understanding politics. Nevertheless, he advocated intensive study of the past, particularly regarding the founding of a city, which he felt was a key to understanding its later development.^[68] Moreover, he studied the way people lived and aimed to inform leaders how they should rule and even how they themselves should live. Machiavelli denies the classical opinion that living virtuously always leads to happiness. For example, Machiavelli viewed misery as «one of the vices that enables a prince to rule.»^[69] Machiavelli stated that «it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.»^[70] In much of Machiavelli’s work, he often states that the ruler must adopt unsavory policies for the sake of the continuance of his regime.

A related and more controversial proposal often made is that he described how to do things in politics in a way which seemed neutral concerning who used the advice—tyrants or good rulers.^[61] That Machiavelli strove for realism is not doubted, but for four centuries scholars have debated how best to describe his morality. The Prince made the word Machiavellian a byword for deceit, despotism, and political manipulation. Leo Strauss declared himself inclined toward the traditional view that Machiavelli was self-consciously a «teacher of evil,» since he counsels the princes to avoid the values of justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom, and love of their people in preference to the use of cruelty, violence, fear, and deception.^[71] Strauss takes up this opinion because he asserted that failure to accept the traditional opinion misses the «intrepidity of his thought» and «the graceful subtlety of his speech.»^[72] Italian anti-fascist philosopher Benedetto Croce (1925) concludes Machiavelli is simply a «realist» or «pragmatist» who accurately states that moral values in reality do not greatly affect the decisions that political leaders make.^[73] German philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1946) held that Machiavelli simply adopts the stance of a political scientist—a Galileo of politics—in distinguishing between the «facts» of political life and the «values» of moral judgment.^[74] On the other hand, Walter Russell Mead has argued that The Prince‘s advice presupposes the importance of ideas like legitimacy in making changes to the political system.^[75]

Fortune[edit]

Machiavelli is generally seen as being critical of Christianity as it existed in his time, specifically its effect upon politics, and also everyday life.^[76] In his opinion, Christianity, along with the teleological Aristotelianism that the Church had come to accept, allowed practical decisions to be guided too much by imaginary ideals and encouraged people to lazily leave events up to providence or, as he would put it, chance, luck or fortune. While Christianity sees modesty as a virtue and pride as sinful, Machiavelli took a more classical position, seeing ambition, spiritedness, and the pursuit of glory as good and natural things, and part of the virtue and prudence that good princes should have. Therefore, while it was traditional to say that leaders should have virtues, especially prudence, Machiavelli’s use of the words virtù and prudenza was unusual for his time, implying a spirited and immodest ambition. Mansfield describes his usage of virtu as a «compromise with evil».^[77] Famously, Machiavelli argued that virtue and prudence can help a man control more of his future, in the place of allowing fortune to do so.

Najemy (1993) has argued that this same approach can be found in Machiavelli’s approach to love and desire, as seen in his comedies and correspondence. Najemy shows how Machiavelli’s friend Vettori argued against Machiavelli and cited a more traditional understanding of fortune.

On the other hand, humanism in Machiavelli’s time meant that classical pre-Christian ideas about virtue and prudence, including the possibility of trying to control one’s future, were not unique to him. But humanists did not go so far as to promote the extra glory of deliberately aiming to establish a new state, in defiance of traditions and laws.

While Machiavelli’s approach had classical precedents, it has been argued that it did more than just bring back old ideas and that Machiavelli was not a typical humanist. Strauss (1958) argues that the way Machiavelli combines classical ideas is new. While Xenophon and Plato also described realistic politics and were closer to Machiavelli than Aristotle was, they, like Aristotle, also saw philosophy as something higher than politics. Machiavelli was apparently a materialist who objected to explanations involving formal and final causation, or teleology.

Machiavelli’s promotion of ambition among leaders while denying any higher standard meant that he encouraged risk-taking, and innovation, most famously the founding of new modes and orders. His advice to princes was therefore certainly not limited to discussing how to maintain a state. It has been argued that Machiavelli’s promotion of innovation led directly to the argument for progress as an aim of politics and civilization. But while a belief that humanity can control its own future, control nature, and «progress» has been long-lasting, Machiavelli’s followers, starting with his own friend Guicciardini, have tended to prefer peaceful progress through economic development, and not warlike progress. As Harvey Mansfield (1995, p. 74) wrote: «In attempting other, more regular and scientific modes of overcoming fortune, Machiavelli’s successors formalized and emasculated his notion of virtue.»

Machiavelli however, along with some of his classical predecessors, saw ambition and spiritedness, and therefore war, as inevitable and part of human nature.

Strauss concludes his 1958 book Thoughts on Machiavelli by proposing that this promotion of progress leads directly to the advent of new technologies being invented in both good and bad governments. Strauss argued that the unavoidable nature of such arms races, which have existed before modern times and led to the collapse of peaceful civilizations, show that classical minded men «had to admit in other words that in an important respect the good city has to take its bearings by the practice of bad cities or that the bad impose their law on the good.» Strauss (1958, pp. 298–299)

Religion[edit]

Machiavelli shows repeatedly that he saw religion as man-made, and that the value of religion lies in its contribution to social order and the rules of morality must be dispensed with if security requires it.^[78][79] In The Prince, the Discourses and in the Life of Castruccio Castracani he describes «prophets», as he calls them, like Moses, Romulus, Cyrus the Great and Theseus (he treated pagan and Christian patriarchs in the same way) as the greatest of new princes, the glorious and brutal founders of the most novel innovations in politics, and men whom Machiavelli assures us have always used a large amount of armed force and murder against their own people.^[80] He estimated that these sects last from 1,666 to 3,000 years each time, which, as pointed out by Leo Strauss, would mean that Christianity became due to start finishing about 150 years after Machiavelli.^[81] Machiavelli’s concern with Christianity as a sect was that it makes men weak and inactive, delivering politics into the hands of cruel and wicked men without a fight.^[82]

While fear of God can be replaced by fear of the prince, if there is a strong enough prince, Machiavelli felt that having a religion is in any case especially essential to keeping a republic in order. For Machiavelli, a truly great prince can never be conventionally religious himself, but he should make his people religious if he can. According to Strauss (1958, pp. 226–27) he was not the first person to ever explain religion in this way, but his description of religion was novel because of the way he integrated this into his general account of princes.

Machiavelli’s judgment that governments need religion for practical political reasons was widespread among modern proponents of republics until approximately the time of the French Revolution. This therefore represents a point of disagreement between Machiavelli and late modernity.^[83]

Positive side to factional and individual vice[edit]

Despite the classical precedents, which Machiavelli was not the only one to promote in his time, Machiavelli’s realism and willingness to argue that good ends justify bad things, is seen as a critical stimulus towards some of the most important theories of modern politics.

Firstly, particularly in the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli is unusual in the positive side he sometimes seems to describe in factionalism in republics. For example, quite early in the Discourses, (in Book I, chapter 4), a chapter title announces that the disunion of the plebs and senate in Rome «kept Rome free». That a community has different components whose interests must be balanced in any good regime is an idea with classical precedents, but Machiavelli’s particularly extreme presentation is seen as a critical step towards the later political ideas of both a division of powers or checks and balances, ideas which lay behind the US constitution, as well as many other modern state constitutions.

Similarly, the modern economic argument for capitalism, and most modern forms of economics, was often stated in the form of «public virtue from private vices.» Also in this case, even though there are classical precedents, Machiavelli’s insistence on being both realistic and ambitious, not only admitting that vice exists but being willing to risk encouraging it, is a critical step on the path to this insight.

Mansfield however argues that Machiavelli’s own aims have not been shared by those he influenced. Machiavelli argued against seeing mere peace and economic growth as worthy aims on their own, if they would lead to what Mansfield calls the «taming of the prince.»^[84]

Influence[edit]

To quote Robert Bireley:^[85]

…there were in circulation approximately fifteen editions of the Prince and nineteen of the Discourses and French translations of each before they were placed on the Index of Paul IV in 1559, a measure which nearly stopped publication in Catholic areas except in France. Three principal writers took the field against Machiavelli between the publication of his works and their condemnation in 1559 and again by the Tridentine Index in 1564. These were the English cardinal Reginald Pole and the Portuguese bishop Jeronymo Osorio, both of whom lived for many years in Italy, and the Italian humanist and later bishop, Ambrogio Caterino Politi.

Machiavelli’s ideas had a profound impact on political leaders throughout the modern west, helped by the new technology of the printing press. During the first generations after Machiavelli, his main influence was in non-republican governments. Pole reported that The Prince was spoken of highly by Thomas Cromwell in England and had influenced Henry VIII in his turn towards Protestantism, and in his tactics, for example during the Pilgrimage of Grace.^[86] A copy was also possessed by the Catholic king and emperor Charles V.^[87] In France, after an initially mixed reaction, Machiavelli came to be associated with Catherine de’ Medici and the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. As Bireley (1990:17) reports, in the 16th century, Catholic writers «associated Machiavelli with the Protestants, whereas Protestant authors saw him as Italian and Catholic». In fact, he was apparently influencing both Catholic and Protestant kings.^[88]

One of the most important early works dedicated to criticism of Machiavelli, especially The Prince, was that of the Huguenot, Innocent Gentillet, whose work commonly referred to as Discourse against Machiavelli or Anti Machiavel was published in Geneva in 1576.^[89] He accused Machiavelli of being an atheist and accused politicians of his time by saying that his works were the «Koran of the courtiers», that «he is of no reputation in the court of France which hath not Machiavel’s writings at the fingers ends».^[90] Another theme of Gentillet was more in the spirit of Machiavelli himself: he questioned the effectiveness of immoral strategies (just as Machiavelli had himself done, despite also explaining how they could sometimes work). This became the theme of much future political discourse in Europe during the 17th century. This includes the Catholic Counter Reformation writers summarised by Bireley: Giovanni Botero, Justus Lipsius, Carlo Scribani, Adam Contzen, Pedro de Ribadeneira, and Diego de Saavedra Fajardo.^[91] These authors criticized Machiavelli, but also followed him in many ways. They accepted the need for a prince to be concerned with reputation, and even a need for cunning and deceit, but compared to Machiavelli, and like later modernist writers, they emphasized economic progress much more than the riskier ventures of war. These authors tended to cite Tacitus as their source for realist political advice, rather than Machiavelli, and this pretense came to be known as «Tacitism».^[92] «Black tacitism» was in support of princely rule, but «red tacitism» arguing the case for republics, more in the original spirit of Machiavelli himself, became increasingly important.

Modern materialist philosophy developed in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, starting in the generations after Machiavelli. This philosophy tended to be republican, but as with the Catholic authors, Machiavelli’s realism and encouragement of using innovation to try to control one’s own fortune were more accepted than his emphasis upon war and factional violence. Not only was innovative economics and politics a result, but also modern science, leading some commentators to say that the 18th century Enlightenment involved a «humanitarian» moderating of Machiavellianism.^[93]

The importance of Machiavelli’s influence is notable in many important figures in this endeavor, for example Bodin,^[94] Francis Bacon,^[95] Algernon Sidney,^[96] Harrington, John Milton,^[97] Spinoza,^[98] Rousseau, Hume,^[99] Edward Gibbon, and Adam Smith. Although he was not always mentioned by name as an inspiration, due to his controversy, he is also thought to have been an influence for other major philosophers, such as Montaigne,^[100] Descartes,^[101] Hobbes, Locke^[102] and Montesquieu.^[103][104]

Although Jean-Jacques Rousseau is associated with very different political ideas he was also influenced by him, although he viewed Machiavelli’s work as a satirical piece in which Machiavelli exposes the faults of a one-man rule rather than exalting amorality.

In the seventeenth century it was in England that Machiavelli’s ideas were most substantially developed and adapted, and that republicanism came once more to life; and out of seventeenth-century English republicanism there were to emerge in the next century not only a theme of English political and historical reflection—of the writings of the Bolingbroke circle and of Gibbon and of early parliamentary radicals—but a stimulus to the Enlightenment in Scotland, on the Continent, and in America.^[105]

Scholars have argued that Machiavelli was a major indirect and direct influence upon the political thinking of the Founding Fathers of the United States due to his overwhelming favoritism of republicanism and the republican type of government. According to John McCormick, it is still very much debatable whether or not Machiavelli was «an advisor of tyranny or partisan of liberty.»^[106] Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson followed Machiavelli’s republicanism when they opposed what they saw as the emerging aristocracy that they feared Alexander Hamilton was creating with the Federalist Party.^[107] Hamilton learned from Machiavelli about the importance of foreign policy for domestic policy, but may have broken from him regarding how rapacious a republic needed to be in order to survive.^[108][109] George Washington was less influenced by Machiavelli.^[110]

The Founding Father who perhaps most studied and valued Machiavelli as a political philosopher was John Adams, who profusely commented on the Italian’s thought in his work, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America.^[111] In this work, John Adams praised Machiavelli, with Algernon Sidney and Montesquieu, as a philosophic defender of mixed government. For Adams, Machiavelli restored empirical reason to politics, while his analysis of factions was commendable. Adams likewise agreed with the Florentine that human nature was immutable and driven by passions. He also accepted Machiavelli’s belief that all societies were subject to cyclical periods of growth and decay. For Adams, Machiavelli lacked only a clear understanding of the institutions necessary for good government.^[111]

20th century[edit]

The 20th-century Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci drew great inspiration from Machiavelli’s writings on ethics, morals, and how they relate to the State and revolution in his writings on Passive Revolution, and how a society can be manipulated by controlling popular notions of morality.^[112]

Joseph Stalin read The Prince and annotated his own copy.^[113]

In the 20th century there was also renewed interest in Machiavelli’s play La Mandragola (1518), which received numerous stagings, including several in New York, at the New York Shakespeare Festival in 1976 and the Riverside Shakespeare Company in 1979, as a musical comedy by Peer Raben in Munich’s antiteater in 1971, and at London’s National Theatre in 1984.^[114]

«Machiavellian»[edit]

Machiavelli is most famous for a short political treatise, The Prince, written in 1513 but not published until 1532, five years after his death. Although he privately circulated The Prince among friends, the only theoretical work to be printed in his lifetime was The Art of War, which was about military science. Since the 16th century, generations of politicians remain attracted and repelled by its neutral acceptance, and also positive encouragement, of the amorality of powerful men, described especially in The Prince but also in his other works.

His works are sometimes even said to have contributed to the modern negative connotations of the words politics and politician,^[115] and it is sometimes thought that it is because of him that Old Nick became an English term for the Devil.^[116] More obviously, the adjective Machiavellian became a term describing a form of politics that is «marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith».^[117] Machiavellianism also remains a popular term used casually in political discussions, often as a byword for bare-knuckled political realism.^[118][119]

While Machiavellianism is notable in the works of Machiavelli, scholars generally agree that his works are complex and have equally influential themes within them. For example, J.G.A. Pocock (1975) saw him as a major source of the republicanism that spread throughout England and North America in the 17th and 18th centuries and Leo Strauss (1958), whose view of Machiavelli is quite different in many ways, had similar remarks about Machiavelli’s influence on republicanism and argued that even though Machiavelli was a teacher of evil he had a «grandeur of vision» that led him to advocate immoral actions. Whatever his intentions, which are still debated today, he has become associated with any proposal where «the end justifies the means». For example, Leo Strauss (1987, p. 297) wrote:

Machiavelli is the only political thinker whose name has come into common use for designating a kind of politics, which exists and will continue to exist independently of his influence, a politics guided exclusively by considerations of expediency, which uses all means, fair or foul, iron or poison, for achieving its ends—its end being the aggrandizement of one’s country or fatherland—but also using the fatherland in the service of the self-aggrandizement of the politician or statesman or one’s party.

In popular culture[edit]

In English Renaissance theatre (Elizabethan and Jacobian), the term «Machiavel» (from ‘Nicholas Machiavel’, an «anglicization» of Machiavelli’s name based on French) was used for a stock antagonist that resorted to ruthless means to preserve the power of the state, and is now considered a synonym of «Machiavellian».^[120][121]

Christopher Marlowe’s play The Jew of Malta (ca. 1589) contains a prologue by a character called Machiavel, a Senecan ghost based on Machiavelli.^[122] Machiavel expresses the cynical view that power is amoral, saying «I count religion but a childish toy,/And hold there is no sin but ignorance.»

Somerset Maugham’s last book Then and Now fictionalizes Machiavelli’s interactions with Cesare Borgia, which formed the foundation of The Prince.

Niccolò Machiavelli plays a vital role in the young adult book series The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel by Michael Scott.^[123] He is immortal, and is working in national security for the French government.^[124]

Niccolò Machiavelli aids Cesare Borgia and protagonist Nicholas Dawson in their dangerous intrigues in Cecelia Holland’s 1979 historical novel City of God.^[125] David Maclaine writes that in the novel, Machiavelli «is an off-stage presence whose spirit permeates this work of intrigue and betrayal … It is a brilliant introduction to the people and events that gave us the word ‘Machiavellian.'»^[125] Machiavelli appears as an Immortal adversary of Duncan MacLeod in Nancy Holder’s 1997 Highlander novel The Measure of a Man, and is a character in Michael Scott’s novel series The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel (2007–2012). Machiavelli is also one of the main characters in The Enchantress of Florence (2008) by Salman Rushdie, mostly referred to as «Niccolò ‘il Macchia», and the central protagonist in the 2012 novel The Malice of Fortune by Michael Ennis.

Television dramas centring on the early Renaissance have also made use of Machiavelli to underscore his influence in early modern political philosophy. Machiavelli has been featured as a supporting character in The Tudors (2007–2010),^[126][127] Borgia (2011–2014) and The Borgias (2011–2013),^[128] and the 1981 BBC mini series The Borgias.

Machiavelli appears in the popular historical video games Assassin’s Creed II (2009) and Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood (2010), in which he is portrayed as a member of the secret society of Assassins.^[129]

A highly fictionalised version of Machiavelli appears in the BBC children’s TV series Leonardo (2011–2012),^[130] in which he is «Mac», a black streetwise hustler who is best friends with fellow teenagers Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa, and Lorenzo di Medici. In the 2013 episode «Ewings Unite!» of the television series Dallas, legendary oil baron J. R. Ewing wills his copy of The Prince to his adopted nephew Christopher Ewing, telling him to «use it, because being smart and sneaky is an unbeatable combination.» In Da Vinci’s Demons (2013–2015) – an American historical fantasy drama series that presents a fictional account of Leonardo da Vinci’s early life^[131] – Eros Vlahos plays a young Niccolò «Nico» Machiavelli, although the character’s full name is not revealed until the finale of the second season.

The 1967 The Time Tunnel episode «The Death Merchant» stars character actor Malachi Throne as Niccolò Machiavelli, who has been time-displaced to the Battle of Gettysburg. The character’s personality and behaviour seem to portray Cesare Borgia rather than Machiavelli himself, suggesting that the writers may have confused the two.

Machiavelli is played by Damian Lewis in the 2013 BBC radio play The Prince written by Jonathan Myerson. Together with his defence attorney Lucrezia Borgia (Helen McCrory), he presents examples from history to the devil to support his political theories and appeal his sentence in Hell.^[132]

The historical novel The City of Man (2009) by author Michael Harrington fully portrays the complex personalities of the two main characters – Girolamo Savonarola and a formative Niccolò Machiavelli – in opposition during the turbulent last decade of 15th-century Florence. The portrayal of Machiavelli draws from his later writings and observations of the chaotic events of his youth before rising from obscurity to be appointed as Second Chancellor of the Florentine Republic at the age of twenty-nine, only one month after Savonarola’s execution. Major characters include Lorenzo de’ Medici, his son Piero, Michelangelo, Sandro Botticelli, Pico della Mirandola, Marsilio Ficino, Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia), Cesare Borgia (model for The Prince), Piero and Tommaso Soderini, Il Cronaca and the diarist, Luca Landucci.

The American rapper Tupac Shakur read Machiavelli while in prison and became greatly influenced by his work. Upon his release from prison, Tupac honoured Machiavelli in 1996 by changing his own rap name from 2Pac to Makaveli.^[133]

In the 1993 crime drama A Bronx Tale, local mob boss Sonny tells his young protégé Calogero that while he was doing a 10-year sentence in jail, he passed the time and stayed out of trouble by reading Machiavelli, whom he describes as «a famous writer from 500 years ago». He then tells him how Machiavelli’s philosophy, including his famous advice about how it is preferable for a leader to be feared rather than loved if he cannot be both, have made him a successful mob boss.

Machiavelli also appears as a young Florentine spy in the third season of Medici, where he is portrayed by Vincenzo Crea. He is addressed as «Nico» in all appearances except the season finale, where he reveals his full name.

Works[edit]

Political and historical works[edit]

• Discorso sopra le cose di Pisa (1499)
• Del modo di trattare i popoli della Valdichiana ribellati (1502)
• Descrizione del modo tenuto dal Duca Valentino nello ammazzare Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, il Signor Pagolo e il duca di Gravina Orsini (1502) – A Description of the Methods Adopted by the Duke Valentino when Murdering Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, the Signor Pagolo, and the Duke di Gravina Orsini
• Discorso sopra la provisione del danaro (1502) – A discourse about the provision of money.
• Ritratti delle cose di Francia (1510) – Portrait of the affairs of France.
• Ritracto delle cose della Magna (1508–1512) – Portrait of the affairs of Germany.
• The Prince (1513)
• Discourses on Livy (1517)
• Dell’Arte della Guerra (1519–1520) – The Art of War, high military science.
• Discorso sopra il riformare lo stato di Firenze (1520) – A discourse about the reforming of Florence.
• Sommario delle cose della citta di Lucca (1520) – A summary of the affairs of the city of Lucca.
• The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca (1520) – Vita di Castruccio Castracani da Lucca, a short biography.
• Istorie Fiorentine (1520–1525) – Florentine Histories, an eight-volume history of the city-state Florence, commissioned by Giulio de’ Medici, later Pope Clement VII.

Fictional works[edit]

Besides being a statesman and political scientist, Machiavelli also translated classical works, and was a playwright (Clizia, Mandragola), a poet (Sonetti, Canzoni, Ottave, Canti carnascialeschi), and a novelist (Belfagor arcidiavolo).

Some of his other work:

• Decennale primo (1506) – a poem in terza rima.
• Decennale secondo (1509) – a poem.
• Andria or The Girl from Andros (1517) – a semi-autobiographical comedy, adapted from Terence.^[134]
• Mandragola (1518) – The Mandrake – a five-act prose comedy, with a verse prologue.
• Clizia (1525) – a prose comedy.
• Belfagor arcidiavolo (1515) – a novella.
• Asino d’oro (1517) – The Golden Ass is a terza rima poem, a new version of the classic work by Apuleius.
• Frammenti storici (1525) – fragments of stories.

Other works[edit]

Della Lingua (Italian for «On the Language») (1514), a dialogue about Italy’s language is normally attributed to Machiavelli.

Machiavelli’s literary executor, Giuliano de’ Ricci, also reported having seen that Machiavelli, his grandfather, made a comedy in the style of Aristophanes which included living Florentines as characters, and to be titled Le Maschere. It has been suggested that due to such things as this and his style of writing to his superiors generally, there was very likely some animosity to Machiavelli even before the return of the Medici.^[135]

See also[edit]

• Florentine military reforms
• Francesco Guicciardini
• Francesco Vettori
• Mayberry Machiavelli
• Republicanism
• Scipione Ammirato
• Italian Renaissance

References[edit]

Sources[edit]

• Machiavelli, Niccolò (1981). The Prince and Selected Discourses. Translated by Daniel Donno (Bantam Classic ed.). New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-21227-3.
• Haitsma Mulier, Eco (1999). «A controversial republican». In Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; Viroli, Maurizio (eds.). Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge University Press.
• Harper, John Lamberton (2004). American Machiavelli: Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of US Foreign Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83485-8.
• Shklar, J. (1999). «Montesquieu and the new republicanism». In Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; Viroli, Maurizio (eds.). Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge University Press.
• Worden, Blair (1999). «Milton’s republicanism and the tyranny of heaven». In Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; Viroli, Maurizio (eds.). Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge University Press.

Further reading[edit]

Biographies[edit]

Political thought[edit]

Italian studies[edit]

Editions[edit]

External links[edit]

• Works by Niccolò Machiavelli in eBook form at Standard Ebooks
• Works by Niccolò Machiavelli at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about Niccolò Machiavelli at Internet Archive
• Works by Niccolò Machiavelli at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
• «Machiavelli, Niccolò» . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 17 (11th ed.). 1911. pp. 233–237.
• Niccolò Machiavelli | Biography | Encyclopedia Britannica
• Machiavelli, Niccolò- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• «Macchiavelli» . Collier’s New Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. 1921. p. 53.
• Niccolò Machiavelli, History.com
• William R. Everdell’s article «From State to Free-State: The Meaning of the Word Republic from Jean Bodin to John Adams» with extensive discussion of Machiavelli
• Works by Niccolò Machiavelli: text, concordances and frequency list
• * Works of Machiavelli: Italian and English text
• Machiavelli and the Italian City on the BBC’s In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg; with Quentin Skinner, Regius Professor of History at the University of Cambridge; Evelyn Welch, Professor of Renaissance Studies at Queen Mary, University of London; Lisa Jardine, Director of the Centre for Editing Lives and Letters at Queen Mary, University of London
• University of Adelaide’s full texts of Machiavelli’s works

Niccolò Machiavelli
Portrait of Machiavelli by Santi di Tito
Born	3 May 1469 Florence, Republic of Florence
Died	21 June 1527 (aged 58) Florence, Republic of Florence
Notable work	The Prince Discourses on Livy
Spouse	Marietta Corsini ​ (m. 1502)​
Era	Renaissance philosophy
Region	Western philosophy
School	Classical realism Republicanism
Main interests	Politics and political philosophy, military theory, history
Notable ideas	Classical realism, virtù, multitude, national interest
Influences Xenophon, Plutarch, Petrarch, Tacitus, Polybius, Sallust, Livy, Thucydides, Dante Alighieri, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Zafar, Gemistos Plethon, Marsilio Ficino
Influenced Political realism, Bacon, Hobbes, Harrington, Rousseau,[1] Vico, Spinoza, Edward Gibbon, David Hume, John Adams, Marquis de Sade,[2] Vincenzo Cuoco, Hegel, Nietzsche, Pareto, Bakunin,[3] Gramsci, Althusser, T. Schelling, Negri, Waltz, Denis Diderot,[4] Carl Schmitt, Giulio Andreotti, Philip Pettit, Strauss, Weber,[5] Sismondi, Hannah Arendt
Signature

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli ( MAK-ee-ə-VEL-ee, MAHK—,^[6][7] Italian: [nikkoˈlɔ mmakjaˈvɛlli]; 3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527), occasionally rendered in English as Nicholas Machiavel ( MAK-ee-ə-vel, MAHK—; see below), was an Italian diplomat, author, philosopher and historian who lived during the Renaissance. He is best known for his political treatise The Prince (Il Principe), written in about 1513 but not published until 1532.^[8] He has often been called the father of modern political philosophy and political science.^[9]

For many years he served as a senior official in the Florentine Republic with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He wrote comedies, carnival songs, and poetry. His personal correspondence is also important to historians and scholars of Italian correspondence.^[10] He worked as secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence from 1498 to 1512, when the Medici were out of power.

After his death Machiavelli’s name came to evoke unscrupulous acts of the sort he advised most famously in his work, The Prince.^[11] He claimed that his experience and reading of history showed him that politics have always been played with deception, treachery, and crime.^[12] He also notably said that a ruler who is establishing a kingdom or a republic, and is criticized for his deeds, including violence, should be excused when the intention and the result is beneficial to him.^[13][14][15] Machiavelli’s Prince has been surrounded by controversy since its release. Some considered it to be a straightforward description of the evil means used by bad rulers; many read in it evil recommendations to tyrants to help them maintain their power.^[16] Even into recent times, some scholars, such as Leo Strauss, have restated the traditional opinion that Machiavelli was a «teacher of evil».^[17]

The term Machiavellian often connotes political deceit, deviousness, and realpolitik. Even though Machiavelli has become most famous for his work on principalities, scholars also give attention to the exhortations in his other works of political philosophy. While much less well known than The Prince, the Discourses on Livy (composed c. 1517) has been said to have paved the way of modern republicanism.^[18] It has also significantly influenced authors who have attempted to revive classical republicanism,^[19] including Hannah Arendt.^[20]

Life[edit]

Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy, the third child and first son of attorney Bernardo di Niccolò Machiavelli and his wife, Bartolomea di Stefano Nelli.^[21] The Machiavelli family is believed to be descended from the old marquesses of Tuscany and to have produced thirteen Florentine Gonfalonieres of Justice,^[22] one of the offices of a group of nine citizens selected by drawing lots every two months and who formed the government, or Signoria; he was never, though, a full citizen of Florence because of the nature of Florentine citizenship in that time even under the republican regime. Machiavelli married Marietta Corsini in 1502.^[23]

Machiavelli was born in a tumultuous era. The Italian city-states, and the families and individuals who ran them could rise and fall suddenly, as popes and the kings of France, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire waged acquisitive wars for regional influence and control. Political-military alliances continually changed, featuring condottieri (mercenary leaders), who changed sides without warning, and the rise and fall of many short-lived governments.^[24]

Machiavelli was taught grammar, rhetoric, and Latin, by his teacher, Paolo da Ronciglione.^[25] It is unknown whether Machiavelli knew Greek even though Florence was at the time one of the centers of Greek scholarship in Europe.^[26] In 1494 Florence restored the republic, expelling the Medici family that had ruled Florence for some sixty years. Shortly after the execution of Savonarola, Machiavelli was appointed to an office of the second chancery, a medieval writing office that put Machiavelli in charge of the production of official Florentine government documents.^[27] Shortly thereafter, he was also made the secretary of the Dieci di Libertà e Pace.

In the first decade of the sixteenth century, he carried out several diplomatic missions, most notably to the Papacy in Rome. Florence sent him to Pistoia to pacify the leaders of two opposing factions which had broken into riots in 1501 and 1502; when this failed, the leaders were banished from the city, a strategy which Machiavelli had favored from the outset.^[28] From 1502 to 1503, he witnessed the brutal reality of the state-building methods of Cesare Borgia (1475–1507) and his father, Pope Alexander VI, who were then engaged in the process of trying to bring a large part of Central Italy under their possession.^[29] The pretext of defending Church interests was used as a partial justification by the Borgias. Other excursions to the court of Louis XII and the Spanish court influenced his writings such as The Prince.

At the start of the 16th century, Machiavelli conceived of a militia for Florence, and he then began recruiting and creating it.^[30] He distrusted mercenaries (a distrust that he explained in his official reports and then later in his theoretical works for their unpatriotic and uninvested nature in the war that makes their allegiance fickle and often unreliable when most needed),^[31] and instead staffed his army with citizens, a policy that was to be repeatedly successful. By February 1506 he was able to have marching on parade four hundred farmers, suited (including iron breastplates), and armed with lances and small fire arms.^[30] Under his command, Florentine citizen-soldiers defeated Pisa in 1509.^[32]

Machiavelli’s success did not last. In August 1512, the Medici, backed by Pope Julius II, used Spanish troops to defeat the Florentines at Prato.^[33] In the wake of the siege, Soderini resigned as Florentine head of state and left in exile. The experience would, like Machiavelli’s time in foreign courts and with the Borgia, heavily influence his political writings.
The Florentine city-state and the republic were dissolved, and Machiavelli was deprived of office and banished from the city for a year.^[34] In 1513, the Medici accused him of conspiracy against them and had him imprisoned.^[35] Despite being subjected to torture^[34] («with the rope», in which the prisoner is hanged from his bound wrists from the back, forcing the arms to bear the body’s weight and dislocating the shoulders), he denied involvement and was released after three weeks.

Machiavelli then retired to his farm estate at Sant’Andrea in Percussina, near San Casciano in Val di Pesa, where he devoted himself to studying and writing his political treatises. He visited places in France, Germany, and Italy where he had represented the Florentine republic.^[34] Despairing of the opportunity to remain directly involved in political matters, after a time, he began to participate in intellectual groups in Florence and wrote several plays that (unlike his works on political theory) were both popular and widely known in his lifetime. Politics remained his main passion and, to satisfy this interest, he maintained a well-known correspondence with more politically connected friends, attempting to become involved once again in political life.^[36] In a letter to Francesco Vettori, he described his experience:

When evening comes, I go back home, and go to my study. On the threshold, I take off my work clothes, covered in mud and filth, and I put on the clothes an ambassador would wear. Decently dressed, I enter the ancient courts of rulers who have long since died. There, I am warmly welcomed, and I feed on the only food I find nourishing and was born to savour. I am not ashamed to talk to them and ask them to explain their actions and they, out of kindness, answer me. Four hours go by without my feeling any anxiety. I forget every worry. I am no longer afraid of poverty or frightened of death. I live entirely through them.^[37]

Machiavelli died on 21 June 1527 at the age of 58 after receiving his last rites.^[38][39] He was buried at the Church of Santa Croce in Florence. In 1789 George Nassau Clavering, and Pietro Leopoldo, Grand Duke of Tuscany, initiated the construction of a monument on Machiavelli’s tomb. It was sculpted by Innocenzo Spinazzi, with an epitaph by Doctor Ferroni inscribed on it.^[40] The Latin legend reads: TANTO NOMINI NULLUM PAR ELOGIUM («So great a name (has) no adequate praise» or «No eulogy (would be) a match for such a great name» or «There is no praise equal to so great a name.»)

Major works[edit]

The Prince[edit]

Machiavelli’s best-known book Il Principe contains several maxims concerning politics. Instead of the more traditional target audience of a hereditary prince, it concentrates on the possibility of a «new prince». To retain power, the hereditary prince must carefully balance the interests of a variety of institutions to which the people are accustomed.^[41] By contrast, a new prince has the more difficult task in ruling: He must first stabilise his newfound power in order to build an enduring political structure. Machiavelli suggests that the social benefits of stability and security can be achieved in the face of moral corruption. Machiavelli believed that public and private morality had to be understood as two different things in order to rule well.^[42] As a result, a ruler must be concerned not only with reputation, but also must be positively willing to act unscrupulously at the right times. Machiavelli believed that, for a ruler, it was better to be widely feared than to be greatly loved; a loved ruler retains authority by obligation, while a feared leader rules by fear of punishment.^[43] As a political theorist, Machiavelli emphasized the «necessity» for the methodical exercise of brute force or deceit, including extermination of entire noble families, to head off any chance of a challenge to the prince’s authority.^[44]

Scholars often note that Machiavelli glorifies instrumentality in state building, an approach embodied by the saying, often attributed to interpretations of The Prince, «The ends justify the means».^[45] Fraud and deceit are held by Machiavelli as necessary for a prince to use.^[46] Violence may be necessary for the successful stabilization of power and introduction of new political institutions. Force may be used to eliminate political rivals, to destroy resistant populations, and to purge the community of other men strong enough of a character to rule, who will inevitably attempt to replace the ruler.^[47] Machiavelli has become infamous for such political advice, ensuring that he would be remembered in history through the adjective, «Machiavellian».^[48]

Due to the treatise’s controversial analysis on politics, the Catholic Church banned The Prince, putting it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Humanists also viewed the book negatively, including Erasmus of Rotterdam. As a treatise, its primary intellectual contribution to the history of political thought is the fundamental break between political realism and political idealism, due to it being a manual on acquiring and keeping political power. In contrast with Plato and Aristotle, Machiavelli insisted that an imaginary ideal society is not a model by which a prince should orient himself.

Concerning the differences and similarities in Machiavelli’s advice to ruthless and tyrannical princes in The Prince and his more republican exhortations in Discourses on Livy, a few commentators assert that The Prince, although written as advice for a monarchical prince, contains arguments for the superiority of republican regimes, similar to those found in the Discourses. In the 18th century, the work was even called a satire, for example by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.^[49][50]

Scholars such as Leo Strauss and Harvey Mansfield have stated that sections of The Prince and his other works have deliberately esoteric statements throughout them.^[51] However, Mansfield states that this is the result of Machiavelli’s seeing grave and serious things as humorous because they are «manipulable by men», and sees them as grave because they «answer human necessities».^[52]

Another interpretation is that of Antonio Gramsci, who argued that Machiavelli’s audience for this work was not even the ruling class, but the common people, because rulers already knew these methods through their education.

Discourses on Livy[edit]

The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, written around 1517, published in 1531, often referred to simply as the Discourses or Discorsi, is nominally a discussion regarding the classical history of early Ancient Rome, although it strays very far from this subject matter and also uses contemporary political examples to illustrate points. Machiavelli presents it as a series of lessons on how a republic should be started and structured. It is a much larger work than The Prince, and while it more openly explains the advantages of republics, it also contains many similar themes from his other works.^[53] For example, Machiavelli has noted that to save a republic from corruption, it is necessary to return it to a «kingly state» using violent means.^[54] He excuses Romulus for murdering his brother Remus and co-ruler Titus Tatius to gain absolute power for himself in that he established a «civil way of life».^[55] Commentators disagree about how much the two works agree with each other, as Machiavelli frequently refers to leaders of republics as «princes».^[56] Machiavelli even sometimes acts as an advisor to tyrants.^[57][58] Other scholars have pointed out the aggrandizing and imperialistic features of Machiavelli’s republic.^[59] Nevertheless, it became one of the central texts of modern republicanism, and has often been argued to be a more comprehensive work than The Prince.^[60]

Originality[edit]

Commentators have taken very different approaches to Machiavelli and not always agreed. Major discussion has tended to be about two issues: first, how unified and philosophical his work is, and second, concerning how innovative or traditional it is.^[61]

Coherence[edit]

There is some disagreement concerning how best to describe the unifying themes, if there are any, that can be found in Machiavelli’s works, especially in the two major political works, The Prince and Discourses. Some commentators have described him as inconsistent, and perhaps as not even putting a high priority in consistency.^[61] Others such as Hans Baron have argued that his ideas must have changed dramatically over time. Some have argued that his conclusions are best understood as a product of his times, experiences and education. Others, such as Leo Strauss and Harvey Mansfield, have argued strongly that there is a very strong and deliberate consistency and distinctness, even arguing that this extends to all of Machiavelli’s works including his comedies and letters.^[61][62]

Influences[edit]

Commentators such as Leo Strauss have gone so far as to name Machiavelli as the deliberate originator of modernity itself. Others have argued that Machiavelli is only a particularly interesting example of trends which were happening around him. In any case Machiavelli presented himself at various times as someone reminding Italians of the old virtues of the Romans and Greeks, and other times as someone promoting a completely new approach to politics.^[61]

That Machiavelli had a wide range of influences is in itself not controversial. Their relative importance is however a subject of on-going discussion. It is possible to summarize some of the main influences emphasized by different commentators.

I. The Mirror of Princes genre

Gilbert (1938) summarized the similarities between The Prince and the genre it obviously imitates, the so-called «Mirror of Princes» style. This was a classically influenced genre, with models at least as far back as Xenophon and Isocrates. While Gilbert emphasized the similarities, however, he agreed with all other commentators that Machiavelli was particularly novel in the way he used this genre, even when compared to his contemporaries such as Baldassare Castiglione and Erasmus. One of the major innovations Gilbert noted was that Machiavelli focused upon the «deliberate purpose of dealing with a new ruler who will need to establish himself in defiance of custom». Normally, these types of works were addressed only to hereditary princes. (Xenophon is also an exception in this regard.)

II. Classical republicanism

Commentators such as Quentin Skinner and J.G.A. Pocock, in the so-called «Cambridge School» of interpretation, have asserted that some of the republican themes in Machiavelli’s political works, particularly the Discourses on Livy, can be found in medieval Italian literature which was influenced by classical authors such as Sallust.^[63][64]

III. Classical political philosophy: Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle

The Socratic school of classical political philosophy, especially Aristotle, had become a major influence upon European political thinking in the late Middle Ages. It existed both in the Catholicised form presented by Thomas Aquinas, and in the more controversial «Averroist» form of authors like Marsilius of Padua. Machiavelli was critical of Catholic political thinking and may have been influenced by Averroism. But he rarely cites Plato and Aristotle, and most likely did not approve of them. Leo Strauss argued that the strong influence of Xenophon, a student of Socrates more known as an historian, rhetorician and soldier, was a major source of Socratic ideas for Machiavelli, sometimes not in line with Aristotle. While interest in Plato was increasing in Florence during Machiavelli’s lifetime, Machiavelli does not show particular interest in him, but was indirectly influenced by his readings of authors such as Polybius, Plutarch and Cicero.

The major difference between Machiavelli and the Socratics, according to Strauss, is Machiavelli’s materialism, and therefore his rejection of both a teleological view of nature and of the view that philosophy is higher than politics. With their teleological understanding of things, Socratics argued that by nature, everything that acts, acts towards some end, as if nature desired them, but Machiavelli claimed that such things happen by blind chance or human action.^[65]

IV. Classical materialism

Strauss argued that Machiavelli may have seen himself as influenced by some ideas from classical materialists such as Democritus, Epicurus and Lucretius. Strauss however sees this also as a sign of major innovation in Machiavelli, because classical materialists did not share the Socratic regard for political life, while Machiavelli clearly did.^[65]

V. Thucydides

Some scholars note the similarity between Machiavelli and the Greek historian Thucydides, since both emphasized power politics.^[66][67] Strauss argued that Machiavelli may indeed have been influenced by pre-Socratic philosophers, but he felt it was a new combination:

…contemporary readers are reminded by Machiavelli’s teaching of Thucydides; they find in both authors the same «realism,» i.e., the same denial of the power of the gods or of justice and the same sensitivity to harsh necessity and elusive chance. Yet Thucydides never calls in question the intrinsic superiority of nobility to baseness, a superiority that shines forth particularly when the noble is destroyed by the base. Therefore Thucydides’ History arouses in the reader a sadness which is never aroused by Machiavelli’s books. In Machiavelli we find comedies, parodies, and satires but nothing reminding of tragedy. One half of humanity remains outside of his thought. There is no tragedy in Machiavelli because he has no sense of the sacredness of «the common.» — Strauss (1958, p. 292)

Beliefs[edit]

Amongst commentators, there are a few consistently made proposals concerning what was most new in Machiavelli’s work.

Empiricism and realism versus idealism[edit]

Machiavelli is sometimes seen as the prototype of a modern empirical scientist, building generalizations from experience and historical facts, and emphasizing the uselessness of theorizing with the imagination.^[61]

He emancipated politics from theology and moral philosophy. He undertook to describe simply what rulers actually did and thus anticipated what was later called the scientific spirit in which questions of good and bad are ignored, and the observer attempts to discover only what really happens.

— Joshua Kaplan, 2005^[68]

Machiavelli felt that his early schooling along the lines of a traditional classical education was essentially useless for the purpose of understanding politics. Nevertheless, he advocated intensive study of the past, particularly regarding the founding of a city, which he felt was a key to understanding its later development.^[68] Moreover, he studied the way people lived and aimed to inform leaders how they should rule and even how they themselves should live. Machiavelli denies the classical opinion that living virtuously always leads to happiness. For example, Machiavelli viewed misery as «one of the vices that enables a prince to rule.»^[69] Machiavelli stated that «it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.»^[70] In much of Machiavelli’s work, he often states that the ruler must adopt unsavory policies for the sake of the continuance of his regime.

A related and more controversial proposal often made is that he described how to do things in politics in a way which seemed neutral concerning who used the advice—tyrants or good rulers.^[61] That Machiavelli strove for realism is not doubted, but for four centuries scholars have debated how best to describe his morality. The Prince made the word Machiavellian a byword for deceit, despotism, and political manipulation. Leo Strauss declared himself inclined toward the traditional view that Machiavelli was self-consciously a «teacher of evil,» since he counsels the princes to avoid the values of justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom, and love of their people in preference to the use of cruelty, violence, fear, and deception.^[71] Strauss takes up this opinion because he asserted that failure to accept the traditional opinion misses the «intrepidity of his thought» and «the graceful subtlety of his speech.»^[72] Italian anti-fascist philosopher Benedetto Croce (1925) concludes Machiavelli is simply a «realist» or «pragmatist» who accurately states that moral values in reality do not greatly affect the decisions that political leaders make.^[73] German philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1946) held that Machiavelli simply adopts the stance of a political scientist—a Galileo of politics—in distinguishing between the «facts» of political life and the «values» of moral judgment.^[74] On the other hand, Walter Russell Mead has argued that The Prince‘s advice presupposes the importance of ideas like legitimacy in making changes to the political system.^[75]

Fortune[edit]

Machiavelli is generally seen as being critical of Christianity as it existed in his time, specifically its effect upon politics, and also everyday life.^[76] In his opinion, Christianity, along with the teleological Aristotelianism that the Church had come to accept, allowed practical decisions to be guided too much by imaginary ideals and encouraged people to lazily leave events up to providence or, as he would put it, chance, luck or fortune. While Christianity sees modesty as a virtue and pride as sinful, Machiavelli took a more classical position, seeing ambition, spiritedness, and the pursuit of glory as good and natural things, and part of the virtue and prudence that good princes should have. Therefore, while it was traditional to say that leaders should have virtues, especially prudence, Machiavelli’s use of the words virtù and prudenza was unusual for his time, implying a spirited and immodest ambition. Mansfield describes his usage of virtu as a «compromise with evil».^[77] Famously, Machiavelli argued that virtue and prudence can help a man control more of his future, in the place of allowing fortune to do so.

Najemy (1993) has argued that this same approach can be found in Machiavelli’s approach to love and desire, as seen in his comedies and correspondence. Najemy shows how Machiavelli’s friend Vettori argued against Machiavelli and cited a more traditional understanding of fortune.

On the other hand, humanism in Machiavelli’s time meant that classical pre-Christian ideas about virtue and prudence, including the possibility of trying to control one’s future, were not unique to him. But humanists did not go so far as to promote the extra glory of deliberately aiming to establish a new state, in defiance of traditions and laws.

While Machiavelli’s approach had classical precedents, it has been argued that it did more than just bring back old ideas and that Machiavelli was not a typical humanist. Strauss (1958) argues that the way Machiavelli combines classical ideas is new. While Xenophon and Plato also described realistic politics and were closer to Machiavelli than Aristotle was, they, like Aristotle, also saw philosophy as something higher than politics. Machiavelli was apparently a materialist who objected to explanations involving formal and final causation, or teleology.

Machiavelli’s promotion of ambition among leaders while denying any higher standard meant that he encouraged risk-taking, and innovation, most famously the founding of new modes and orders. His advice to princes was therefore certainly not limited to discussing how to maintain a state. It has been argued that Machiavelli’s promotion of innovation led directly to the argument for progress as an aim of politics and civilization. But while a belief that humanity can control its own future, control nature, and «progress» has been long-lasting, Machiavelli’s followers, starting with his own friend Guicciardini, have tended to prefer peaceful progress through economic development, and not warlike progress. As Harvey Mansfield (1995, p. 74) wrote: «In attempting other, more regular and scientific modes of overcoming fortune, Machiavelli’s successors formalized and emasculated his notion of virtue.»

Machiavelli however, along with some of his classical predecessors, saw ambition and spiritedness, and therefore war, as inevitable and part of human nature.

Strauss concludes his 1958 book Thoughts on Machiavelli by proposing that this promotion of progress leads directly to the advent of new technologies being invented in both good and bad governments. Strauss argued that the unavoidable nature of such arms races, which have existed before modern times and led to the collapse of peaceful civilizations, show that classical minded men «had to admit in other words that in an important respect the good city has to take its bearings by the practice of bad cities or that the bad impose their law on the good.» Strauss (1958, pp. 298–299)

Religion[edit]

Machiavelli shows repeatedly that he saw religion as man-made, and that the value of religion lies in its contribution to social order and the rules of morality must be dispensed with if security requires it.^[78][79] In The Prince, the Discourses and in the Life of Castruccio Castracani he describes «prophets», as he calls them, like Moses, Romulus, Cyrus the Great and Theseus (he treated pagan and Christian patriarchs in the same way) as the greatest of new princes, the glorious and brutal founders of the most novel innovations in politics, and men whom Machiavelli assures us have always used a large amount of armed force and murder against their own people.^[80] He estimated that these sects last from 1,666 to 3,000 years each time, which, as pointed out by Leo Strauss, would mean that Christianity became due to start finishing about 150 years after Machiavelli.^[81] Machiavelli’s concern with Christianity as a sect was that it makes men weak and inactive, delivering politics into the hands of cruel and wicked men without a fight.^[82]

While fear of God can be replaced by fear of the prince, if there is a strong enough prince, Machiavelli felt that having a religion is in any case especially essential to keeping a republic in order. For Machiavelli, a truly great prince can never be conventionally religious himself, but he should make his people religious if he can. According to Strauss (1958, pp. 226–27) he was not the first person to ever explain religion in this way, but his description of religion was novel because of the way he integrated this into his general account of princes.

Machiavelli’s judgment that governments need religion for practical political reasons was widespread among modern proponents of republics until approximately the time of the French Revolution. This therefore represents a point of disagreement between Machiavelli and late modernity.^[83]

Positive side to factional and individual vice[edit]

Despite the classical precedents, which Machiavelli was not the only one to promote in his time, Machiavelli’s realism and willingness to argue that good ends justify bad things, is seen as a critical stimulus towards some of the most important theories of modern politics.

Firstly, particularly in the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli is unusual in the positive side he sometimes seems to describe in factionalism in republics. For example, quite early in the Discourses, (in Book I, chapter 4), a chapter title announces that the disunion of the plebs and senate in Rome «kept Rome free». That a community has different components whose interests must be balanced in any good regime is an idea with classical precedents, but Machiavelli’s particularly extreme presentation is seen as a critical step towards the later political ideas of both a division of powers or checks and balances, ideas which lay behind the US constitution, as well as many other modern state constitutions.

Similarly, the modern economic argument for capitalism, and most modern forms of economics, was often stated in the form of «public virtue from private vices.» Also in this case, even though there are classical precedents, Machiavelli’s insistence on being both realistic and ambitious, not only admitting that vice exists but being willing to risk encouraging it, is a critical step on the path to this insight.

Mansfield however argues that Machiavelli’s own aims have not been shared by those he influenced. Machiavelli argued against seeing mere peace and economic growth as worthy aims on their own, if they would lead to what Mansfield calls the «taming of the prince.»^[84]

Influence[edit]

To quote Robert Bireley:^[85]

…there were in circulation approximately fifteen editions of the Prince and nineteen of the Discourses and French translations of each before they were placed on the Index of Paul IV in 1559, a measure which nearly stopped publication in Catholic areas except in France. Three principal writers took the field against Machiavelli between the publication of his works and their condemnation in 1559 and again by the Tridentine Index in 1564. These were the English cardinal Reginald Pole and the Portuguese bishop Jeronymo Osorio, both of whom lived for many years in Italy, and the Italian humanist and later bishop, Ambrogio Caterino Politi.

Machiavelli’s ideas had a profound impact on political leaders throughout the modern west, helped by the new technology of the printing press. During the first generations after Machiavelli, his main influence was in non-republican governments. Pole reported that The Prince was spoken of highly by Thomas Cromwell in England and had influenced Henry VIII in his turn towards Protestantism, and in his tactics, for example during the Pilgrimage of Grace.^[86] A copy was also possessed by the Catholic king and emperor Charles V.^[87] In France, after an initially mixed reaction, Machiavelli came to be associated with Catherine de’ Medici and the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. As Bireley (1990:17) reports, in the 16th century, Catholic writers «associated Machiavelli with the Protestants, whereas Protestant authors saw him as Italian and Catholic». In fact, he was apparently influencing both Catholic and Protestant kings.^[88]

One of the most important early works dedicated to criticism of Machiavelli, especially The Prince, was that of the Huguenot, Innocent Gentillet, whose work commonly referred to as Discourse against Machiavelli or Anti Machiavel was published in Geneva in 1576.^[89] He accused Machiavelli of being an atheist and accused politicians of his time by saying that his works were the «Koran of the courtiers», that «he is of no reputation in the court of France which hath not Machiavel’s writings at the fingers ends».^[90] Another theme of Gentillet was more in the spirit of Machiavelli himself: he questioned the effectiveness of immoral strategies (just as Machiavelli had himself done, despite also explaining how they could sometimes work). This became the theme of much future political discourse in Europe during the 17th century. This includes the Catholic Counter Reformation writers summarised by Bireley: Giovanni Botero, Justus Lipsius, Carlo Scribani, Adam Contzen, Pedro de Ribadeneira, and Diego de Saavedra Fajardo.^[91] These authors criticized Machiavelli, but also followed him in many ways. They accepted the need for a prince to be concerned with reputation, and even a need for cunning and deceit, but compared to Machiavelli, and like later modernist writers, they emphasized economic progress much more than the riskier ventures of war. These authors tended to cite Tacitus as their source for realist political advice, rather than Machiavelli, and this pretense came to be known as «Tacitism».^[92] «Black tacitism» was in support of princely rule, but «red tacitism» arguing the case for republics, more in the original spirit of Machiavelli himself, became increasingly important.

Modern materialist philosophy developed in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, starting in the generations after Machiavelli. This philosophy tended to be republican, but as with the Catholic authors, Machiavelli’s realism and encouragement of using innovation to try to control one’s own fortune were more accepted than his emphasis upon war and factional violence. Not only was innovative economics and politics a result, but also modern science, leading some commentators to say that the 18th century Enlightenment involved a «humanitarian» moderating of Machiavellianism.^[93]

The importance of Machiavelli’s influence is notable in many important figures in this endeavor, for example Bodin,^[94] Francis Bacon,^[95] Algernon Sidney,^[96] Harrington, John Milton,^[97] Spinoza,^[98] Rousseau, Hume,^[99] Edward Gibbon, and Adam Smith. Although he was not always mentioned by name as an inspiration, due to his controversy, he is also thought to have been an influence for other major philosophers, such as Montaigne,^[100] Descartes,^[101] Hobbes, Locke^[102] and Montesquieu.^[103][104]

Although Jean-Jacques Rousseau is associated with very different political ideas he was also influenced by him, although he viewed Machiavelli’s work as a satirical piece in which Machiavelli exposes the faults of a one-man rule rather than exalting amorality.

In the seventeenth century it was in England that Machiavelli’s ideas were most substantially developed and adapted, and that republicanism came once more to life; and out of seventeenth-century English republicanism there were to emerge in the next century not only a theme of English political and historical reflection—of the writings of the Bolingbroke circle and of Gibbon and of early parliamentary radicals—but a stimulus to the Enlightenment in Scotland, on the Continent, and in America.^[105]

Scholars have argued that Machiavelli was a major indirect and direct influence upon the political thinking of the Founding Fathers of the United States due to his overwhelming favoritism of republicanism and the republican type of government. According to John McCormick, it is still very much debatable whether or not Machiavelli was «an advisor of tyranny or partisan of liberty.»^[106] Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson followed Machiavelli’s republicanism when they opposed what they saw as the emerging aristocracy that they feared Alexander Hamilton was creating with the Federalist Party.^[107] Hamilton learned from Machiavelli about the importance of foreign policy for domestic policy, but may have broken from him regarding how rapacious a republic needed to be in order to survive.^[108][109] George Washington was less influenced by Machiavelli.^[110]

The Founding Father who perhaps most studied and valued Machiavelli as a political philosopher was John Adams, who profusely commented on the Italian’s thought in his work, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America.^[111] In this work, John Adams praised Machiavelli, with Algernon Sidney and Montesquieu, as a philosophic defender of mixed government. For Adams, Machiavelli restored empirical reason to politics, while his analysis of factions was commendable. Adams likewise agreed with the Florentine that human nature was immutable and driven by passions. He also accepted Machiavelli’s belief that all societies were subject to cyclical periods of growth and decay. For Adams, Machiavelli lacked only a clear understanding of the institutions necessary for good government.^[111]

20th century[edit]

The 20th-century Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci drew great inspiration from Machiavelli’s writings on ethics, morals, and how they relate to the State and revolution in his writings on Passive Revolution, and how a society can be manipulated by controlling popular notions of morality.^[112]

Joseph Stalin read The Prince and annotated his own copy.^[113]

In the 20th century there was also renewed interest in Machiavelli’s play La Mandragola (1518), which received numerous stagings, including several in New York, at the New York Shakespeare Festival in 1976 and the Riverside Shakespeare Company in 1979, as a musical comedy by Peer Raben in Munich’s antiteater in 1971, and at London’s National Theatre in 1984.^[114]

«Machiavellian»[edit]

Machiavelli is most famous for a short political treatise, The Prince, written in 1513 but not published until 1532, five years after his death. Although he privately circulated The Prince among friends, the only theoretical work to be printed in his lifetime was The Art of War, which was about military science. Since the 16th century, generations of politicians remain attracted and repelled by its neutral acceptance, and also positive encouragement, of the amorality of powerful men, described especially in The Prince but also in his other works.

His works are sometimes even said to have contributed to the modern negative connotations of the words politics and politician,^[115] and it is sometimes thought that it is because of him that Old Nick became an English term for the Devil.^[116] More obviously, the adjective Machiavellian became a term describing a form of politics that is «marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith».^[117] Machiavellianism also remains a popular term used casually in political discussions, often as a byword for bare-knuckled political realism.^[118][119]

While Machiavellianism is notable in the works of Machiavelli, scholars generally agree that his works are complex and have equally influential themes within them. For example, J.G.A. Pocock (1975) saw him as a major source of the republicanism that spread throughout England and North America in the 17th and 18th centuries and Leo Strauss (1958), whose view of Machiavelli is quite different in many ways, had similar remarks about Machiavelli’s influence on republicanism and argued that even though Machiavelli was a teacher of evil he had a «grandeur of vision» that led him to advocate immoral actions. Whatever his intentions, which are still debated today, he has become associated with any proposal where «the end justifies the means». For example, Leo Strauss (1987, p. 297) wrote:

Machiavelli is the only political thinker whose name has come into common use for designating a kind of politics, which exists and will continue to exist independently of his influence, a politics guided exclusively by considerations of expediency, which uses all means, fair or foul, iron or poison, for achieving its ends—its end being the aggrandizement of one’s country or fatherland—but also using the fatherland in the service of the self-aggrandizement of the politician or statesman or one’s party.

In popular culture[edit]

In English Renaissance theatre (Elizabethan and Jacobian), the term «Machiavel» (from ‘Nicholas Machiavel’, an «anglicization» of Machiavelli’s name based on French) was used for a stock antagonist that resorted to ruthless means to preserve the power of the state, and is now considered a synonym of «Machiavellian».^[120][121]

Christopher Marlowe’s play The Jew of Malta (ca. 1589) contains a prologue by a character called Machiavel, a Senecan ghost based on Machiavelli.^[122] Machiavel expresses the cynical view that power is amoral, saying «I count religion but a childish toy,/And hold there is no sin but ignorance.»

Somerset Maugham’s last book Then and Now fictionalizes Machiavelli’s interactions with Cesare Borgia, which formed the foundation of The Prince.

Niccolò Machiavelli plays a vital role in the young adult book series The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel by Michael Scott.^[123] He is immortal, and is working in national security for the French government.^[124]

Niccolò Machiavelli aids Cesare Borgia and protagonist Nicholas Dawson in their dangerous intrigues in Cecelia Holland’s 1979 historical novel City of God.^[125] David Maclaine writes that in the novel, Machiavelli «is an off-stage presence whose spirit permeates this work of intrigue and betrayal … It is a brilliant introduction to the people and events that gave us the word ‘Machiavellian.'»^[125] Machiavelli appears as an Immortal adversary of Duncan MacLeod in Nancy Holder’s 1997 Highlander novel The Measure of a Man, and is a character in Michael Scott’s novel series The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel (2007–2012). Machiavelli is also one of the main characters in The Enchantress of Florence (2008) by Salman Rushdie, mostly referred to as «Niccolò ‘il Macchia», and the central protagonist in the 2012 novel The Malice of Fortune by Michael Ennis.

Television dramas centring on the early Renaissance have also made use of Machiavelli to underscore his influence in early modern political philosophy. Machiavelli has been featured as a supporting character in The Tudors (2007–2010),^[126][127] Borgia (2011–2014) and The Borgias (2011–2013),^[128] and the 1981 BBC mini series The Borgias.

Machiavelli appears in the popular historical video games Assassin’s Creed II (2009) and Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood (2010), in which he is portrayed as a member of the secret society of Assassins.^[129]

A highly fictionalised version of Machiavelli appears in the BBC children’s TV series Leonardo (2011–2012),^[130] in which he is «Mac», a black streetwise hustler who is best friends with fellow teenagers Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa, and Lorenzo di Medici. In the 2013 episode «Ewings Unite!» of the television series Dallas, legendary oil baron J. R. Ewing wills his copy of The Prince to his adopted nephew Christopher Ewing, telling him to «use it, because being smart and sneaky is an unbeatable combination.» In Da Vinci’s Demons (2013–2015) – an American historical fantasy drama series that presents a fictional account of Leonardo da Vinci’s early life^[131] – Eros Vlahos plays a young Niccolò «Nico» Machiavelli, although the character’s full name is not revealed until the finale of the second season.

The 1967 The Time Tunnel episode «The Death Merchant» stars character actor Malachi Throne as Niccolò Machiavelli, who has been time-displaced to the Battle of Gettysburg. The character’s personality and behaviour seem to portray Cesare Borgia rather than Machiavelli himself, suggesting that the writers may have confused the two.

Machiavelli is played by Damian Lewis in the 2013 BBC radio play The Prince written by Jonathan Myerson. Together with his defence attorney Lucrezia Borgia (Helen McCrory), he presents examples from history to the devil to support his political theories and appeal his sentence in Hell.^[132]

The historical novel The City of Man (2009) by author Michael Harrington fully portrays the complex personalities of the two main characters – Girolamo Savonarola and a formative Niccolò Machiavelli – in opposition during the turbulent last decade of 15th-century Florence. The portrayal of Machiavelli draws from his later writings and observations of the chaotic events of his youth before rising from obscurity to be appointed as Second Chancellor of the Florentine Republic at the age of twenty-nine, only one month after Savonarola’s execution. Major characters include Lorenzo de’ Medici, his son Piero, Michelangelo, Sandro Botticelli, Pico della Mirandola, Marsilio Ficino, Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia), Cesare Borgia (model for The Prince), Piero and Tommaso Soderini, Il Cronaca and the diarist, Luca Landucci.

The American rapper Tupac Shakur read Machiavelli while in prison and became greatly influenced by his work. Upon his release from prison, Tupac honoured Machiavelli in 1996 by changing his own rap name from 2Pac to Makaveli.^[133]

In the 1993 crime drama A Bronx Tale, local mob boss Sonny tells his young protégé Calogero that while he was doing a 10-year sentence in jail, he passed the time and stayed out of trouble by reading Machiavelli, whom he describes as «a famous writer from 500 years ago». He then tells him how Machiavelli’s philosophy, including his famous advice about how it is preferable for a leader to be feared rather than loved if he cannot be both, have made him a successful mob boss.

Machiavelli also appears as a young Florentine spy in the third season of Medici, where he is portrayed by Vincenzo Crea. He is addressed as «Nico» in all appearances except the season finale, where he reveals his full name.

Works[edit]

Political and historical works[edit]

• Discorso sopra le cose di Pisa (1499)
• Del modo di trattare i popoli della Valdichiana ribellati (1502)
• Descrizione del modo tenuto dal Duca Valentino nello ammazzare Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, il Signor Pagolo e il duca di Gravina Orsini (1502) – A Description of the Methods Adopted by the Duke Valentino when Murdering Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, the Signor Pagolo, and the Duke di Gravina Orsini
• Discorso sopra la provisione del danaro (1502) – A discourse about the provision of money.
• Ritratti delle cose di Francia (1510) – Portrait of the affairs of France.
• Ritracto delle cose della Magna (1508–1512) – Portrait of the affairs of Germany.
• The Prince (1513)
• Discourses on Livy (1517)
• Dell’Arte della Guerra (1519–1520) – The Art of War, high military science.
• Discorso sopra il riformare lo stato di Firenze (1520) – A discourse about the reforming of Florence.
• Sommario delle cose della citta di Lucca (1520) – A summary of the affairs of the city of Lucca.
• The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca (1520) – Vita di Castruccio Castracani da Lucca, a short biography.
• Istorie Fiorentine (1520–1525) – Florentine Histories, an eight-volume history of the city-state Florence, commissioned by Giulio de’ Medici, later Pope Clement VII.

Fictional works[edit]

Besides being a statesman and political scientist, Machiavelli also translated classical works, and was a playwright (Clizia, Mandragola), a poet (Sonetti, Canzoni, Ottave, Canti carnascialeschi), and a novelist (Belfagor arcidiavolo).

Some of his other work:

• Decennale primo (1506) – a poem in terza rima.
• Decennale secondo (1509) – a poem.
• Andria or The Girl from Andros (1517) – a semi-autobiographical comedy, adapted from Terence.^[134]
• Mandragola (1518) – The Mandrake – a five-act prose comedy, with a verse prologue.
• Clizia (1525) – a prose comedy.
• Belfagor arcidiavolo (1515) – a novella.
• Asino d’oro (1517) – The Golden Ass is a terza rima poem, a new version of the classic work by Apuleius.
• Frammenti storici (1525) – fragments of stories.

Other works[edit]

Della Lingua (Italian for «On the Language») (1514), a dialogue about Italy’s language is normally attributed to Machiavelli.

Machiavelli’s literary executor, Giuliano de’ Ricci, also reported having seen that Machiavelli, his grandfather, made a comedy in the style of Aristophanes which included living Florentines as characters, and to be titled Le Maschere. It has been suggested that due to such things as this and his style of writing to his superiors generally, there was very likely some animosity to Machiavelli even before the return of the Medici.^[135]

See also[edit]

• Florentine military reforms
• Francesco Guicciardini
• Francesco Vettori
• Mayberry Machiavelli
• Republicanism
• Scipione Ammirato
• Italian Renaissance

References[edit]

Sources[edit]

• Machiavelli, Niccolò (1981). The Prince and Selected Discourses. Translated by Daniel Donno (Bantam Classic ed.). New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-21227-3.
• Haitsma Mulier, Eco (1999). «A controversial republican». In Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; Viroli, Maurizio (eds.). Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge University Press.
• Harper, John Lamberton (2004). American Machiavelli: Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of US Foreign Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83485-8.
• Shklar, J. (1999). «Montesquieu and the new republicanism». In Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; Viroli, Maurizio (eds.). Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge University Press.
• Worden, Blair (1999). «Milton’s republicanism and the tyranny of heaven». In Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; Viroli, Maurizio (eds.). Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge University Press.

Further reading[edit]

Biographies[edit]

Political thought[edit]

Italian studies[edit]

Editions[edit]

External links[edit]

• Works by Niccolò Machiavelli in eBook form at Standard Ebooks
• Works by Niccolò Machiavelli at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about Niccolò Machiavelli at Internet Archive
• Works by Niccolò Machiavelli at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
• «Machiavelli, Niccolò» . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 17 (11th ed.). 1911. pp. 233–237.
• Niccolò Machiavelli | Biography | Encyclopedia Britannica
• Machiavelli, Niccolò- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• «Macchiavelli» . Collier’s New Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. 1921. p. 53.
• Niccolò Machiavelli, History.com
• William R. Everdell’s article «From State to Free-State: The Meaning of the Word Republic from Jean Bodin to John Adams» with extensive discussion of Machiavelli
• Works by Niccolò Machiavelli: text, concordances and frequency list
• * Works of Machiavelli: Italian and English text
• Machiavelli and the Italian City on the BBC’s In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg; with Quentin Skinner, Regius Professor of History at the University of Cambridge; Evelyn Welch, Professor of Renaissance Studies at Queen Mary, University of London; Lisa Jardine, Director of the Centre for Editing Lives and Letters at Queen Mary, University of London
• University of Adelaide’s full texts of Machiavelli’s works

Никколо Макиавелли
Niccolò Machiavelli
философ, политик, писатель
Дата рождения:	3 мая 1469
Место рождения:	Флоренция
Дата смерти:	21 июня 1527 (58 лет)
Место смерти:	Флоренция

Никколо́ Макиаве́лли (Макьявелли, итал. Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli; 3 мая 1469, Флоренция — 21 июня 1527, там же) — итальянский мыслитель, философ, писатель, политический деятель (занимал во Флоренции пост государственного секретаря), автор военно-теоретических трудов. Выступал сторонником сильной государственной власти, для укрепления которой допускал применение любых средств, что выразил в прославленном труде «Государь», опубликованном в 1532 году

Биография

Никколо родился в деревне Сан-Кашано, рядом с городом-государством Флоренция, в 1469 году, и был вторым сыном Бернардо ди Николо Макиавелли (1426—1500), адвоката, и Бартоломмеи ди Стефано Нели (1441—1496). Его образование дало ему полное знание латинской и итальянской классики.

Макиавелли жил в беспокойную эпоху, когда Римский папа мог обладать целой армией, а богатые города-государства Италии попадали один за другим под власть иностранных государств ― Франции, Испании и Священной Римской империи. Это было время постоянных перемен союзов, наёмников, переходивших на сторону противника без предупреждения, когда власть, просуществовав несколько недель, рушилась и сменялась новой. Возможно, наиболее значительным событием в череде этих беспорядочных переворотов было падение Рима в 1527 году. Богатые города, вроде Флоренции и Генуи, перенесли примерно то же, что и Рим 12 столетий назад, когда он был сожжён армией варваров-германцев.

В 1494 году Флоренция восстановила Флорентийскую Республику и изгнала семью Медичи, правителей города в течение почти 60 лет. 4 года спустя Макиавелли появился на государственной службе, как секретарь и посол (в 1498 году). Макиавелли был включён в Совет, ответственный за дипломатические переговоры и военные дела. Между 1499 и 1512 годами он предпринял множество дипломатических миссий ко двору Людовика XII во Франции, Фердинанда II, и к Папскому двору в Риме.

С 1502 до 1503 год он был свидетелем эффективных градоустроительных методов солдата-церковника Чезаре Борджиа, чрезвычайно способного военачальника и государственного деятеля, целью которого в то время было расширение его владений в центральной Италии. Главными его орудиями были смелость, благоразумие, уверенность в своих силах, твердость, а подчас и жестокость.

В 1503—1506 годах Макиавелли был ответственен за флорентийскую стражу, включая защиту города. Он не доверял наемникам (позиция, разъясненная подробно в «Рассуждениях о первой декаде Тита Ливия» и в «Государе») и предпочитал ополчение, сформированное из граждан. В августе 1512 года после запутанного ряда сражений, соглашений и союзов Медичи с помощью Папы римского Юлия II восстановили власть во Флоренции и республика была отменена. Об умонастроении Макиавелли в последние годы службы свидетельствуют его письма, в частности, Франческо Веттори.

Макиавелли оказался в опале и в 1513 году был обвинен в заговоре и арестован. Несмотря ни на что, он отвергал свою причастность и был в конечном счете освобожден. Он удалился в свое поместье в Sant’Andrea в Percussina около Флоренции и начал писать трактаты, которые и обеспечили ему место в истории политической философии.

Из письма Никколо Макиавелли:

Я встаю с восходом солнца и направляюсь к роще посмотреть на работу дровосеков, вырубающих мой лес, оттуда следую к ручью, а затем к птицеловному току. Я иду с книгой в кармане, либо с Данте и Петраркой, либо с Тибуллом и Овидием. Потом захожу в постоялый двор на большой дороге. Там интересно поговорить с проезжающими, узнать о новостях в чужих краях и на родине, наблюдать, сколь различны вкусы и фантазии людей. Когда наступает обеденный час, я в кругу своей семьи сижу за скромной трапезой. После обеда я возвращаюсь снова на постоялый двор, где обычно уже собрались его хозяин, мясник, мельник и два кирпичника. С ними я провожу остальную часть дня, играя в карты…

С наступлением вечера я возвращаюсь домой и иду в свою рабочую комнату. У двери я сбрасываю крестьянское платье все в грязи и слякоти, облачаюсь в царственную придворную одежду и, переодетый достойным образом, иду к античным дворам людей древности. Там, любезно ими принятый, я насыщаюсь пищей, единственно пригодной мне, и для которой я рожден. Там я не стесняюсь разговаривать с ними и спрашивать о смысле их деяний, и они, по свойственной им человечности, отвечают мне. И на протяжении четырёх часов я не чувствую никакой тоски, забываю все тревоги, не боюсь бедности, меня не пугает смерть, и я весь переношусь к ним.

В ноябре 1520 года был призван во Флоренцию и получил должность историографа. Написал «Историю Флоренции» в 1520—1525 годах.

Макиавелли умер в Сан-Кашано, в нескольких километрах от Флоренции, в 1527 году. Местонахождение его могилы неизвестно; однако кенотаф в его честь находится в Церкви Санта-Кроче во Флоренции.

Мировоззрение и идеи

Исторически Макиавелли принято изображать тонким циником, считающим, что в основе политического поведения лежат выгода и сила, и что в политике следует опираться на силу, а не на мораль, которой можно и пренебречь при наличии благой цели.

В работах «Государь» и «Рассуждения на первую декаду Тита Ливия» Макиавелли рассматривает государство как политическое состояние общества: отношение властвующих и подвластных, наличие соответствующим образом устроенной, организованной политической власти, учреждений, законов.

Макиавелли называет политику «опытной наукой»^{[источник не указан 1290 дней]}, которая разъясняет прошлое, руководит настоящим и способна прогнозировать будущее.

Макиавелли один из немногих деятелей эпохи Возрождения, кто в своих работах затронул вопрос о роли личности правителя. Он считал, исходя из реалий современной ему Италии, страдавшей от феодальной раздробленности, что лучше сильный, пусть и лишенный угрызения совести, государь во главе единой страны, чем соперничающие удельные правители. Таким образом, Макиавелли поставил в философии и истории вопрос о соотношении моральных норм и политической целесообразности^[1]

Автор идеи о всеобщей воинской обязанности — в трактате «О военном искусстве» призывал к переходу от наёмной к набираемой по призыву из граждан государства армии.

Макиавелли противопоставлял античную доблесть христианскому смирению. В последнем он видел зло, делающее мир слабым и отдающее его во власть не встречающим сопротивления негодяям.^{[источник не указан 152 дня]}

Цитаты

• Цель оправдывает средства^[2] — часто приписываемая к авторству Макиавелли, но, согласно другим источникам, эта цитата могла принадлежать и Томасу Гоббсу (1588—1679) и Игнатию де Лойоле^[3].

Сочинения

• «Государь» (Il Principe)
• Рассуждения:
  • «Рассуждения на первую декаду Тита Ливия» (Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio) (1531)
  • Discorso sopra le cose di Pisa (1499)
  • «О том, как надлежит поступать с восставшими жителями Вальдикьяны» (Del modo di trattare i popoli della Valdichiana ribellati) (1502)
  • «Описание того, как избавился герцог Валентино от Вителлоццо Вителли, Оливеретто Да Фермо, синьора Паоло и герцога Гравина Орсини» (Del modo tenuto dal duca Valentino nell’ ammazzare Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, etc.)(1502)
  • Discorso sopra la provisione del danaro (1502)
  • Discorso sopra il riformare lo stato di Firenze (1520)
• Диалоги:
  • Della lingua (1514)
• Лирика:
  • Поэма Decennale primo (1506)
  • Поэма Decennale secondo (1509)
  • Asino d’oro (1517), стихотворное переложение «Золотого осла»
• Биографии:
  • «Жизнь Каструччо Кастракани из Лукки» (Vita di Castruccio Castracani da Lucca) (1520)
• Прочее:
  • Ritratti delle cose dell’ Alemagna (1508—1512)
  • Ritratti delle cose di Francia (1510)
  • «О военном искусстве»(1519—1520)
  • Sommario delle cose della citta di Lucca (1520)
  • Istorie fiorentine (1520—1525), многотомная история Флоренции
  • Frammenti storici (1525)
• Пьесы:
  • Andria (1517) — перевод комедии Теренция
  • Комедия Mandragola (1518)
  • Clizia (1525), комедия в прозе
• Романы:
  • Belfagor arcidiavolo (1515)

«Государь»

Интересные факты

В компьютерной игре Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood Макиавелли является ассасином и врагом семейства Борджиа.

См. также

• Макиавеллианский интеллект
• Макиавеллизм

Примечания

Ссылки

	Никколо Макиавелли в Викицитатнике?
	Никколо Макиавелли на Викискладе?

Сочинения

• Маккиавелли, Никколо. Письма и сочинения.. Восточная литература. Архивировано из первоисточника 21 августа 2011. Проверено 19 апреля 2011.
• Никколо Макиавелли. Сочинения.
• Никколо Макьявелли. «Сочинения и письма», М.: «АСТ», 2004, 820 страниц (pdf)
• Николай Макиавелли. «Государь», «Рассуждения на первые три книги Тита Ливия» 1869 (pdf)
• «Рассуждения о первой декаде Тита Ливия» Пер. Р. Хлодовского
• «Государь» Пер. Г.Муравьевой, М.: «Художественная литература», 1982.

Библиография

• Никколо pro et contra. Антология исследований о нём.
• Л. М. Баткин. Макьявелли; Е. П. Никитин. Загадка «Государя»; С. Н. Бледный. Истоки российского «макиавеллизма»
• Попова И. Ф. «Правила императоров» танского Тай-цзуна и «Государь» Н. Макиавелли //Восток-Запад. Историко-литературный альманах 2003—2004. Под редакцией акад. В. С. Мясникова. М., 2005. С.191-203. ISBN 5-02-018485-3 (в обл.).
• Макиавелли в России: Восприятие на рубеже веков /Сост. Э. Г. Азгальдов, И. А. Быстрова; Под ред. В. Т. Данченко, В. А. Скороденко, Ю. Г. Фридштейна; Науч. консультант П. Д. Баренбойм. — М.: Рудомино, 1996. — 144 с.
• Максима Макиавелли. Уроки для России XXI века: Статьи. Суждения. Библиография /Под общей ред. П. Баренбойма; Автор идеи и руководитель проекта П. Баренбойм; Отв. ред. Е. Ю. Гениева. — М.: Рудомино, 2001. — 361 с.
• Грамши А. Тюремные тетради
• Фейхтвангер Лион, «Гойя, или Тяжкий путь познания». М., Правда, 1982
• Каппони Н. Макиавелли / Пер. с англ. М.: Вече, 2012. — 352 с., ил. — Серия «Великие исторические персоны», 3 000 экз., ISBN 978-5-9533-5336-6
• Тененбаум Б. Великий Макиавелли: Темный гений власти: «Цель оправдывает средства?». — М.: Яуза, Эксмо, 2012. — 480 с. — «Гении власти». — 3000 экз., ISBN 978-5-699-54146-1

• Макиавелли, Никколо — Биография. Библиография. Высказывания
• Николло Макиавелли: горе уму — Передача Натальи Басовской на радио «Эхо Москвы»

Политика и государство
Научные дисциплины и теории	Политология • Сравнительная политология • Теория государства и права • Теория общественного выбора
Общие принципы и понятия	Гражданское общество • Правовое государство • Права человека • Разделение властей • Революция • Типы государства • Суверенитет
государства по политической силе и влиянию	Великая держава • Колония • Марионеточное государство • Сателлит • Сверхдержава
Виды политики	Геополитика • Внутренняя политика • Внешняя политика
Форма государственного устройства	Конфедерация • Унитарное государство • Федерация
Социально-политические институты и ветви власти	Банковская система • Верховная власть • Законодательная власть • Избирательная система • Исполнительная власть • СМИ • Судебная власть
Государственный аппарат и органы власти	Глава государства • Парламент • Правительство
Политический режим	Анархия • Авторитаризм • Демократия • Деспотизм • Тоталитаризм
Форма государственного правления и политическая система	Военная диктатура • Диктатура • Монархия • Плутократия • Парламентская республика • Республика • Теократия • Тимократия • Самодержавие •
Политическая философия, идеология и доктрина	Анархизм • Коммунизм • Колониализм • Консерватизм • Космополитизм • Либерализм • Либертарианство • Марксизм • Милитаризм • Монархизм • Нацизм • Национализм • Неоколониализм • Пацифизм • Социализм • Фашизм
Избирательная система	Мажоритарная • Пропорциональная • Смешанная
Политологи и политические мыслители	Платон • Аристотель • Макиавелли • Монтескье • Руссо • Бенито Муссолини • Гоббс • Локк • Карл Маркс • Михаил Бакунин • Макс Вебер • Морис Дюверже • Юлиус Эвола • Цицерон • Адольф Гитлер
Учебники и известные труды о политике	«Государство» • «Политика» • «О граде Божьем» • «Государь» • «Левиафан» • «Открытое общество и его враги»
См. также	Основные понятия политики
Категория • Портал • Проект

О
личности.

Николо
Макиавелли — итальянский мыслитель,
философ, писатель, политический деятель.

«Как
художнику, когда он рисует пейзаж, надо
спуститься в долину, чтобы охватить
взглядом холмы и горы, и подняться в
гору, чтобы охватить взглядом долину,
так и здесь: чтобы постигнуть сущность
народа, надо быть государем, а чтобы
постигнуть природу государей, надо
принадлежать к народу». Эти слова
практически завершают небольшое
вступление, предваряющее трактат
«Государь», который Николо Макиавелли
преподнёс в дар правителю Флоренции
Лоренцо II Медичи. С того времени прошло
без малого 500 лет, так и не сумевших
стереть из памяти людской имя человека,
который написал учебник для монархов
всех времён и народов. Он был неимоверно
честолюбив, прагматичен и циничен. Это
общеизвестно. Но многие ли знают о том,
что этот «злодей», утверждавший, что
«цель оправдывает средства», был
человеком честным, трудолюбивым,
наделённым поразительной интуицией и
умением радоваться жизни. Вероятно, и
этот факт мог бы стать вполне очевидным,
не заканчивайся знакомство с личностью
Макиавелли чтением и цитированием
отдельных фрагментов его скандально
известного «Государя». А жаль, ведь этот
человек заслуживает гораздо большего
внимания, он интересен уже тем, что ему
довелось родиться во Флоренции времён
эпохи Возрождения.

Николо
Макиавелли родился 3 мая 1469 в деревне
Сан-Кашано, рядом с городом-государством
Флоренция, ныне в Италии, и был вторым
сыном Бернардо ди Николо Макиавелли
(1426-1500), адвоката, и Бартоломмеи ди Стефано
Нели (1441-1496). Его образование дало ему
полное знание латинской и итальянской
классики. Макиавелли жил в беспокойную
эпоху, когда Папа мог обладать целой
армией, а богатые города-государства
Италии попадали один за другим под
власть иностранных государств ― Франции,
Испании и Священной Римской Империи.
Это было время постоянных перемен
союзов, наёмников, переходивших на
сторону противника без предупреждения,
когда власть, просуществовав несколько
недель, рушилась и сменялась новой.
Возможно, наиболее значительным событием
в череде этих беспорядочных переворотов
было падение Рима в 1527. Богатые города,
вроде Флоренции и Генуи, перенесли
примерно то же, что и Рим 12 столетий
назад, когда он был сожжён армией
варваров-германцев. В 1494 Флоренция
восстановила Флорентийскую Республику
и изгнала семью Медичи, правителей
города в течение почти 60 лет. 4 года
спустя Макиавелли появился на
государственной службе как секретарь
и посол (в 1498). Макиавелли был включён в
Совет, ответственный за дипломатические
переговоры и военные дела. Между 1499 и
1512 он предпринял множество дипломатических
миссий ко двору Людовика XII, Фердинанда
II и Папы. С 1502 до 1503 Макиавелли был
свидетелем эффективных градоустроительных
методов солдата-церковника Чезаре
Борджиа, чрезвычайно способного
военачальника и государственного
деятеля, целью которого в то время было
расширение его владений в центральной
Италии. Главными его орудиями были
смелость, благоразумие, уверенность в
своих силах, твердость, а подчас и
жестокость. В 1503-1506 Макиавелли был
ответственен за флорентийскую милицию,
включая защиту города. Он не доверял
наёмникам (позиция, разъяснённая подробно
в «Рассуждениях о первой декаде Тита
Ливия» и в «Государе») и предпочитал
ополчение, сформированное из граждан.
В августе 1512 после запутанного ряда
сражений, соглашений и союзов Медичи с
помощью Папы Юлия II восстановили власть
во Флоренции, и республика была отменена.
Об умонастроении Макиавелли в последние
годы службы свидетельствуют его письма,
в частности, к Франческо Веттори.

Макиавелли
оказался в опале и в 1513 был обвинён в
заговоре и арестован. Несмотря ни на
что, он отвергал свою причастность и
был в конечном счете освобождён. Он
удалился в своё поместье около Флоренции
и начал писать трактаты, которые и
обеспечили ему место в истории политической
философии. В 1522 раскрывается новый
заговор против Медичи, и Макиавелли с
трудом удаётся избежать обвинений в
причастности к нему. Надежды на получение
должности хотя бы от Лоренцо II Медичи,
правившего во Флоренции с конца 1513 после
отъезда Джованни Медичи в Рим, не
оправдались. Ему предлагали стать
секретарем кардинала Просперо Колонна
в 1522, но он отказался — слишком сильна
была его неприязнь к церковникам. Звали
его и во Францию, но это для Макиавелли
было исключено — он не желал покидать
Флоренцию. Позже он сказал по этому
поводу: «Предпочитаю умереть с голоду
во Флоренции, чем от несварения желудка
в Фонтенбло». В 1525 Макиавелли приехал
в Рим, чтобы вручить Папе Клименту VII,
по заказу которого он писал «Историю
Флоренции», первые её восемь книг. В
1526 над Италией нависла угроза испанского
вторжения, в связи с этим Макиавелли
предложил городским властям проект
укрепления городских стен, который было
необходимо произвести в случае возможной
обороны города. Этот проект был не просто
принят — Никколо Макиавелли назначили
секретарем и проведитором коллегии
Пяти, специально созданной для проведения
работ по укреплению города. Макиавелли,
не взирая на тяжесть ситуации, чувствовал
себя окрылённым. Дальнейшие события
только укрепляют его надежду на то, что
он ещё сможет найти себе применение на
политическом поприще. 4 мая 1527 немецкими
ландскнехтами был захвачен и беспощадно
разграблен Рим, Флоренция практически
сразу же «отреагировала» на это событие
настоящим восстанием против дома Медичи,
в результате чего Республика была
восстановлена. Почувствовав возможность
продолжить государственную службу,
Макиавелли выдвигает свою кандидатуру
на пост канцлера Флорентийской республики
и с трепетом ждёт решения своей участи.
10 мая того же года вопрос о его избрании
был поставлен на Большом Совете
Республики, специально созванном по
случаю выборов. Заседание Совета, гораздо
более походившее на суд, чем на
демократические прения, кончилось тем,
что Макиавелли был обвинён в чрезмерной
учености, склонности к ненужному
философствованию, самонадеянности и
богохульстве. За кандидатуру Макиавелли
было подано 12 голосов, против — 555. Это
решение явилось для 58-летнего, все ещё
полного сил, человека последним ударом,
дух его был сломлен, и жизнь потеряла
всяческий смысл. Спустя несколько
недель, 21 июня 1527, Никколо Макиавелли
покинул этот мир.

В
«Рассуждениях о первой декаде Тита
Ливия», завершенных Макиавелли в 1516, и
обращённых к эпохе всю жизнь почитаемых
им античных классиков, есть такие слова:
«…я выскажу смело и открыто всё то, что
я знаю о новых и древних временах, чтобы
души молодых людей, которые прочтут
написанное мною, отвернулись бы от
первых и научились подражать последним…
Ведь долг каждого честного человека —
учить других тому добру, которое из-за
тяжелых времён и коварства судьбы ему
не удалось осуществить в жизни, с надеждой
на то, что они будут более способными в
этом».

Основные
идеи в работах мыслителя.

Главное
отличие Макиавелли от всех предшествующих
ему мыслителей Эпохи Возрождения
заключается в том, что он руководствовался
в своих сочинениях не абстрактными
идеями торжества добра и Бога, а реальным
опытом конкретной жизни, идеями пользы
и целесообразности. «Имея намерение
написать нечто полезное для людей
понимающих, — писал он в «Государе»,
— я предпочел следовать правде не
воображаемой, а действительной — в
отличие от тех многих, кто изобразил
республики и государства, каких в
действительности никто не знавал и не
видывал». И далее продолжал: «…
Расстояние между тем, как люди живут и
как должны жить, столь велико, что тот,
кто отвергает действительное ради
должного, действует, скорее, во вред
себе, нежели на благо, так как желая
исповедовать добро во всех случаях
жизни, он неминуемо погибнет, сталкиваясь
с множеством людей, чуждых добру». В
этом смысле Никколо Макиавелли проявил
себя сторонником самого жесткого
реализма, ибо считал, что благодушные
мечтания о прекрасном будущем только
мешают жизни обычного человека. Наблюдения
над жизнью привели Макиавелли к
глубочайшему убеждению, что человек —
это существо сугубо эгоистическое, во
всех своих поступках руководствующееся
лишь собственными интересами. Вообще,
по мнению Макиавелли, интерес — это
самый могущественный и чуть ли не
единственный стимул человеческой
деятельности. Проявления интереса
достаточно различны, однако самый важный
интерес связан с сохранением собственности,
имущества и с приобретением новой
собственности и нового имущества. Он
утверждал, что «люди скорее простят
смерть отца, чем потерю имущества».
В одной из работ встречается и такой,
довольно резкий пассаж, подчеркивающий
неискоренимый эгоизм человеческой
природы: «…О людях в целом можно
сказать, что они неблагодарны и
непостоянны, склонны к лицемерию и
обману, что их отпугивает опасность,
влечет нажива». Иначе говоря, Макиавелли
показывает, что человек — это бесконечное
сочетание добра и зла, и зло столь же
присуще человеческой природе как и
добро.

Человек,
по мнению Макиавелли, не только эгоистичен,
но и свободен в своих поступках. Если
христианское понимание сущности человека
утверждало, что человек во всем подчинен
высшему Божественному Провидению,
заранее определенной Богом судьбе, то
Макиавелли формулирует совершенно
новое понимание человеческой судьбы.
Он говорит о том, что судьба человека
не «фатум» (рок, неизбежность), а
«фортуна». Судьба-фортуна никогда
не может полностью определить жизнь
человека. Более того, в «Государе»,
флорентийский мыслитель пытается даже
вычислить соотношение — насколько
жизнь человека зависит от высших
обстоятельств, а насколько от него
самого. И приходит к выводу, что «фортуна
распоряжается половиной наших поступков,
но управлять другой половиной или около
того она предоставляет нам самим». И
недаром, утверждая свободу воли человека,
Макиавелли призывает людей «лучше
быть смелым, чем осторожным», ибо
«фортуна — женщина, и кто хочет с ней
сладить, должен колотить ее и пинать».
Будучи сам «человеком действия»,
Макиавелли приходит к выводу, что главное
в человеке — это способность к
деятельности, воля, стремящаяся к
осуществлению больших целей, основанная
на эгоистическом интересе. Данную
способность к деятельности он назвал
«доблестью» («вирту»). «Вирту»
присуща далеко не всем людям, почему
они и прозябают в своей жалкой жизни.
Однако в истории всегда были и всегда
есть отдельные личности, чья «доблесть»
заставляет их совершать выдающиеся
поступки и тем самым двигать всю историю
человечества. И Макиавелли призывает
брать пример с этих людей, осознающих
потребности своего времени и способных
делать то, что необходимо в данный
момент.

С
этой точки зрения, в работах Макиавелли
как бы получают свое реалистическое
завершение все предшествующие
гуманистические рассуждения о сущности
человеческой личности. Отказавшись от
чисто религиозно-философских рассуждений
на эти темы, он трезво и жестко формулирует
определенные правила и нормы человеческого
общежития, которые, по его мнению,
определяют жизнь каждого конкретного
человека. Отдельный человек предстает
в сочинениях Макиавелли во всей своей
неприкрашенной, трезво оцененной
реальности, с присущими ему добрыми
намерениями и злыми поступками. Наиболее
ярко эти идеи были выражены флорентийским
мыслителем в рассуждениях на тему власти
и значении государя. Само государство,
в понимании Макиавелли, возникло как
результат все той же эгоистической
природы человека. Государство — это
высшая сила, способная поставить
достаточно жесткий предел эгоистическим
устремлениям отдельных людей и тем
самым спасти их от самоуничтожения.
Люди, руководствуясь интересом
самосохранения, и создают государство.
Говоря о формах государства, Макиавелли,
несмотря на все свои республиканские
убеждения, приходит к выводу, что наиболее
целесообразным и полезным государственным
устройством является все же монархия.
Отсюда возникает его идея «нового
государя». «Новый государь»
должен опираться не на теории и философские
представления о жизни, а на саму реальную
жизнь. Люди не могут быть только добрыми
и хорошими, они — и хорошие, и плохие
одновременно. Государь, если он хочет
править долго, обязан в своем правлении
опираться и на хорошее и на плохое. Иначе
говоря, в руках государя должен находиться
не только пряник, но и плеть. Более того,
как только государь выпускает плеть из
своих рук, тотчас же нарушается всякий
порядок. Никколо Макиавелли, говоря,
что мудрый правитель государства обязан
«по возможности не удаляться от добра,
но при надобности не чураться и зла»,
по сути дела признает — реальное
управление государством невозможно
без насилия, без самых изощренных
поступков. Недаром, характеризуя «нового
государя», он пишет, что такой правитель
должен сочетать в одном лице качества
льва, способного повергнуть любого
врага, и лисицы, способной обмануть
самого большого хитреца. Однако у
Макиавелли нет воспевания насилия и
жестокости. Более того, с его точки
зрения, жестокость и насилие оправданы
только в том случае, когда они подчинены
государственным интересам, когда целью
их применения является государственный
порядок. Жестокость призвана исправлять,
а не разрушать — утверждает флорентийский
мыслитель.

В
трактате «Государь» Макиавелли
много места посвящает конкретным
рекомендациям, направленным политическим
руководителям. По большому счету,
«Государь» — это настоящий учебник
власти, пособие, в котором очень реально
рассказывается о том, как получить
власть, как осуществлять власть и о том,
как сохранить власть. Впоследствии, в
политической науке даже возник специальный
термин — «макиавеллизм», который
характеризует собой такой образ
правления, когда используются любые
средства для сохранения власти. В
принципе, содержание этого современного
термина не имеет отношения к тому, что
писал сам Макиавелли. Ведь для него
власть — не самоцель, а средство
обеспечения государственного порядка.
Власть ради власти, жестокость ради
жестокости. Философско-политическое
учение Никколо Макиавелли вызвало
неоднозначную реакцию в тогдашней
Европе. Его проповедь свободного
эгоистического человека, размышления
о правах и возможностях светских
государей послужила поводом для резкого
неприятия со стороны Римско-католической
Церкви. В 1559 г. его книги были внесены в
«Индикт запрещенных книг».

Моё
мнение.

Изучая
информацию о Макиавелли я познакомилась
с таким термином как «Макиавеллизм».

С
сайта mirslovarei.com:

Макиавеллизм
— образ, схема политического поведения,
пренебрегающая нормами морали для
достижения политических целей. Термин
связан с именем итальянского политического
деятеля и писателя И. Макиавелли
(1469-1527), приверженца сильной государственной
власти. Отличительной особенностью
макиавеллизма, его основанием является
тезис «цель оправдывает средства»,
когда ради достижения поставленных
целей считаются оправданными и приемлемыми
любые средства, включая вероломство,
коварство, жестокость, обман политического
противника.

Отталкиваясь
от него, складывается впечатление, что
Николло человек с циничными взглядами
на мир и жестким отношением к обществу.
На самом деле он четко и очень глубоко
выразил свою мысль по поводу политического
строя без приукрас. Хочется сказать о
работе «Государь». Макиавелли вовсе не
приписывает правителям божественной
сущности, а видит в них вполне реальных
людей. Более того, он утверждает, что
порой ради блага страны государь обязан
быть жестоким и бесчеловечным.

Это
не самый объёмный труд, но один из самых
полезных. Он будет интересен не только
людям, увлекающимся философией или
политикой, но и всем остальным. У
Макиавелли замечательный склад ума и
выражение своих мыслей, каждый свой
довод он подкрепляет интересными
историческими примерами. В “Государе”
Макиавелли рассуждает о том, каким
должен быть правитель, чтобы сохранить
власть и не потерять уважения подданных.
Казалось бы, книжке пять с лишним веков,
но все это время о ней не забывали и
использовали в своих целях разные
правители. Методы политической борьбы
и способы удержания власти до сих пор
остаются неизменными. И знаменита эта
книжка прежде всего тем, что поведение
государя, описанное Макиавелли, применимо
к любому общественному строю и любому
методу правления.

Сам
мыслитель не вызвал у меня определенной
эмоции, его и превозносили, и проклинали
– но равнодушным он не оставил никого
без исключения. Разделяя во многом идеи
философов эпохи Возрождения, Макиавелли
в некотором смысле предвосхитил
мыслителей эпохи Просвещения. Он верил
в человека и в то, что все в мире подчинено
разумным законам. В то же время в его
философии присутствует и вера в судьбу,
как отпечаток эпохи – не мог Макиавелли
до конца отдать мир во власть человека
и отказаться от веры в сверхъестественное.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

Сочинения

Макиавелли Никколо Сочинения

Когда Луций Фурий Камилл вернулся в Рим после победы над жителями Лациума, много раз восстававшими против римлян, он пришел в Сенат и сказал речь, в которой рассуждал, как поступить с землями и городами латинян. Вот как передает Ливий его слова и решение Сената:

«Отцы сенаторы, то, что должно было свершить в Лациуме войной и мечом, милостью богов и доблестью воинов наших ныне окончено. Воинство врагов полегло у Педа и Астуры, земли и города латинян и Анциум, город вольсков, взяты силой или сдались вам на известных условиях. Мы знаем, однако, что племена эти часто восстают, подвергая отечество опасности, и теперь нам остается подумать, как обеспечить себя на будущее время: воздать ли им жестокостью или великодушно их простить. Боги дали вам полную власть решить, должен ли Лациум остаться независимым или вы подчините его на вечные времена. Итак, подумайте, хотите ли вы сурово проучить тех, кто вам покорился, хотите ли вы разорить дотла весь Лациум и превратить в пустыню край, откуда не раз приводили вы в опасное время на помощь себе войска, или вы хотите, по примеру предков ваших, расширить республику Римскую, переселив в Рим тех, кого еще они победили, и этим дается вам случай со славой расширить пределы города. Я же хочу сказать лишь следующее: то государство стоит несокрушимо, которое обладает подданными верными и привязанными к своему властителю; однако дело, которое надо решить, должно быть решено быстро, ибо перед вами множество людей, трепещущих между надеждой и страхом, которых надо вывести из этой неизвестности и обратить их умы к мыслям о каре или о награждении. Долгом моим было действовать так, чтобы и то и другое было в вашей власти; это исполнено. Вам же теперь предстоит принять решение на благо и пользу республики».

Сенаторы хвалили речь консула, но сказали, что дела в восставших городах и землях обстоят различно, так что они не могут говорить обо всех, а лишь о каждом отдельно, и, когда консул доложил о делах каждой земли, сенаторы решили, что ланувийцы должны быть гражданами римскими и получить обратно священные предметы, отнятые у них во время войны; точно так же дали они гражданство римское арицинам, номентанам и педанам, сохранили преимущества тускуланцев, а вину за их восстание возложили на немногих, наиболее подозрительных. Зато велитерны были наказаны жестоко, потому что, будучи уже давно римскими гражданами, они много раз восставали; город их был разрушен, и всех его граждан переселили в Рим. В Анциум, дабы прочно укрепить его за собой, поселили новых жителей, отняли все корабли и запретили строить новые. Можно видеть по этому приговору, как решили римляне судьбу восставших земель; они думали, что надо или приобрести их верность благодеяниями, или поступить с ними так, чтобы впредь никогда не приходилось их бояться; всякий средний путь казался им вредным. Когда надо было решать, римляне прибегали то к одному, то к другому средству, милуя тех, с кем можно было надеяться на мир; с другими же, на кого надеяться не приходилось, они поступали так, что те уже никак и никогда не могли им навредить. Чтобы достигнуть этой последней цели, у римлян было два средства: одно — это разрушить город и переселить жителей в Рим, другое — изгнать из города его старых жителей и прислать сюда новых или, оставив в городе старых жителей, поселить туда так много новых, чтобы старые уже никогда не могли злоумышлять и затевать что-либо против Сената. К этим двум средствам и прибегли римляне, когда разрушили Велитернум и заселили новыми жителями Анциум. Говорят, что история — наставница наших поступков, а более всего поступков князей, что мир всегда населен был людьми, подвластными одним и тем же страстям, что всегда были слуги и повелители, а среди слуг такие, кто служит поневоле и кто служит охотно, кто восстает на господина и терпит за это кару. Кто этому не верит, пусть посмотрит на Ареццо и на всю Вальдикьяну, где в прошлом году творились дела, очень схожие с историей латинских племен. Как там, так и здесь было восстание, впоследствии подавленное, и хотя в средствах восстания и подавления есть довольно заметная разница, но самое восстание и подавление его схожи. Поэтому, если верно, что история — наставница наших поступков, не мешает тем, кто будет карать и судить Вальдикьяну, брать пример и подражать народу, который стал владыкой мира, особенно в деле, где вам точно показано, как надо управлять, ибо как римляне осудили различно, смотря по разности вины, так должны поступить и вы, усмотрев различие вины и среди ваших мятежников. Если вы скажете: мы это сделаем, я отвечу, что не сделано главное и лучшее. Я считаю хорошим решение, что вы оставили правящие органы в Кортоне, Кастильоне, Борго, Фойано, обошлись с ними ласково и сумели благодеяниями вернуть их приязнь, ибо нахожу в них сходство с ланувийцами, арицинами, номентанами и тускуланцами, насчет которых римляне решили почти так же. Но я не одобряю, что аретинцы, похожие на велитернов и анциан, не подверглись такой же участи, как и те. И если решение римлян заслуживает хвалы, то ваше в той же мере заслуживает осуждения. Римляне находили, что надо либо облагодетельствовать восставшие народы, либо вовсе их истребить, и что всякий иной путь грозит величайшими опасностями. Как мне кажется, вы не сделали с аретинцами ни того, ни другого: вы переселили их во Флоренцию, лишили их почестей, продали их имения, открыто их срамили, держали их солдат в плену — все это нельзя назвать благодеянием. Точно так же нельзя сказать, что вы себя обезопасили, ибо оставили в целости городские стены, позволили пяти шестым жителей остаться по-прежнему в городе, не смешали их с новыми жителями, которые держали бы их в узде, и вообще не сумели так поставить дело, чтобы при новых затруднениях и войнах нам не пришлось тратить больше сил на Ареццо, чем на врага, который вздумает на нас напасть. Вспомните опыт 1498 года, когда еще не было ни восстания, ни жестокого усмирения этого города; все же, когда венецианцы подошли к Биббиене, вам пришлось, чтобы отстоять Ареццо, отдать его войскам герцога Миланского, и если бы не ваши колебания, то граф Рануччо со своим отрядом мог бы воевать против врагов в Казентино и не понадобилось бы отзывать из-под Пизы Паоло Вителли, чтобы послать его в Казентино. Однако ненадежность аретинцев заставила вас на это решиться, и вам пришлось встретиться с очень большими опасностями, помимо огромных расходов, которых вы бы избежали, если бы аретинцы остались верными. Сближая, таким образом, то, что было тогда, с тем, что мы видели позже, и с условиями, в которых вы находитесь, можно заключить наверняка, что если на вас, упаси Боже, кто-нибудь нападет, то Ареццо восстанет или вам будет так трудно удержать его в повиновении, что расходы окажутся для города непосильными. Не хочу обойти молчанием и вопрос, можете ли вы подвергнуться нападению или нет и есть ли человек, который рассчитывает на аретинцев.

Не будем говорить о том, насколько вам могут быть страшны иноземные государи, а побеседуем об опасности гораздо более близкой. Кто наблюдал Чезаре Борджа, которого называют герцогом Валентино, тот знает, что, оберегая свои владения, он никогда не думал опираться на своих итальянских друзей, так как венецианцев он ценил низко, а вас еще ниже. Поэтому он, конечно, должен думать о том, чтобы создать себе в Италии такую власть, которая дала бы ему безопасность и заставила бы всякого другого правителя желать его дружбы. Что таково его намерение, что он стремится захватить Тоскану, страну, близко лежащую и пригодную, чтобы образовать вместе с другими его владениями единое королевство, — это вытекает необходимо из причин, о которых сказано выше, из властолюбия герцога и даже из того, что он заставлял вас терять время на переговоры и никогда не хотел заключить с вами договор. Дело теперь только в том, удобное ли сейчас время для его замыслов. Я вспоминаю, как кардинал Содерини говорил, что у папы и у герцога, помимо других качеств, за которые можно было назвать их великими людьми, было еще следующее: оба они большие мастера выбирать удобный случай и, как никто, умеют им пользоваться. Мнение это подтверждено опытом дел, проведенных ими с успехом. Если бы спор шел о том, настала ли сейчас удобная минута, чтобы вас прижать, я бы ответил, что нет, но знайте, что герцог не может выжидать, кто победит, ибо, при краткости жизни папы, времени у него останется мало; ему необходимо воспользоваться первым представившимся случаем и положиться во многом на счастье.

Герцог Валентино только что вернулся из Ломбардии, куда он ездил, чтобы оправдаться перед Людовиком, королем Франции, от клевет, взведенных на него флорентийцами из-за мятежа в Ареццо и в других местностях Вальдикьяны; он находился в Имоле, оттуда намеревался выступить со своими отрядами против Джованни Бентивольо, тирана Болоньи, так как хотел подчинить себе этот город и сделать его столицей своего герцогства Романьи. Когда весть об этом дошла до Вителли, Орсини и других их сторонников, они решили, что герцог становится слишком могуч и теперь надо бояться за себя, ибо, завладев Болоньей, он, конечно, постарается их истребить, дабы вооруженным в Италии остался один только он. Они собрались в Маджоне около Перуджии и пригласили туда кардинала, Паоло и герцога Гравина Орсини, Вителлоццо Вителли, Оливеротто да Фермо, Джанпаоло Бальони, тирана Перуджии, и мессера Антонио да Венафро, посланного Пандольфо Петруччи, властителем Сиены; на собрании речь шла о мощи герцога, о его замыслах, о том, что его необходимо обуздать, иначе всем им грозит гибель. Кроме того, решили не покидать Бентивольо, постараться привлечь на свою сторону флорентийцев и в оба города послать своих людей, обещая помощь первому и убеждая второй объединиться против общего врага. Об этом съезде стало тотчас же известно во всей Италии, и у всех недовольных властью герцога, между прочим, у жителей Урбино, появилась надежда на перемены. Умы волновались, и несколько жителей Урбино решили захватить дружественный герцогу замок Сан-Лео. Владелец замка в это время его укреплял, и туда свозили лес для построек; заговорщики дождались, пока бревна, доставлявшиеся в замок, были уже на мосту и загромоздили его настолько, что защитники замка не могли на него взойти, вскочили на мост и оттуда ворвались в замок.