Riassunto dell'intero esame di History of Political Thought (Storia delle dottrine politiche), prof.ssa Furia, libro consigliato: On politics, Ryan Alan.

History of Political Thought

History of Political thought is based on the idea that there are a series of continuities and discontinuities

The painting “ Il Buon Governo” represents how a good government is supposed to be, through the relationship between the state and

religion. A traditional view of politics, where there is a king with virtues of higher values surrounding him and next the representation of

While the painting “Il cattivo governo” has

justice. The concept of Politics related to morality and religion is defined as pre-modern. in the

centre the representation of a ruler as a devil and instead of virtues, he is surrounded of vices.

Ancient political thoughts:

Many concepts and words derive from classic political thought, during which there were different ideas of politics, with its elements and

topics. The Greeks Roman tradition

Idea of democracy and Justice, from Cleisthenes to Pericles, Autoritas: means history, tradition, the idea of continuity and

→

Herodotus’s Histories and three forms of government: it is what provides power (potestas) with legitimacy it is

and aristocracy, Thucydides’ History of

isonomia, monarchy preserved by the Senate, and then by the princeps and it is

the Peloponnesian War (father of political realism: what ensures order.

disenchanted history, constant anthropology, “balance of Potestas: is the expression of power, which is in the hands of

power” and “security dilemma”), Plato’s Justice and role of the people.

philosophers, Aristotle’s justice, prudence and good/ bad Libertas: civic virtues and Roman Law (legalisation of

forms of politeia (kingship/tyranny, aristocracy/ oligarchy, politics), institutional flexibility and durability

“good life”, natural sociability of men,

polity/ democracy),

autonomy of politics from other domains.

The representation of politics in Ancient Times is a Circle, because participating in political affairs was considered in the centre of life. The

most important change is represented by the fact that in the middle ages politics started to become related to princes or persons who were

above the others, in fact the pre-modern/modern representation of politics is a triangle.

• Pericle’s Funeral Oration (Thucydides): Democracy is part of the Greeks;

• On duties (Cicerone): makes reference to idea of civic virtues, the respect of the republic and the investment of time for preserving

and making it prosperous was considered has important as taking care of its own family.

→For

Those two ideas are important because are still part of our conception Machiavelli the most important example of civic virtue and

Republic was the Roman tradition and Republicanism.

The Christian World, sources of tradition

1. religious tradition, power and obedience derive from God: with the establishment of the Catholic Church, the idea is of power

legitimated by God. The basis for this was the letter To Romans of St. Paul 13:1

2. during the middle age we had the respublica christiana: idea of political domain composed of different bodies (pluralism) but the

main source deriving from God. This was why the idea of the moral virtues, the main the religious one, being above the king.

Rulers had to comply with religious obligation;

3. in pre-modernity, civic humanism: we had another moment in which in Italy we had the experience of municipality (commune), a

revival of the interest in the classic conception, a moment in which the idea of loving the republic and being involved in political

affairs was again the centre of cultural expressions. Machiavelli:

Machiavelli is considered the father of modernity, father of western political thought. He started by a renewal of the classical political

thought, trying to change it relating it the contest in which he lived. like “The Historiae Fiorentinae” or

His main works are The Prince (1513) and The Discourses on Livy (1516), but he also wrote others,

“L’arte della Guerra”.

During his time, Italy was fragmented and a weak State, since it was a battleground for invasions of other states and of the Pope (considered

at that time political authority, having a secular interest). This context is important to understand the reasons of his elaborations.

Machiavelli has been interpreted in many different ways, and a huge level of interest has been towards his thought especially during the

published on Machiavelli’s republicanism, for instance regarding the English and the American revolution. He

1970s. Many books have been

was important in making republicanism to be known by revolutionary authors and political actors in the English and American revolutions.

Machiavelli is still much at the centre of the political debate.

Machiavelli’ legacy:

Premodern or modern? There are some elements that would not allow Machiavelli as a modern political thinkers, and other which on the

contrary make it a pre-modern. Modernity is here related to natural law, the idea of a contract, individual subjects as the basic of power, and

the liberal one, Machiavelli is not modern according to this perception. According to other authors we can think to a Republican modernity

and in this case Machiavelli can be considered modern thinker.

He is for sure at the beginning to the western modernity.

Modern thinkers tend to elaborate a system of rational, coherent system, while Machiavelli did not a write down a prefect theory and

doctrine, but he starts his point from “Verità effettuale”, so he thought that ideals should not play a role: this can be considerate a element of

distinction and modernity from Machiavelli.

Political realism: concern with reality.

His elaborations cannot be considered as a complete theoretical system. He thinks that politics instead of being based on ideals and virtues as

the traditional religion based politics, but it should be based on reality. Together with Thucydides and other is considered the founder of

realism, claiming that in order to do properly his political jobs, politicians should be based on reality, not on ideals and principles. In order to

contingent situation, they have to focus on what it is the “verità

be able to deal with politics individuals, rulers, should be focus on the

He said that

effettuale”. there is a gap how people hope to live and how they actually live and rulers should focus on how people live, not

how they hope they could live: they have to base their political actions and decisions on reality.

Today it seems evident, because we tend to think that politics has to do with reality, but before, in that contest, there was the idea was that

power was the reflection of religious and moral norms and ideals. This consideration can be considered revolutionary and radical: he was

saying that a good ruler was not a Christian ruler and a moral person, but was the more capable of understanding reality and dealing with it

for what it was and not what was supposed to be. –

An example is war: if we considered it from a religious or a moral point of view we cannot but being against it since the Christian concept

of preserving life, not kill people, are above politics we cannot but say that war is unacceptable- while if we consider as a ruler, on reality,

you would do nothing but respond to a war.

From the point of view of the domain and the context he was strongly condemn by religious authority and all of the thinkers who thought that

politics should be based on morality and religion. He was challenged because his idea were contrary to the idea of legitimation of power

from God.

The most important point for him was that politics is not about ethics, the most important duty is to preserve the State- it is the only rule of a

good ruler. The most important consequence is that politics is autonomous from the other domains, it is self-standing.

Reading the Spirit of times and accepting human nature

How are we able to react to reality by taking good decisions? The most important part of a ruler is for Machiavelli is to be able to read the

spirit of times, how things evolve. This requires a sort of training, which consists of learning from historical examples. Another element is

what is called a very pessimistic conception of human nature, in the sense that man are self-interested, unreliable, manipulative, etc.: there is

not much to hope for human beings because they tend to be interest of their business, this is why conflicts and disorders are possible. Rulers

need to learn to deal with reality by studying ancient examples and how ancient rulers addressed challenges during their time, they will be

able then to deal and limit human nature, do something better (but it is not expected from men to evolve and improve). If a prince studies

from the ancient does not mean that he will be perfect, he postpone the time of his failures, and there is any idea of progress - any prince can

make mistakes.

Cyclical idea of Time

While Christians design time as linear, as a evolution to something better, Machiavelli has the idea of a cycle: human nature is always the

same and do not change, so the ancient examples are useful to prevent events or dealing with it, similar to those happened in the past. Even if

a prince become equipped and studies in order to learn from the past, does not mean that he will be always successful, but at a certain point

faith will prevail. There is no an optimistic idea of history, progress and human evolution.

Machiavelli defined a pre-modern thinker also because modern thinkers have a different vision of time, he is in the middle between a ancient

view and a modern one since the cyclical view is part of the ancient one.

Considering time as a cycle does not mean that reality is always the same, but only that at a certain point a State will collapse and failure will

arrive, so the Prince has to postpone this to arrive. (chap 25): “but confining [...] other does not” =

{ Example on Reading The Spirit of Times: From the Prince the point is that that what

matters mostly for a good prince is to understand the spirits of times and he will be successful, to be able to understand and follow reality

(not doing always the same things) in order also to prevent things to happen. }

{ Example on Human Nature: pessimistic view of human beings, who are not reliable, always looking for their interests. The good prince has

to start from those assumptions in order to preserve his State. If you consider men a idealistic-moral-pessimistic point of view you would

have a more optimistic idea and this is where the danger is, which leads to not being aware of the reality of human nature. The main point is

to accept this pessimistic conception. The prince is a man like the others, he is selfish like the others, with the exception that he has the duty

to preserve the State. } The Prince

It was written when Machiavelli was exiled, and it is considered as a job application since at that time did not work in the Government as

before.. He was looking for a job, and dedicated this writing to the Lorenzo II De Medici.

It can be considered an invocation to a prince in order to liberate Italy. The Prince is a series of instructions which Machiavelli provides the

Prince in order to save and preserve the State, based on the concept that human nature is always the same, with the exception that if he

follows those instructions than he is more likely to have political success.

from “this opportunity...”

{Example from p. 161, Cohen’s: Exhortation to the Prince: : We are dealing with a pessimistic-realistic author,

quoting that people do live according to their interests and soon or later failure will arrive, we can’t have any hope in regard the persistence

of state and human reality. We have the invocation to a prince to liberate Italy, a country fragmented, which is always the battleground for

foreign invasion. When we say that Machiavelli is elaborating a new: it is important to find a good prince who is capable to liberate Italy and

the Italian people. Here you get the idea of how is important of a ruler to protect his State, he is proposing a new kind of ethics, the one of a

civic servant, a servant of his State, needed in order to liberate it and show the autonomy Italy strongly needs. We are entering a domain in

which politics is the most important thing and the new ethics of a prince who does whatever needs to be done in order to protect and preserve

his State. In this invocation we get how important for him is that the Prince which would follow this instructions will be able to liberate

can’t be

Italy: he thinks that it is not easy and based on a linear evolution, but if a prince does what he is suggesting to be done, at least Italy

“diabolic writer, ”who

would have a chance to be liberated. Below the surface of Machiavelli as a ask the prince to be an evil, we have an

author who asks the prince to do his job: focusing on reality, understanding how human beings are .

It is a superficial judgment to assume Machiavelli as evil, because he is of course a radical thinker because his being contrary to the simple

application of reality: he is trying to change the conception of reality by saying that politics is autonomous and it is a certain ethics following

its own rules and values.}

Machiavelli’s conception of State

Machiavelli is one of the few political authors considering the state in its modern sense: a political autonomous entity (used especially by

Hobbes- we say in fact that with Hobbes the modern State emerges).

There are mainly two forms of State: Republics or Principalities, and many forms of Principalities:

• hereditary;

• new:

1. completely new

2. they are limbs joined to hereditary States of the ruler who annexes them.

In The Prince he is talking to a prince who wants to establish a new principality and giving him instructions of how to deal with the reality of

a new principality it and how preserving it.

Being a realist thinker means knowing that Republics cannot be establish everywhere, since there are places where corruption is spread, so in

certain cases, as Italy and Florence in particular, the situation is so desperate that the Prince has better chance to govern it right more than

establishing a Republic.

{Example Chap. 6 on Knowing and following the examples of the Ancient: not in the sense of being able to do what they did but just for the

fact of having those instruments and ideas in order to try to reach their success.}

{Example Chap.6, Cohen’s book “it is necessary [...] persuasion”, on Having a good army and enhance the strength of the State not his (vs.

tyranny) : A prince should be able to have its own army, of being able to arm the citizens in order to be able to defend the State ( in his view

of the most important problem was that rulers tended to have troops who were not citizens, but paid soldiers who came from everywhere, but

in his mind having this kind of armies was not helpful). From the Romans he think that citizens have to defend their State, since they are

loyal, they have interests in defending their own state and will fight as long it is needed. Here we capture also the difference between a

prince and a tyrant: a tyrant is not able to arm people since they would kill him, while a good prince is capable of having an army composed

of his people because he would not have them against him (as the tyrant would). He is not saying that a prince should be loved and make

always his people happy, but who is capable of conducting political affairs in a way in which he would not have citizens against him. In

Machiavelli’s thinking, it is a crucial way in order to protect the State. }

{Example p.159 Cohen’s, needed to “maintain the State”:

Do whatever is the ends justify the means, not in any case but within the context of

whenever you have to save the State. “do

The Prince should be prepared whatever is needed but still in a specific context where rules apply. He is not saying whatever you want”,

but he is still writing within a context of morality, that there are in every society, but the Prince should not remain within those boundaries,

where the preservation of the State requires those boundaries to be crossed.

He does not say that morality does not value at all, but the point is that he should be ready to pretend to be a moral man and always be aware

of the fact that being like this matters, but in the same time he has to make sure that the state is preserved.

Morality is important if we remain within the private relationships, but not important in the preservation of the State, it is important finding

the right balance.

Within the context that there’re moral rules and values, the point here is that the prince should not remain within the boundaries imposed by

moral rules if this doesn’t permit him to preserve the State, but if he can save and preserve the state without crossing the boundaries, than

better so.

➔ Appearance is a key word: he has to seem to have the qualities the society requires him to have, but his goal is to set the state, no matter

the means.

➔ if morality becomes an obstacle it must be violated.

➔ It is not a matter of black or white, but it’s a matter of finding a balance.

➔ “men in general judge more by the eyes than by the hands, for everyone can see but very few have to feel, men are not able to

“

understand the inner being of people, if they are coherent with their appearance or not, so they have a superficial judgment }

{ Example, chap. 16: It is better to be considered mean than liberal: instead of trying of having a good reputation, it is better to being

understood as mean, so that everything good would be considered. It is useless and even dangerous for a Prince to try to be considered as a

because he risks to become “poor” but instead of trying to have a good reputation, it is better to be considered mean.

liberal prince, This is

not matter of theoretical instructions, while it means for Machiavelli being wise and smart. }

p157. Cohen’s “from this raises the question...”, A prince shouldn’t be looking

{Example It s better to be feared (but not hated) than loved:

for the love and recognition of the people, he should aim at being feared but not hated, because hate is dangerous and fear is useful.

On the one hand we continue to evidence the examples of the pessimistic conception of human nature that Machiavelli has, and on the other

the confidence in one human being that is the Prince, who his able to lead people.

The only limits that the Prince has are: acting for the preservation of the State and not for his own interest and his own hum