The Constant Prince: Private Interests and Public Goals in Machiavelli
1968; University of Utah Press; Volume: 21; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1177/106591296802100404
ISSN2325-8675
Autores Tópico(s)Seventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
ResumoERHAPS no other individual in history of political thought has endured as much analysis, acclaim, and abuse as Niccolo Machiavelli; it is a rare, if dubious honor to bave one's name enshrined in common language usage, even as a synonym for evil. The vast literature has variously characterized him as first of dispassionate political scientists, as patron saint of Italian nationalism, as a frustrated office-seeker courting favor, and even as one of better satirists of Renaissance.' Despite such divergent commentary, one major area of disagreement in interpreting remains attempt to explain differences in emphasis and content between Machiavelli's two major political writings, Prince and Discourses. In its oversimplified form problem is something like this: how do you square elitist if not totalitarian teachings of more famous Prince with obviously prescriptions of Discourses?2 We are told that real is to be found in more carefully written Discourses, and that Prince is but a primer for power-hungry politicos. We are conversely informed that Prince is pure Machiavelli and that Discourses, while interesting, are primarily a refinement and development of ideas presented in Prince. Further, Leo Strauss has instructed us that while subject matter of both books is same, Prince is addressed to actual princes, while Discourses is addressed to potential rulers, leading to significant differences in emphasis and content.3 Perhaps only common element in most accounts is that they agree that despite some unifying themes there are significant differences between these two works of Florentine. One of more common and persuasive attempts to explain these differences asserts that attempted a somewhat hazy analytical distinction between process of acquiring power (the major subject of Prince) and prerequisites for stability and longevity in an established state (the major theme of Discourses). Following this line of thought, hero of Prince, leader who unifies state as almost a by-product of his quest for personal power becomes an anachronism once he has performed his unifying task. If he were to continue to exist, maximizing his personal power all while, state would be thrown into chaos upon his demise for lack of a cohesive value structure independent of prince's personal existence. Thus, argument concludes, Machiavelli's concern turns to republican institutions and to recruitment of the masses as sustainers of state. In words of Sheldon Wolin, .. . true prince would be one who, in act of
Referência(s)