Changes

[[Image:Nicolo.jpg|left|250px]]

[[Image:Nicolo.jpg|left|250px]]

Was Machiavelli a Machiavellian? In other books he took an opposite view, emphasizing that when a state does not have a Prince (a king), the people must have civic virtue. In ''Discourses on Livy'' Machiavelli has been a major positive influence of modern conservative thought through his impact on [[civil humanism]].  He took the lead in defining what civic virtue means for a citizen of a republic--a state where the people are sovereign and not some king. For example a citizen has the duty to oppose corruption and when called upon fight for his country.  His ideas on [[republicanism]] strongly influenced British, French and American thought on the duties of the good citizen, and can be traced through American history from the days of [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[James Madison]] down to the 21st century.<ref>Paul A. Rahe, ed. ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy'' (2005); also Pocock (2003). </ref>

Was Machiavelli a Machiavellian? In other books he took an opposite view, emphasizing that when a state does not have a Prince (a king), the people must have civic virtue. In ''Discourses on Livy'' Machiavelli has been a major positive influence of modern conservative thought through his impact on [[civic humanism]].  He took the lead in defining what civic virtue means for a citizen of a republic--a state where the people are sovereign and not some king. For example a citizen has the duty to oppose corruption and when called upon fight for his country.  His ideas on [[republicanism]] strongly influenced British, French and American thought on the duties of the good citizen, and can be traced through American history from the days of [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[James Madison]] down to the 21st century.<ref>Paul A. Rahe, ed. ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy'' (2005); also Pocock (2003). </ref>

==Biography==

==Biography==

Machiavelli's father was a Florentine lawyer of moderate means, who came from an old and noble family. He supervised the superb humanistic education the boy received in the classics, literature, philosophy, and law.  

Machiavelli's father was a Florentine lawyer of moderate means, who came from an old and noble family. He supervised the superb humanistic education the boy received in the classics, literature, philosophy, and law.  

Hans Baron was the most influential scholar to study Machiavelli. Najemy (1996) examines Baron's ambivalent portrayal, arguing that Baron tended to see Machiavelli simultaneously as the cynical debunker and the faithful heir of civic humanism. By the mid-1950s, Baron had come to consider civic humanism and Florentine republicanism as early chapters of a much longer history of European political liberty, a story in which Machiavelli and his generation played a crucial role. This conclusion led Baron to modify his earlier negative view of Machiavelli. He tried to bring the Florentine theorist under the umbrella of civic humanism by underscoring the radical differences between The Prince and the Discourses and thus revealing the fundamentally republican character of the Discourses. However, Baron's inability to come to terms with Machiavelli's harsh criticism of early 15th-century commentators such as Leonardo Bruni ultimately prevented him from fully reconciling Machiavelli with civic humanism.

Hans Baron was the most influential scholar to study Machiavelli. Najemy (1996) examines Baron's ambivalent portrayal, arguing that Baron tended to see Machiavelli simultaneously as the cynical debunker and the faithful heir of civic humanism. By the mid-1950s, Baron had come to consider civic humanism and Florentine republicanism as early chapters of a much longer history of European political liberty, a story in which Machiavelli and his generation played a crucial role. This conclusion led Baron to modify his earlier negative view of Machiavelli. He tried to bring the Florentine theorist under the umbrella of civic humanism by underscoring the radical differences between The Prince and the Discourses and thus revealing the fundamentally republican character of the Discourses. However, Baron's inability to come to terms with Machiavelli's harsh criticism of early 15th-century commentators such as Leonardo Bruni ultimately prevented him from fully reconciling Machiavelli with civic humanism.

Pocock (1981) traces the Machiavellian belief in and emphasis upon Greco-Roman ideals of unspecialized civic virtue and liberty from 15th-century Florence through 17th-century England and Scotland to 18th-century America. Thinkers who shared these ideals tended to believe that the function of property was to maintain an individual's independence as a precondition of his virtue. Consequently, in the last two times and places mentioned above, they were disposed to attack the new commercial and financial regime that was beginning to develop. However, Paul Rahe (1992) takes issue with Pocock on the origins and argues Machiavelli's republicanism was not rooted in antiquity but was is entirely novel and modern.  Scholars have argued that [[James Madison followed Machiavelli's republicanism ehen he (and jefferson) set up the [[Democratic-Republican Party]] in the 1790s to oppose what they saw as the emerging  aristocracy that they feared [[Alexander Hamilton]] was creating with the [[Federalist Party]].<ref> Gary Rosen in Rahe, ed. ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521851874/ref=sib_dp_pop_toc?ie=UTF8&p=S008#reader-link p. 231 online]</ref>  Conservative historians likewise conclude that [[Thomas Jefferson]]'s republicanism was "deeply in debt" to Machiavelli, whom he praised.<ref> Rahe, ''Jefferson's machiavellian Political Science'' in Rahe, ed. ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521851874/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link p. 209 online] </ref>

Pocock (1981) traces the Machiavellian belief in and emphasis upon Greco-Roman ideals of unspecialized civic virtue and liberty from 15th-century Florence through 17th-century England and Scotland to 18th-century America. Thinkers who shared these ideals tended to believe that the function of property was to maintain an individual's independence as a precondition of his virtue. Consequently, in the last two times and places mentioned above, they were disposed to attack the new commercial and financial regime that was beginning to develop. However, Paul Rahe (1992) takes issue with Pocock on the origins and argues Machiavelli's republicanism was not rooted in antiquity but was is entirely novel and modern.  Scholars have argued that [[James Madison followed Machiavelli's republicanism when he (and Jefferson) set up the [[Democratic-Republican Party]] in the 1790s to oppose what they saw as the emerging  aristocracy that they feared [[Alexander Hamilton]] was creating with the [[Federalist Party]].<ref> Gary Rosen in Rahe, ed. ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521851874/ref=sib_dp_pop_toc?ie=UTF8&p=S008#reader-link p. 231 online]</ref>  Conservative historians likewise conclude that [[Thomas Jefferson]]'s republicanism was "deeply in debt" to Machiavelli, whom he praised.<ref> Rahe, ''Jefferson's Machiavellian Political Science'' in Rahe, ed. ''Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521851874/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link p. 209 online] </ref>

===Realist or evil?===

===Realist or evil?===

For four centuries scholars have debated whether Machiavelli was the theorist of evil, or just being realistic. ''The Prince'', made the word "Machiavellian" a byword for deceit, despotism and political manipulation.  Some historians argue Machiavelli had a secret (or very subtle) message that explains away the ugly implications of the plain text, saying that Machiavelli really favored virtue after all and was just trying to trick princes into policies that would lead to their overthrow, not their triumph.<ref>John Langton and Mary G. Deitz, "Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or Teaching the Prince" ''The American Political Science Review,'' Vol. 81, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), pp. 1277-1288 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1962589 at JSTOR]  </ref>   

For four centuries scholars have debated whether Machiavelli was the theorist of evil, or just being realistic. ''The Prince'', made the word "Machiavellian" a byword for deceit, despotism and political manipulation.  Some historians argue Machiavelli had a secret (or very subtle) message that explains away the ugly implications of the plain text, saying that Machiavelli really favored virtue after all and was just trying to trick princes into policies that would lead to their overthrow, not their triumph.<ref>John Langton and Mary G. Deitz, "Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or Teaching the Prince" ''The American Political Science Review,'' Vol. 81, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), pp. 1277-1288 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/1962589 at JSTOR]  </ref>