Changes

Machiavelli studied the way people lived and aimed to inform leaders how they should rule and even how they themselves should live. To an extent he admits that the old tradition was true - men are obliged to live virtuously as according to [[Aristotle]]s [[Virtue Ethics]] principle. However, he denies that living virtuously necessarily leads to happiness. Machiavelli viewed misery as ''one of the vices that enables a prince to rule'' <ref>Leo Strauss, Joseph Cropsey, ''History of Political Philosophy'' (Chicago, 1987) p. 300</ref> Machiavelli states boldly in The Prince, ''The answer is, of course, 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.'' <ref>Niccolò Machiavelli, ''The Prince'', p. 60</ref> In much of Machiavelli's work, it seems that the ruler must adopt unsavory policies for the sake of the continuance of his regime.

Machiavelli studied the way people lived and aimed to inform leaders how they should rule and even how they themselves should live. To an extent he admits that the old tradition was true - men are obliged to live virtuously as according to [[Aristotle]]s [[Virtue Ethics]] principle. However, he denies that living virtuously necessarily leads to happiness. Machiavelli viewed misery as ''one of the vices that enables a prince to rule'' <ref>Leo Strauss, Joseph Cropsey, ''History of Political Philosophy'' (Chicago, 1987) p. 300</ref> Machiavelli states boldly in The Prince, ''The answer is, of course, 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.'' <ref>Niccolò Machiavelli, ''The Prince'', p. 60</ref> In much of Machiavelli's work, it seems that the ruler must adopt unsavory policies for the sake of the continuance of his regime.

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 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>

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>