Discussion History Creator / NiccoloMachiavelli

\\\"For to him [Spinoza] Machiavelli was not only a very ingenious and penetrating but also a very cunning writer. He looked up on him as a master of craftiness. This judgment is, however, not in keeping with the historical fats. If Machiavellism means deception or hypocrisy Machiavelli was no Machiavellian. He was never a hypocrite. When reading his familiar letters we are suprised to find a Machiavelli widely different from out conventional conceptions and prejudices; a man who speaks frankly, open-mindedly and with a certain ingenuousness\\\" (1st edition, p120)

\\\"In his \\\'\\\'Letters for the Advancement of Humanity\\\'\\\' Herder declared that it was a mistake to regard Machiavelli\\\'s \\\'\\\'Prince\\\'\\\' either as a satire or as pernicious book on politics or as a hybrid of these two things... The mistake of his book was due to the fact that nobody saw the book in its right environment... It is a political masterpiece written for the contemporaries of Machiavelli.\\\" (Ibid, p121)

\\\"To put it in the words of Spinoza he [Machiavelli] speaks of these things [political action] as if they were lines, planes or solids. He did not attack the principles of morality; but he could find no use for these principles when engrossed in problems of political life.\\\" (Ibid, p143)

\\\"\\\'\\\'The Prince\\\'\\\' is neither a moral nor an immoral book: it is simply a technical book. In a technical book we do not seek for rules of ethical conduct, of good and evil.\\\" (Ibid, p153)

\\\"Machiavelli studied political actions in the same way as a chemist studies chemical reactions\\\". (Ibid, p154)

Here are references from other sources:

\\\"We are much beholden to Machiavelli and other writers of that class who openly and unfeignedly declare or describe what men do, and not what they ought to do\\\" (Bacon, \\\'\\\'De augmentis scientiarum\\\'\\\', Lib. VII, cap. II, sec. 10)

\\\"It is most unreasonable to treat the development of an idea which was formed by observing the conditions of Italy as a disinterested summary of moral and political principles fit for all conditions and therefore no condition. One has to read the Prince taking into consideration the history of the centuries preceding Machiavelli and the contemporary history of Italy.\\\" (Hegel, \\\'\\\'Constitution of Germany\\\'\\\')

\\\"The \\\'\\\'Prince\\\'\\\' was never meant except for Italians, and Italians too of a given period; indeed, we may go further, and ask whether it was ever intended even for all Italians.\\\" (Niccolo Machiavelli, \\\'\\\'Il Principe\\\'\\\', ed. L. Arthur Burd (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891), p14)

I know that this is not exactly a wide sample and the extensive use of Cassirer is due to the fact that I am currently reading \\\'\\\'The Myth of the State\\\'\\\', so it\\\'s examples are most recent in my mind. I\\\'ll look to see if I can find a copy of Strauss\\\'s or Meinecke\\\'s works on Machiavellism or other, more recent, academic articles.

\\\"For to him [Spinoza] Machiavelli was not only a very ingenious and penetrating but also a very cunning writer. He looked up on him as a master of craftiness. This judgment is, however, not in keeping with the historical fats. If Machiavellism means deception or hypocrisy Machiavelli was no Machiavellian. He was never a hypocrite. When reading his familiar letters we are suprised to find a Machiavelli widely different from out conventional conceptions and prejudices; a man who speaks frankly, open-mindedly and with a certain ingenuousness\\\" (1st edition, p120)

\\\"In his \\\'\\\'Letters for the Advancement of Humanity\\\'\\\' Herder declared that it was a mistake to regard Machiavelli\\\'s \\\'\\\'Prince\\\'\\\' either as a satire or as pernicious book on politics or as a hybrid of these two things... The mistake of his book was due to the fact that nobody saw the book in its right environment... It is a political masterpiece written for the contemporaries of Machiavelli.\\\" (Ibid, p121)

\\\"To put it in the words of Spinoza he [Machiavelli] speaks of these things [political action] as if they were lines, planes or solids. He did not attack the principles of morality; but he could find no use for these principles when engrossed in problems of political life.\\\" (Ibid, p143)

\\\"\\\'\\\'The Prince\\\'\\\' is neither a moral nor an immoral book: it is simply a technical book. In a technical book we do not seek for rules of ethical conduct, of good and evil.\\\" (Ibid, p153)

\\\"Machiavelli studied political actions in the same way as a chemist studies chemical reactions\\\". (Ibid, p154)

Here are references from other sources:
\\\"We are much beholden to Machiavelli and other writers of that class who openly and unfeignedly declare or describe what men do, and not what they ought to do\\\" (Bacon, \\\'\\\'De augmentis scientiarum\\\'\\\', Lib. VII, cap. II, sec. 10)

\\\"It is most unreasonable to treat the development of an idea which was formed by observing the conditions of Italy as a disinterested summary of moral and political principles fit for all conditions and therefore no condition. One has to read the Prince taking into consideration the history of the centuries preceding Machiavelli and the contemporary history of Italy.\\\" (Hegel, \\\'\\\'Constitution of Germany\\\'\\\')

\\\"The \\\'\\\'Prince\\\'\\\' was never meant except for Italians, and Italians too of a given period; indeed, we may go further, and ask whether it was ever intended even for all Italians.\\\" (Niccolo Machiavelli, \\\'\\\'Il Principe\\\'\\\', ed. L. Arthur Burd (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891), p14)

I know that this is not exactly a wide sample and the extensive use of Cassirer is due to the fact that I am currently reading \\\'\\\'The Myth of the State\\\'\\\', so it\\\'s examples are most recent in my mind. I\\\'ll look to see if I can find a copy of Strauss\\\'s or Meinecke\\\'s works on Machiavellism or other, more recent, academic articles.