Methodological and interpretive aspects of the historical significance of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” in the context of the development of the theory of absolutism.

S. Saranov
{"title":"Methodological and interpretive aspects of the historical significance of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” in the context of the development of the theory of absolutism.","authors":"S. Saranov","doi":"10.21272/shaj.2022.i39.p.41","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the methodological and interpretive aspects of the historical significance of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” in the context of the development of the theory of absolutism. The author states that the analysis of “The Prince” at the methodological level should be carried out taking into account the complex political reality in Italy in the early modern period under the conditions of the political dependence of Italian rulers on foreign (European) states after 1494. When substantiating the key historical circumstances that determine the relationship between “The Prince” and the realities of the studied era, the concept of “hegemony” from the political theory of Antonio Gramsci, the assessments of the Swiss cultural historian Jacob Burkhardt, the philosopher and historian Benedetto Croce, and the British historian Nicholas Henschell are used. It is indicated that the critical view of the German-American political philosopher Leo Strauss deserves special attention. From the point of view of author, it is possible to assert that an appendix of general methodological principles of estimations Strauss of Маchiavelli’s is to productive in wide sense of development of social and political idea of early Moderne time. Criticism of Strauss of relatively key aspects of approach of Machiavell’s is not able to replace the fact of faithful estimation Strauss of essence of looks of флорентинского thinker. Machiavelli really accomplishes a break with classic tradition of political idea, in the light of what even the later interpretations of “Sovereign”, created already after Leo Strauss, are not able to shake loyalty of his estimations. So, interpretation of Quentin Skinner’s, one of founders of Cambridge “school of concepts”, is based on aspiration to step back from «textualization» interpretation of «The Prince» pushing off from the presence of “republican ideal”. The position of Quentin Skinner, wired for sound to them on the pages of his works, is not capable in turn, in our view, to undermine the basic moments of approach of Leo Strauss.","PeriodicalId":373935,"journal":{"name":"SUMY HISTORICAL AND ARCHIVAL JOURNAL","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SUMY HISTORICAL AND ARCHIVAL JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21272/shaj.2022.i39.p.41","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article examines the methodological and interpretive aspects of the historical significance of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” in the context of the development of the theory of absolutism. The author states that the analysis of “The Prince” at the methodological level should be carried out taking into account the complex political reality in Italy in the early modern period under the conditions of the political dependence of Italian rulers on foreign (European) states after 1494. When substantiating the key historical circumstances that determine the relationship between “The Prince” and the realities of the studied era, the concept of “hegemony” from the political theory of Antonio Gramsci, the assessments of the Swiss cultural historian Jacob Burkhardt, the philosopher and historian Benedetto Croce, and the British historian Nicholas Henschell are used. It is indicated that the critical view of the German-American political philosopher Leo Strauss deserves special attention. From the point of view of author, it is possible to assert that an appendix of general methodological principles of estimations Strauss of Маchiavelli’s is to productive in wide sense of development of social and political idea of early Moderne time. Criticism of Strauss of relatively key aspects of approach of Machiavell’s is not able to replace the fact of faithful estimation Strauss of essence of looks of флорентинского thinker. Machiavelli really accomplishes a break with classic tradition of political idea, in the light of what even the later interpretations of “Sovereign”, created already after Leo Strauss, are not able to shake loyalty of his estimations. So, interpretation of Quentin Skinner’s, one of founders of Cambridge “school of concepts”, is based on aspiration to step back from «textualization» interpretation of «The Prince» pushing off from the presence of “republican ideal”. The position of Quentin Skinner, wired for sound to them on the pages of his works, is not capable in turn, in our view, to undermine the basic moments of approach of Leo Strauss.
从方法论和解释学的角度分析马基雅维利《君主论》在专制主义理论发展背景下的历史意义。
本文在专制主义理论发展的背景下,探讨了马基雅维利《君主论》的方法论和解释性的历史意义。作者指出,在方法论层面上对《君主论》进行分析时,应考虑到意大利统治者在1494年后对外国(欧洲)国家的政治依赖的条件下,意大利近代早期复杂的政治现实。在证实决定《君主论》与所研究时代现实之间关系的关键历史环境时,安东尼奥·葛兰西(Antonio Gramsci)政治理论中的“霸权”概念、瑞士文化历史学家雅各布·伯克哈特(Jacob Burkhardt)、哲学家和历史学家贝内代托·克罗齐(Benedetto Croce)和英国历史学家尼古拉斯·亨舍尔(Nicholas Henschell)的评价被使用。指出德裔美国政治哲学家斯特劳斯的批判观点值得特别关注。从作者的角度来看,可以断言施特劳斯Маchiavelli的一般评估方法原则的附录在广泛意义上对近代早期社会和政治观念的发展是有益的。对施特劳斯对马基雅维利方法的相对关键方面的批评,并不能取代对флорентинского思想家的本质的忠实评价。马基雅维利确实完成了与经典政治观念传统的决裂,即使是后来对“君主”的解释,在列奥施特劳斯之后创造的,也无法动摇他的估计的忠诚。因此,对剑桥“概念学派”创始人之一的昆汀·斯金纳的解释,是基于对《君主论》的“文本化”解释的退后,从而摆脱“共和理想”的存在的渴望。在我们看来,昆汀·斯金纳(Quentin Skinner)的立场,在他的作品中为他们提供了声音,而反过来又不能破坏利奥·施特劳斯(Leo Strauss)的基本方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信