Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) is the most prominent representative of all prose, and partly poetic, genres in the classical period of Italian literature. On his tomb in the Florentine church of Santa Croce is the inscription: “There is no praise worthy of him.” This opinion of him is explained by his fiery and selfless patriotism. The repulsive concepts he expounds in his treatise “ Sovereign“become understandable if we recall the then state of Italy, tormented by civil strife and foreign invasions. The Emperor and the Pope, the Germans, the French, the Spaniards, the Swiss devastated Italy; wars began treacherously, peace treaties were concluded only to be broken. There was not a single sovereign who kept his promises; conscientiousness in political affairs did not exist. Under these impressions, Machiavelli's political principles were developed. It is not surprising that they are alien to all the rules of honesty. Machiavelli sincerely expressed what he thought. His “Sovereign” is an exposition of the system that was then followed by all the governments fighting among themselves in Italy.

Portrait of Niccolo Machiavelli. Artist Santi di Tito, second half of the 16th century

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

State educational institution

higher vocational education

Irkutsk State pedagogical university

ABSTRACT

PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS

NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI

Completed:

graduate student of the department world history

Gavrikov Alexey Alexandrovich

Scientific supervisor:

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Kuzmin Yu.V.

Irkutsk 2005

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………3

Chapter 1. Biographical sketch ………………………………………..6

Chapter 2. Morality and ethics……………………………………..9

Chapter 3. Man………………………………………………………..12

Chapter 4. State……………………………………………………………...15

Chapter 5. Religion……………………………………………………..19

Russian history according to Machiavelli (instead of conclusion)………….21

Literature……………………………………………………………..22

Introduction

“To this day, when a foreigner wants to pay a compliment to Italy, he calls it the homeland of Dante and Savonarola, but is silent about Machiavelli,” one of the researchers of the life and work of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) wrote with regret.

Indeed, there are not many figures in world history and philosophy whose assessments would be so contradictory. The “silence” of Machiavelli’s name is not at all due to the fact that everyone has an unambiguously negative attitude towards him. It’s just that when “giving a compliment to Italy”, people are guided by the principle: “if in doubt, it’s better to remain silent.”

Machiavelli's work has been analyzed and interpreted by many researchers for five centuries now. different generations, however, there is still no consensus about it. Thus, “we encounter his condemnation among such major thinkers of that time [the Renaissance. – A.A.G.], like Jean Bodin and Tommaso Campanella.” Along with this, a little later, “Hegel was one of the first” to speak “about the inconsistency of Machiavelli’s criticism.” “In general, both representatives of German historicism and historians of the liberal Catholic trend in Italy (Caitu, Balbo, Gioberti), who dominated in the 19th century, wavered between condemning the political “immoralism” of Machiavelli ... and justifying him as a patriot and moral personality. A brilliant exception to this rule was De Sanctis...” It was his words that were quoted at the beginning of this work. He viewed Machiavelli's work as a product of the era in which the outstanding thinker happened to live. The interpretation of the ideas of a politician, philosopher and writer, such as N. Machiavelli, does not seem possible in isolation from the historical reality of which he was a contemporary. This is what De Sanctis first said.

Among the advantages of Machiavelli's works, many researchers note their connection with practice and life experience. He did not build ideal models of the state (like, for example, Plato in his time), but only proposed practical advice to restore order in existing states. De Sanctis explains it simply: “There is no imagination, but there is abundance of intelligence.” However, such an interpretation is not entirely fair. It’s just that Machiavelli was not a theorist - his tasks did not include anything invent. Signing his “gift” (the treatise “The Prince”) to Lorezo dei Medici, he noted the following: “I... have not found among what I own anything more expensive and more valuable than my knowledge regarding the deeds of great people, acquired by me over many years of experience in present affairs and constant study of past affairs.”

The goals that the thinker set for himself when starting to create “The Prince” and “Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy” are also of interest. There is also no single point of view on this matter yet. “It is no coincidence,” according to the modern researcher M. Yusim, “Machiavelli’s main political works - “The Prince” and “Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy” - were written by him in the initial period of exile (1513-1516), when all the author’s thoughts were addressed to current politics and when he harbored hopes of soon returning to political activity." The authors of the Krugosvet electronic encyclopedia believe otherwise: “ Sovereign– the work of a dogmatist, not an empiricist; still less is it the work of a man applying for office (as was often believed). This is not a cold appeal to despotism, but a book imbued with high feeling (despite the rationality of the presentation), indignation and passion."

“It is difficult to evaluate the works of Machiavelli, primarily because of the complexity of his personality and the ambiguity of his ideas, which still give rise to the most contradictory interpretations. Before us is an intellectually gifted person, an unusually insightful observer, possessed of rare intuition. He was capable of deep feeling and devotion, exceptionally honest and hardworking, and his writings reveal a love for the joys of life and a lively sense of humor, however, usually bitter. And yet the name Machiavelli is often used as a synonym for betrayal, deceit and political immorality." The latter has a lot to do with two things. In modern times, Machiavelli’s reputation “rested on a poor knowledge of his books themselves,” and today it is too closely associated with personalities of a whole series politicians, who, loudly pronouncing the name of the outstanding thinker, “tailored his ideas to suit themselves.” These were Mussolini, Stalin and a number of others.

Chapter 1. Biographical sketch

One of the greatest thinkers of the Renaissance, Machiavelli Niccolo di Bernardo, was born on May 3, 1469 in Florence. He was the second son in the family of a notary. “Machiavelli’s parents, although they belonged to an ancient Tuscan family, were people of very modest means.” The boy grew up in the atmosphere of the "golden age" of Florence under the regime of Lorenzo de' Medici. Little is known about his childhood.

“... the family’s income was very modest and did not allow young Niccolo to receive a university education. But having grown up among the Florentine humanist intelligentsia, he studied Latin well enough to read ancient authors fluently. From a young age, a primary interest in politics, modern political life determined the circle of his reading - these are, first of all, the works of historians of classical antiquity, perceived ... as material for political analysis..." . "From his writings it is clear that he was an astute observer political events of his time; The most significant of them was the invasion of Italy in 1494 by Charles VIII of France, the expulsion of the Medici family from Florence and the establishment of a republic, initially under the control of Girolamo Savonarola.

“In 1498, Machiavelli was hired as a secretary in the second chancellery, the College of Ten and the magistracy of the Signoria - posts to which he was elected with constant success until 1512. Machiavelli devoted himself entirely to ... service. In 1506, he added to his many responsibilities the work of organizing the Florentine militia (Ordinanza) and the Council of Nine, which controlled its activities, established, to a large extent, at his insistence.”

“Machiavelli was close to the head of the republic, the great Gonfaloniere of Florence, Piero Soderini, and although he had no power to negotiate or make decisions, the missions he was entrusted with were often delicate and very important. Among them, embassies to several royal courts should be noted. In 1500, Machiavelli arrived at the court of King Louis XII of France to discuss the terms of assistance in continuing the war with rebellious Pisa, which had fallen away from Florence. Twice he was at the court of Cesare Borgia, in Urbino and Imola (1502), to stay informed of the actions of the Duke of Romagna, whose increased power worried the Florentines. In Rome in 1503 he observed the election of a new pope (Julius II), and, while at the court of the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I in 1507, he discussed the size of the Florentine tribute. He actively participated in many other events of that time."

During this period of his life, Machiavelli gained experience and knowledge political institutions and human psychology on which his writings are based. “In his reports and letters of that time one can find most of the ideas that he subsequently developed and to which he gave a more refined form.” It should be noted that the foreign policy situation that developed around Florence at that time did not evoke rosy impressions in the young diplomat. He is characterized by a feeling of deep bitterness for his country (Italy in general and Florence in particular): “the freedom and independence of the homeland is what worried Machiavelli.”

“His own career suffered in 1512 when Florence was defeated by Holy League, formed by Julius II against the French in alliance with Spain. The Medici returned to power and Machiavelli was forced to leave government service. He was followed, imprisoned on charges of plotting against the Medici in 1513, and tortured with rope. In the end, Machiavelli retired to the modest estate of Albergaccio, inherited from his father, in Percussina near San Casciano on the way to Rome.” In exile, Niccolò Machiavelli was mainly “engaged in literary creativity.” “Machiavelli wrote works of considerable literary and historical value during this period. The main masterpiece - Sovereign(Il Principe), a brilliant and widely known treatise, written mainly in 1513 (published posthumously in 1532). The author originally titled the book About the principalities(De Principatibus) and dedicated it to Giuliano Medici, brother of Leo X, but in 1516 he died, and the dedication was addressed to Lorenzo Medici (1492–1519). Machiavelli's historical work Discourses on the First Decade of Tito Livio (Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio) was written in the period 1513–1517. Other works include The Art of War (Dell'arte della guerra, 1521, written in 1519–1520), History of Florence (Istorie fiorentine, written in 1520–1525) ... He also wrote poetic works. Although there are disputes about the personality of Machiavelli and his motives continue to this day, he is certainly one of the greatest Italian writers."

Some time later (after the death of Pope Julius II), the conditions of exile were relaxed - Machiavelli was allowed to visit friends in the city and take part in the literary life of Florence. However, he was not allowed to participate in political activities. “Only in 1526 was he called upon to organize the defense of Florence, he tried to unite the efforts of the Italian states and experienced the complete collapse of his last hopes. The republic, restored after the new expulsion of the Medici, refuses the services of its former secretary, and 10 days after the fatal decision of the Great Council, Niccolo Machiavelli dies (June 21, 1527).”

Chapter 2. Morals and ethics

“Machiavelli is credited with the formula “the end justifies the means,” into which he by no means invested the broad meaning that matured in the twentieth century. Machiavelli wrote in his “The Prince” that “great things were achieved only by those who did not try to restrain given word and knew how to deceive whoever he needed.” He explains this by saying that the political situation can change and needs to be used at every at the moment those methods and techniques that are suitable right now. If you shackle yourself with firm promises, this will lead to defeat.” It is difficult to disagree with such conclusions after reading the main works of an outstanding thinker. Politics, unfortunately, is far from clean. However, this is not Machiavelli's fault. At the same time, a certain amount of “ammoralism” characteristic of the sovereign does not at all imply the right to terror for the sake of a “bright future.” Not keeping your word and exterminating your subjects for ideological reasons are completely different things. Thus, Machiavelli is not talking about an unprincipled tyrant, as the “sovereign” is sometimes thought of as, but about wise politician, to whom nothing human is alien. At the same time, the supreme goal that justifies (not just any!) means for the ruler should be the state interest - order and tranquility in the country.

Machiavelli gives his “sovereign” a whole series of advice regarding moral behavior. Here is one of them: “... you must appear in the eyes of people as compassionate, true to your word, merciful, sincere, pious - and be so in reality, but internally you must remain ready to show the opposite qualities, if this turns out to be necessary.” Note that the use of emergency measures when necessary does not mean that Machiavelli gives the go-ahead for the use of large-scale terror.

Discussing the cruelty and mercy inherent in a ruler, Machiavelli says the following: “Having carried out several reprisals, he will show more mercy than those who, out of excess, indulge disorder.” At the same time, the thinker clearly distinguishes between “good” and “bad” cruelty: “I think the point is that cruelty and cruelty are different. Cruelty is used well in those cases - if it is allowed to call bad things good - when it is shown immediately and for reasons of safety, does not persist in it and, if possible, turns it to the benefit of the subjects; and is poorly applied in cases where at first reprisals are committed rarely, but over time they become more frequent, rather than becoming less frequent.”

“...the very emergence human society, state, morality is explained in political philosophy Machiavelli in a natural way" historical development. "From public life Machiavelli deduces people from the need for self-defense from the hostile forces of nature and from each other not only power, but also morality, and the very concept of good is determined by the humanistic criterion of “benefit.” In general, we can add that Machiavelli views morality as a means: “Moral considerations in Machiavelli are always subordinated to the goals of politics.”

This is how the thinker describes the genesis of ideas about good and evil, about justice: “In the beginning... people lived separately for some time, like wild animals. Then, when the human race multiplied, people began to unite and, in order to better protect themselves, began to choose the strongest and bravest from their midst, make them their leaders and obey them. From this was born the understanding of good and kind in contrast to bad and evil. The sight of a man harming his benefactor aroused anger and compassion in people. They scolded the ungrateful and praised those who were grateful. Then, realizing that they themselves could be subject to the same insults, and in order to avoid such evil, they came to create laws and establish punishments for their violators. This is how the understanding of justice arose."

Turning to morality, it should be noted that Machiavelli linked it very closely with the law. “Let’s take,” he wrote, “a city that is completely depraved... there are no laws or orders in it that can curb the general depravity. For just as good morals, in order to be preserved, need laws, in the same way laws, in order to be observed, need good morals." This means that no laws will gain full force until citizens understand how important their good behavior is to the state.

From the point of view of De Sanctis, which is difficult to argue against, “Machiavelli is for high morality: he praises generosity, mercy, piety, sincerity and other virtues, but on the condition that they will benefit the homeland; if they turn out to be not a help, but an obstacle on her path, he sweeps them aside.”

It is interesting that on the basis of the misinterpreted works of Machiavelli, his misunderstood ideas, the concept of “Machiavellianism” was born in philosophy and political science. “Machiavellianism,” wrote N.A. Berdyaev, “is not some special direction in the politics of the Renaissance, but there is the essence of politics, which was recognized as autonomous and free from moral restrictions.” Thus, Machiavelli, so to speak, became a victim of circumstances. Simply, the politicians who interpreted his ideas in different times, has always had its own idea of ​​morality, ethics, goals and means. They only needed his name to refer to him.

Chapter 3. Man

“... what... is man by nature? Machiavelli does not ask such a question, but the usual sad remarks in his mouth about people in general... suggest the answer - “man is evil by nature.” This idea appears every now and then in various works of the philosopher. “... people are inclined more towards evil than towards good...” – Machiavelli notes, among other things, in “discussions about the first decade of Titus Livy.” However, in the same work he writes: “But people choose certain middle paths, which are the most destructive; for they do not know how to be either completely bad or completely good, as will be shown by example in the next chapter.” The next chapter of the work is called “People only in the rarest cases know how to be completely bad or completely good.” It is difficult not to agree with the idea that in every person there is a little (and in some more than enough) evil. At the same time, absolute people (“completely bad” and “completely good”) also do not exist. In this regard, an objective approach to understanding human nature, Machiavelli was a representative of his time - the era of humanism.

Machiavelli examines in much more detail the question of how much a person’s fate depends on himself. The thinker sees a real person worthy of glory as an active “creator” (or rather “co-creator”) of his destiny: “God does not fulfill everything himself, so as not to deprive us of free will and the part of glory due to us.” “Having recognized the role of objective circumstances beyond human control in the course of historical events, Machiavelli is trying to determine not the “share”, not the “percentage” depending on human activity, but the conditions of the game. These conditions consist in, firstly, carefully and deeply studying these circumstances, i.e. to strive for objective... knowledge of the patterns in the game of hostile political forces, and, secondly, to oppose the inexorable “course” of fate not only with the use of this knowledge, but also with one’s own will, energy, strength, what Machiavelli defines with the concept of virtu - only conditionally and the very imprecisely translated word “valor.” Machiavellian “virtu” is... strength and ability to act, free from moral and religious assessments, a combination of activity, will, energy, desire for success, to achieve a set goal.” It is noteworthy that Machiavelli attributes the human virtues described above primarily to the sovereign as the most “positive” of people. From his point of view, power was the lot of the chosen, the best.

It is no secret that Machiavelli preferred the ancient paganism of the Romans and Greeks over Christianity. “But the main thing is that the religion of the ancients,” from his point of view, fostered activity; it saw the highest good “in the greatness of the soul, in the strength of the body and in everything that makes a person powerful.”

The small work “The Life of Castruccio Castracani from Lucca” quite clearly illustrates Machiavelli’s ideas about man as the creator of his own destiny. In the very first lines, the author notes: “It will seem... surprising to anyone who thinks about it, that all or most of those who performed the greatest deeds in this world and among all their contemporaries achieved a high position, had a low and dark origin and birth or but they did not suffer all sorts of blows from fate.” Castruccio's fate presents itself a clear example how a person of “low origin”, showing diligence in his studies and wisely using the circumstances that developed around him at different times, was able to “come out into the people.” At the same time, not without intent, calling fortune “the enemy of his glory,” Machiavelli paints a picture of Castruccio’s death: “But fortune, the enemy of his glory, took his life away from him when it was just necessary to give it to him, and interrupted the execution of his plans , which he had decided to implement a long time before. Only one death could prevent him from doing this.” Castruccio did not die in battle with the enemy - in bed from a cold. Here Machiavelli leads the reader to the idea that, although fate largely depends on the person himself, it is still God who “disposes” (“fortune”, “destiny”, according to Machiavelli).

Chapter 4. State

Throughout the world, Machiavelli is known precisely as a thinker who dealt with problems government structure. In his works he paid a lot of attention to political and political science problems.

“At the heart of all Machiavelli’s works is the dream of a strong state, not necessarily republican, but based on the support of the people and capable of resisting foreign invasion.” Machiavelli is often accused of preaching tyranny and despotism in his works. “It was recognized that the “Prince” [“Sovereign”. – A.A.G.] is a code of tyranny, based on the sinister principle “the end justifies the means”, “winners are not judged.” And they called this doctrine Machiavellianism." In fact, this treatise is far from the only book of the philosopher. In the Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius, created a little later, we do not find even a hint of Machiavelli’s sympathy for tyrants and despots - on the contrary, exaltation of the republican system. Machiavelli's ideal in this regard was the Roman Republic.

Discussing forms of government, the thinker writes: “... I note that some authors... argued that there are three types of government, which they call: Autocracy, Aristocracy and People's Government... Other authors, and, in the opinion of many, wiser ones, believe that there are six forms of government - three very bad and three good in themselves, but easily distorted and thereby becoming destructive. Good shape boards - the essence of the three above; the bad ones are the other three, dependent on the first three and so related to them that they easily transform into each other: Autocracy easily becomes tyrannical, aristocracies easily become oligarchies, Popular government easily turns into unbridledness.” Thus, the thinker points to the relativity of the classification of forms of political government, to the fact that, depending on the situation, they can easily replace each other. In this case, regression occurs more often than progress. “So,” writes the author of the “Discourses,” “I assert that all the named forms are destructive: three good ones because of their short duration, and three bad ones because of their malignancy. Therefore, knowing about this shortcoming of theirs, wise legislators avoided each of them separately and chose one in which they would be mixed, considering such a form of government more durable and stable, for, coexisting simultaneously in the same city, Autocracy, Optimates and People's Government look at each other."

Machiavelli sees the guarantee of well-being in the state in the constancy of laws: “A truly happy republic can be called where a person appears so wise that the laws he gives are so orderly that, obeying them, the republic can, without feeling the need to change them, live peacefully and safe." This is exactly what the Spartan and Roman republics were, from Machiavelli’s point of view.

As for “The Prince,” the ideas preached in it cannot be considered in isolation from the reality in which the author lived. “... the State proposes emergency measures in an emergency situation; however, Machiavelli’s aversion to half-measures, as well as his desire for effective presentation of ideas, also played a role; its contrasts lead to bold and unexpected generalizations.” According to Machiavelli, the dictatorship of one ruler is the most suitable shape government during a crisis in the state. At the same time, it must end with the crisis. “... he was convinced that one person should streamline the state, and everyone should govern it.”

“So, the “goal” that justifies, according to Machiavelli, any means, is the “common good” - this is a national state that meets broadly understood public (national) interests.” “The state in its depiction is not content with being independent; it deprives everything and everyone of independence.” It was already said earlier that Machiavelli thought of politics separately from morality and religion. Now it should be pointed out that the state was for the thinker the absolute to which (or rather to whose interests) everything was subordinated.

If we remember the time when Machiavelli lived and worked, it is not difficult to imagine how he longed to see his Florence (and Italy in general) free from “barbarians” as an independent state, “and he saw salvation only in a strong central government capable of protecting the country from foreign invasion." It seems that there is nothing reprehensible in the call of a patriotic thinker to achieve the specified “goal” by any “means.”

It is worth noting two more points: who should be entrusted with the protection of the state and who should the ruler rely on in his political activities. Machiavelli answers these questions unequivocally. “... wise sovereigns,” according to the thinker, “always preferred to deal with their own army,” relying neither on mercenary troops (who can escape from the battlefield) nor on allied ones (who can turn their weapons against you). As historical experience accumulated before and after Machiavelli has shown, these judgments are quite fair.

In his political activities, the sovereign can choose support for himself in the person of either the nobility or the people. According to Machiavelli, the second is preferable. “Moreover, nothing can be done with a hostile people, for they are numerous, but with the nobility, nothing can be done, for they are few in number.” “And I will also add,” the author immediately writes, “that the sovereign is not free to choose the people, but is free to choose the nobility, for his right is to punish and pardon, to bring him closer or to subject him to disgrace.”

Chapter 5. Religion

“Machiavelli views religion from a purely earthly, practical-political position. He has no talk of any divine origin. He views religions as phenomena of social life; they are subject to the laws of origin, rise and death; like everything else in people’s lives, they are at the mercy of necessity.”

Machiavelli is characterized by an attitude towards religion precisely as a “means” justified by a higher goal – “state interest”. “Sovereigns or republics who wish to remain uncorrupted must first of all protect the rites of their religion from corruption and constantly maintain reverence for them, for there can be no more obvious sign the death of the country, rather than a clear disregard for the divine cult." “The place of religion in Machiavelli’s teaching is determined by its role in resolving the conflict that is at the center of this teaching - the conflict of truth and morality, reason and morality.”

It should be noted that Machiavelli himself was probably still a believer. However, he did not welcome the policy of the papal church. Moreover, he opposed the intervention of the Roman Catholic Church in secular affairs, for this, in his opinion, did not and could not lead to good. In the “Discourses,” in particular, the following is said: “So, we Italians owe it to the Church and the priests, first of all, that we were left without religion and mired in evil.

But we also owe them much more, and this is the second reason for our destruction. The Church has kept and is keeping our country fragmented."

At the same time, to the most Christian religion(in its original version) he had a very positive attitude, while condemning its division into Orthodoxy and Catholicism. This was dictated by two circumstances. Firstly, Christianity originated in the very ancient era that Machiavelli revered so much. Secondly, being a monotheistic religion, it could contribute to the strengthening of central power and the unity of Italy. “If the princes of a Christian republic,” the philosopher argues, “had preserved religion in accordance with the prescriptions established by its founder, then Christian states and republics would have been much more complete and much happier than they turned out to be in our time.” Here one can see serious reasons to disagree with researcher A.Kh. Gorfunkel, who stated the following: “The ethical principles of Christianity he [Machiavelli. – A.A.G.] considers practically impossible, and therefore unsuitable for strengthening the state, to which, according to the teachings of Machiavelli, the positive function of religion should be reduced.”

Despite the fact that in religion Machiavelli emphasized only the external side, ritualism, he still believed that “the state cannot live without religion.” “In a certain sense, Machiavelli can be considered the herald of a turn from religious to ideological thinking.”

It is interesting that Machiavelli himself, as a man of his time, was not an atheist. He believed in God, but thought of him in his own way. For this he was condemned by both Catholics and Protestants. “Machiavelli’s God is the intellect, imparting reason to the forces of the world and regulating them; the result is science." Sharing in many ways the ideas of the philosophers of the Renaissance, Machiavelli in a sense anticipated the thinkers of the Enlightenment. He believed in man and that everything in the world is subject to reasonable laws. At the same time, in his philosophy there is also a belief in fate, as an imprint of the era - Machiavelli could not completely surrender the world to the power of man and abandon faith in the supernatural.

Russian history according to Machiavelli

(Instead of conclusion)

It is difficult to call Machiavelli a prophet. Yes, he never applied for this role. However, reading him today, one cannot help but be surprised at how many of the fragments of his works remind us of the plots of our native history. Once again we have to be convinced that history teaches something that teaches nothing.

For example, in “The Prince” Machiavelli repeatedly points out the unreliability of the allied troops: “Mercenary and allied troops are useless and dangerous, the power that relies on a mercenary army will never be strong or durable...”

One of the first theorists new era was a great Florentine Niccolo di Bernardo Machiavelli(1469-1527). He came from an impoverished noble family of a notary. A great connoisseur of ancient literature, diplomat and politician (during the Republic, he was Chancellor-Secretary of the Council of Ten in the Great Council of Florence for more than 14 years), after the Medici restoration (1512), he was arrested and exiled to his estate, where he wrote most of his works.

Machiavelli wrote works that were famous in Europe after his death - “The Prince”, “Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy”, “History of Florence”, as well as a number of works of art. He is trying to answer the questions that worried him: what is the reason for the prosperity of some states and the decline of others? Are there patterns in the political vicissitudes of history? How much does the sovereign’s valor determine the success of a business, and how much does it depend on the tricks of fate? Why did civilized Greece fall under

the power of Philip of Macedon, and Byzantium - under the Turkish yoke? How to protect Italy from a similar fate?

Let us highlight the most significant aspects of Machiavelli’s political teaching.

First of all, he sharply opposes theological ideas about the state and politics. Perhaps for the first time since Aristotle, Machiavelli builds his reasoning based on historicalwhose experience, the experience of states of the ancient world, policy analysiscontemporary governments. He argues that studying the past makes it possible to foresee the future and determine means and methods of action that are useful in the present. “To know what is going to happen, it is enough to trace what happened... This happens because,” the thinker explained, “that all human affairs are done by people who have had and will always have the same passions, and therefore they must inevitably give same results." The main arguments for him are the experience of history, the same human nature at all times, in all states and among all peoples.

Most common cause human actions, from which their relationships, institutions, history are formed, is for Machiavelli interest. In order to manage people, in his opinion, one must know the reasons for their actions, their interests and aspirations. People are restless, ambitious, and never satisfied with their lot. That's why in politics you should always count onthe worst, not the good and ideal.

What is the power of fate over human affairs? Machiavelli is against the assertion that everything in the world is ruled by fate and God: “Fate controls only half of all our affairs, the other half, or so, it leaves to the people themselves.” Fate(fortuna) is omnipotent where there is no obstacle to it valor, will(virtu).

Historical necessity, on the one hand, and the will of the people, on the other, lead to formation of states. Before Machiavelli, the state was interpreted as a civil society (civitas) or a republic, as in Cicero, and in the Middle Ages - a monarchy, a kingdom, a principality. Machiavelli introduces a new term for the state - Stato, as a politically organized society, a certain way of organizing power, its institutions, the presence of justice and law. This term has taken root in science and has become commonly used. State, fr. - E"tat).The purpose of the state and the basisits strength Machiavelli believed personal security And unshakableease of ownership. The most dangerous thing for a ruler is to encroach on the property of his subjects - this inevitably gives rise to hatred. He called the security of the individual and the inviolability of property the blessings of freedom.

The source of the development of the state is the struggle of different political forces, mainly the aristocracy and the people. It leads to one way or another form of government. According to Machiavelli, there are different

The difference between the forms of the state is determined by the structure, organization of power, and the quantitative and qualitative composition of the elements of political communication. The form of government is influenced by economic, geographic, ethnic, military, and demographic factors. Closely related to the political forms of the state, according to Machiavelli, are the moral and psychological state of society and the morality of the rulers. Geniuses and senile people, leaders and mediocrities among those in power influence the policies and political forms of the state.

State forms, Machiavelli believed that they also depend on the number of rulers, the goals they set, and the quality of a particular form. He reproduces Polybius' concept of the emergence of the state and the cycle of forms of government. Correct forms government, in his opinion, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, the goal of which is the common good, often turn into wrongvilny- tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy, the purpose of which is the own benefit of the rulers. Following the ancient authors, he also gives preference to a mixed correct forms to the board - "mixed republic". Its essence is that the system of government bodies includes aristocratic and democratic institutions that mutually restrain attacks on the interests of one or another part of the population.

Who is more reliable to entrust protecting freedom for the people or Arihundredcracy?- Machiavelli asks the question and answers: “the protection of freedom should be entrusted to those who are less greedy and less thinking about its seizure.” The nobility is obsessed with the desire to dominate. The common people “only want not to be oppressed; they love freedom more and the less noble have the means to steal freedom for their own benefit.”

The most necessary power in the state, Machiavelli believes that he is right to blame- whether before the people, a judge or a council. “Nothing gives so much strength and stability to a republic as such an institution as provides a legitimate outcome to the dissents which agitate it as a result of such displeasures.”

But mixed republic- ideal, future. The political realities of Europe were monarchies (in Florence - the Medici lordship). In all countries, feudal relations formed a tangled tangle of rights and obligations, a continuous struggle between royal power and vassals, a string of betrayals, treacherous murders, poisonings, treacherous intrigues, etc. It was from this practice that Machiavelli proceeded when he formulated his recommendations and rules of political art in "The Sovereign". What is their essence?

Firstly, in contrast to a mixed republic, where the people protect freedom and the inviolability of laws that ensure public safety for the sovereign policy- strategies and tactics retention of power And preservation of the state. Power is acquired in various ways, incl. and through crimes,

remarked Machiavelli. If the sovereign came to power with the help of the people, he must try to maintain their friendship, which is not at all difficult, because the people only demand that they not be oppressed. He must fear most of all the contempt and hatred of his subjects.

Secondly, Machiavelli refutes the general opinion of politicians about the depravity of the people. The masses are more constant, more honest, wiser And more reasonable than the sovereign, he claims. “Having compared the sovereign, subject to the laws, with the people, also restrained by them, we see that the people are superior; in the same way, under autocracy, the people make mistakes less often than the sovereign, and, moreover, their mistakes are fewer and more correct.” Even a rebellious people can be easily persuaded, but against a sovereign one must resort to the sword, for that evil is stronger, which requires a stronger means. The latter, freed from the bonds of laws, will be more ungrateful, more fickle and more reckless than any people.

Thirdly, Machiavelli considered an important means of politics religion. She, Machiavelli reasoned, is a powerful means of influencing the minds and morals of people. That is why all the founders of states and wise legislators referred to the will of the gods. In ancient Rome, “religion helped to command troops, inspire the people, restrain the virtuous and shame the vicious.” The state must use religion to guide its subjects. Unlike the adherents of the Reformation, he considered the model and basis of religious reform not the ideas of primitive Christianity, but ancient religion, completely subordinated to the goals of politics. Not politics in the service of religion, but religion in the service of polytics, Machiavelli believed.

Fourthly, in contrast to the Catholic Church, which sought to subordinate politics to Christian ethics, Machiavelli separated real politics from morality. Moral rules and noble feelings are not enough for politics, he believed. In government activities, different rules are customary than in society between private individuals. The actions of political figures should be assessed not from a moral point of view, but by their results, in relation to the good of the state. According to Machiavelli, the main goal of political life - the common good - allows the use of any means leading to it.

Without undermining the authority of the supreme power, Machiavelli reasoned, one must remember and follow policy rules. In “The Sovereign,” he taught: the sovereign must be in friendship with the people, otherwise difficult time he will be overthrown. Noble people should be treated as they act. There is more wisdom in being known as stingy and acquiring a bad reputation without hatred, than in wanting to be known as generous and therefore involuntarily ruining others, acquiring a bad reputation and hatred at the same time. It is better to instill fear in your subjects than love. Methods of exercising power can be cunning, deceit, and deception. “You need to know that you can fight the enemy -

in two ways: firstly, by laws, and secondly, by force. The first method is inherent in man, the second - in beasts; but since the first is often not enough, one has to resort to the second. It follows from this that the sovereign must learn what is in the nature of both man and beast.” Machiavelli advised the sovereign to be like a lion and a fox. “The lion is afraid of traps, and the fox is afraid of wolves, therefore, one must be like a fox in order to avoid traps, and a lion in order to scare away wolves.” In other words, the author of “The Sovereign” concludes, one must appear in the eyes of people as compassionate, true to one’s word, merciful, sincere, pious - and in fact be such, but internally one must retain the readiness, if necessary, to show the opposite qualities. Let them blame the actions of the sovereign, as long as they justify the results.

According to Machiavelli, it was acceptable for the rulers of his time perfidy And cruelty.“You should either not offend anyone at all, or satisfy your anger and hatred with one blow, and then calm people down and restore their confidence in safety.” It is better to kill than to threaten - by threatening, you create and warn an enemy; by killing, you get rid of the enemy completely. Cruelty is better than mercy: individuals suffer from punishment and reprisals, but mercy leads to disorder, giving rise to robberies and murders from which the entire population suffers. He advised the sovereign “if possible, do not move away from good, but if necessary, do not shy away from evil.” These and similar rules of politics constitute the essence of “Machiavellianism” - a practical guide for unprincipled politicians.

AND right Machiavelli saw it as a means to achieve state goals. Laws protect the freedom and tranquility of the people. “When the people see that no one under any circumstances violates the laws given to them, they will very soon begin to live a calm and contented life.” He gives an example: thanks to the laws of Lycurgus, according to which the king, aristocracy and people each received their part, Sparta existed for more than 800 years. The source of good laws, according to Machiavelli, is not the will of the sovereign, but discontent and unrest - they “always established laws and orders for the benefit of public freedom.” Hunger and need make people skillful, Machiavelli believed, and laws make them good. For good deeds come from good education, good education from good laws.

Machiavelli's teaching on state and politics had a huge influence on the subsequent development of political and legal ideology.

At the same time, the Italian thinker Niccolo Machiavelli (1467–1527) formulated his strict recommendations for managing real society, laying the foundations of modern political science.

Machiavelli's political philosophy aims to indicate the means to achieve intended goals, regardless of whether these goals are recognized as good or bad. The state, according to Machiavelli, is the highest manifestation of the human spirit, and service to the state is meaning and happiness human life. Initially human nature bad, selfish, and the task of the state is to forcibly curb it. In Machiavelli's most famous treatise " Sovereign "describes ways to create a strong state in conditions where the people lack civic virtues.

Religion, according to Machiavelli, should play an important role in the life of the state not because it is true, but because it should bind society into a single whole.

In The Prince, Machiavelli almost directly rejects conventional morality when it comes to the behavior of rulers. The ruler will perish, Machiavelli believes, if he is always merciful and honest. A ruler should keep his word only if it is beneficial to do so. The most important thing, according to Machiavelli, is that the ruler is perceived by his subjects as a religious person.

Machiavelli often uses the word "freedom" as something valuable, although what exactly it means is not very clear from his reasoning. It is obvious that he inherited it from Antiquity. Perhaps Machiavelli believed that political freedom presupposed the presence in citizens of a certain kind of personal virtue. The people, according to Machiavelli, have a sound mind; it is not for nothing that they say: “The voice of the people is the voice of God.”

We can say that in Machiavelli's philosophy the political thought of the Greeks and Romans (of the republican period) seems to come to life. Thus, the love of “freedom” and the theory of control and balance were obviously adopted by the Renaissance from Antiquity.

It should be noted that if medieval authors adhered to the concept of “legitimate power” (the power of the pope and the emperor), then, according to Machiavelli, power should belong to those who manage to seize it in free competition. Machiavelli gives his preference to popular government, based on his observations, which testified to the less cruelty of popular government compared to tyranny.

From an analysis of Machiavelli's texts, we can conclude that there are a number of political goods in the world, of which three are especially important: national independence, security and a well-structured constitution. A good constitution should distribute legal rights among the sovereign, the nobility and the people in proportion to their real power. Under such a constitution it will be difficult to carry out successful revolutions, and therefore order in the state is possible.

Machiavelli talks not only about ends, but also about means. If the goal is recognized as good, then we can choose such means that ensure its implementation. "Success" means achieving your intended goal, whatever it may be. It is even possible to create a kind of “science of success,” says Machiavelli.

Machiavelli is convinced that force is necessary to realize a political goal. Usually the one with the strongest side wins. True, Machiavelli agrees, power often depends on public opinion, and public opinion, in turn, depends on propaganda. Therefore, great attention must be paid to propaganda and, in particular, to the promotion of the virtuous appearance of a contender for power.

The word "Machiavellianism" has become a term used to describe unabashed politicians who achieve their goals without regard for moral standards. Machiavelli actually said that every action of a state (or its ruler) is permissible, especially in external, interstate relations, if this action provides advantages for one's own country.

The separation of politics from moral evaluation was not, however, an invention of Machiavelli. This was and in many ways remains the same as actual political practice. Only the ongoing formation of a single humanity and truly world history gives reason to hope that gradually morality will increasingly cover not only the relations of individuals and their groups, but also the sphere of politics and interstate relations.

Humanists were, as we see, romantic and believed that the revival of ancient knowledge, ancient philosophy, the return of interest in man will help solve numerous problems of that time. However, life went on as usual, and the humanists saw the collapse of their ideals. This gave rise to more pragmatic approaches to philosophy. Such a pragmatist of the Renaissance is Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527).

He was born in Florence into the family of a poor lawyer, and received his own education: he studied Latin, philosophy, and eventually felt a great interest in political sciences. Niccolo starts at 30 political career, becomes secretary of the government of the Florentine Republic, travels a lot around Europe. But in 1512 the republic fell, the Medici fell into disgrace. Machiavelli ends up in prison, tortured, and subsequently exiled to Florence. He spends the last years of his life away from politics, writing his main works, among which “Discourses on the first decade of Titus Livius” and “The Sovereign” (or “Monarch”) stand out.

Machiavelli had no interest in philosophy and religion, but, being a man of his time, he was forced to turn to issues of philosophy and religion. He formulated his attitude towards God as follows: God is not the God whom Christians imagine as some kind of supreme being, but some kind of fortune, destiny, directing the world in accordance with its laws. Just as the material world has its own laws, so does the social world. God created these laws in the form of fate and no longer interferes with them, therefore this pattern in society is always constant. A person must recognize this pattern and act in accordance with it. The world, therefore, is always the same in this pattern, there is always good and evil in it, there are political interests, etc. States arise and disappear according to the laws of fortune, and a person, if he knows these laws, will be successful in his activities. “Fate is a woman,” said Machiavelli, “if you want to control her, you must beat and push her.”

Society arises quite naturally from people's desire for self-preservation. People unite and a society emerges. People elect leaders to govern society. Thus, a power appears that appoints the army, police, etc. to protect society. The nature of the functioning and emergence of society does not have any higher religious or moral purpose. Morality arises at a later stage and represents what is useful for each member of society and for society as a whole. To maintain morality, laws are created, to protect people, an army and government are created, and for the spiritual unity of society, religion is created.

Christianity was also created for the spiritual unity of the people, but this was a mistake - Christianity is an imperfect religion, since it is based on the cult of the wrong human qualities that society needs. Christianity places too much faith in the other world, in reward beyond the grave, and does not value reality; it values ​​weakness, not courage. Machiavelli stands on the position of Greek paganism - this is precisely the religion that could truly unite society. Due to the fact that the Christian religion dominates in our country, our world is imperfect and power in it belongs not to worthy people, but to scoundrels. The pagan religion exalts courage, virtues, bravery, glory - precisely those character traits that a real citizen needs.

Thus, according to Machiavelli, politics is absolutely autonomous; it is not a product of morality or religion - on the contrary, morality and religion are a product of politics. Therefore, the political goal is the highest goal, for the achievement of which all methods are suitable. If we say that some method is immoral, and some is inapplicable because it contradicts religious institutions, then Machiavelli objects: the lower cannot be an argument for the higher, morality and religion themselves are a product of politics, therefore the famous formula comes from Machiavelli. : “The end justifies the means.” Morality and religious norms cannot serve as arguments against a certain political goal. The evaluation criterion can only be utility and political success.

Political success for Machiavelli is the success of society. He was a democrat, a republican, but not a monarchist at all, although one of his works is called “The Prince.” The meaning and spirit of this work is that a good sovereign should serve the good of society. The highest goal is the goal of society, not the individual citizen, even if that citizen is a monarch. Therefore, there is no need to invent any ideal states, there is no need to build anything, you just need to get to know the real social world and live in this world.