Machiavelli – the Creator of a New Political Paradigm

Vasile BOARI

“Babeș-Bolyai” University of Cluj-Napoca

Abstract: Machiavelli’s work has constituted the object of research and analysis from two
relatively opposite perspectives: the historical one and the moral one. The former sees
Machiavelli as “truly a man of his time” (A. Gramsci), excessively preoccupied by the
problem of unifying Italy. The latter harshly judges him on the grounds that he is amoral
and that he promotes cynicism and cruelty. Between the two, there is another perspective,
the scientific one. In its view, Machiavelli has in mind the creation of a positive political
science. Machiavelli was read and interpreted in different ways. Some saw The Prince as a
code for tyranny and cynicism. Others, on the contrary, saw in it a scientific work of
incontestable worth, even an expression of humanism. These two views constitute the
extremes of the numerous interpretations available. According to the ethical and political
aspect, Machiavellian thought is a polarised one, as Croce and Gramsci have pointed out.
We subscribe to the view that considers as too simplistic the attempt to analyse
Machiavelli’s work according to the triad: moral, immoral, amoral, because
understanding it necessitates the use of nuances and subtleties.

Keywords: Machiavelli, political thought, tyranny, cynicism.

If someone were determined to find a powerful metaphor or an accurate image to describe

Niccolò Machiavelli’s work and influence in the world of political thought, he or she would most likely
make use of words such as: turning point, crossroad point or turning table. Undoubtedly, he is considered
as a prominent figure among political thinkers; many would go as far as to name him the founder and the
father of modern political science, just as Aristotle had fulfilled that role for Ancient Greece. The Prince,
published in 1532, became a constant reference and inspired different avenues in political research.

Machiavelli’s contribution to this field was so important that thinkers who followed him
approached politics much differently than those who had preceded him. His work and renown became an
incessant reference for all authors, whether they agreed with his principles or disapproved them.

The Prince illustrates a new understanding of politics and political ethics, distancing itself from
the views which had dominated the political scene up to that point: the Aristotelian and the Christian
ones. Although radically different in many respects, including the origin of political power, these two
paradigms shared one important aspect, namely the belief that any political endeavour or figure should
prioritise the welfare of the citizens as the supreme goal of politics.

Thus, Aristotle claimed that it was incumbent upon the State and upon any political official to
seek to achieve what was good for the community, for the polis; he went as far as to term this good “the
greatest good in the realm of practical life”, or simply “the supreme good”. Undeniably, helping one
citizen was desirable, but the Greek philosopher thought it much more preferable, infinitely more
uplifting to do good for an entire nation or for a city.[1] The Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to Romans,
chapter 13, talks about the “dignitary’s” role and political authority, calling him, in unequivocal terms:
“God’s servant for your welfare”.
 Machiavelli dissociated himself from these models, rejecting both the importance of the eternal
values treasured by Aristotelians and that of God as source of authority – to which Christian tradition held
firmly. The Prince depicts a state where the prosperity of common citizens is no longer a primary
objective for political institutions and officials. What should prevail is the preservation and consolidation
of the state, which has become an end in itself, a goal per se. Furthermore, state reason (as Louis XIV
would later proclaim) became the most notorious exponent of political absolutism. It is no wonder then
that the goal of politics was politics itself. As for the political dignitary, his purpose is redefined in terms
of struggle for supremacy and responsibility to defend and strengthen the state at all costs.

The Machiavellian paradigm would govern the entire modern political thinking, overshadowing
outbursts, such as Immanuel Kant’s, who could not imagine how someone would tailor political morality
based on the ruler’s interest. And that is precisely what Machiavelli had done.

1. WHO WAS NICCOLÒ MACHIAVELLI?

A brief introduction is necessary to acquaint us with a highly debated person of all political
thinking. Francis Bacon, who created the inductive method, considered that we should “thank Machiavelli
and the writers of his king for having openly signalled what people usually do, and not what they should
do, and for having done that without dissimulation”. There were numerous authors, however, who saw in
him the embodiment of everything that is evil in politics for he persuaded Cesare Borgia to enact the
massacre at Sinigaglia, where many of Cesare’s enemies were slain. Some authors would go as far as to
call him the post-mortem counsellor of so many tyrants such as Napoleon, Hitler or Mussolini, the latter
having actually written a Prelude (a sort of preface) for The Prince. Lenin is said to have taken with him a
copy of this book when he was exiled to Finland, due to his confrontation with the tsarist army; it was
there that he wrote The State and the Revolution. Then who was this character who was seen in such
different lights?

Niccolò Machiavelli was born in Florence in 1468 in a family that was traditionally seen as
belonging to middle aristocracy. His father had been a public servant, a sort of lawyer in the Republic of
Florence, and his mother was a housewife. His older brother allegedly disappointed his family because of
his mediocrity, so all hopes turned towards young Niccolò: his mother would have wanted him to become
a clergyman, while his father would have preferred him to be a lawyer as well.

Not many details are known about his childhood and adolescence. He seems to have followed the
courses of an appreciated grammar school and he learned Latin; as a matter of fact, knowing Latin was
essential for becoming a public servant in the Florentine Republic, for it was the cultural language, but
also the official language of administration.

Machiavelli’s life became more relevant after the year 1498, when, although barely 29, he
managed to secure an important job with the help of a friend who held a position of authority in the first
chancellery of the Republic. Therefore, Niccolò successfully occupied the position of chief of the second
chancellery, an office which he would keep for 14 years, until the advent of the de Medici family, which
accused him of conspiring and had him removed from his office. This incident nearly cost Machiavelli his
life, but fortunately, he was released and forced to withdraw to his small property Albergarccio, near San
Casciano. It is there that he wrote The Prince, in just a few brief months, while taking a break from
writing another book which critics view as his most notable one when it comes to political research:
Discorsi sopra prima deca di Tito Livio (Discourses On the First Decade of Titus Livius or, most
commonly known as Discourses on Livy). In this great book about the Roman historian, Machiavelli
proves his worth as a historian and political scholar; “great reader of ancient works”, he was called by
Charles Benoist, and he deserves this title.

It is relevant to mention that during his office years (1498-1512), Machiavelli had many
diplomatic relations with other Italian cities, as well as with a number of European courts or
chancelleries: France, Germany, Spain, etc. His reports during these diplomatic missions once again
highlight his abilities as a careful observer of political figures, events and inside stories, as well as his
extraordinary literary talent.

Machiavelli’s intellectual preoccupations reveal his Renaissance-like spirit, as that was the
prevalent direction of the day; thus, Machiavelli was a political scholar, a public servant, a diplomat, a
negotiator, a military strategist and a writer. His most famous work, which actually brought him renown,
was De Principatibus, a short political treaty that would create such strong reactions, both positive and
negative, both from political scholars and from people who have never actually read much politics at all.

In the Romanian culture, Mihai Eminescu and Ion Luca Caragiale were counted as his admirers.
The former actually translated fragments of The Prince, while the latter admitted that Machiavelli had a
powerful influence on his work.

2. MACHIAVELLI’S INTENTIONS

When it comes to understanding Machiavelli’s intentions for writing De Principatibus, posterity

found itself involved in yet another heated debate. According to some exegetes, Machiavelli must have
elaborated this text with the sole purpose of gaining de Medici’s goodwill, and thus with the intent of
winning back the job that he had lost once the infamous family seized the power.For fellow Italians of the
20th century, historians or simple patriots of no academic claim, Machiavelli’s purpose is explicitly stated
in the title of the last chapter: An Exhortation to Liberate Italy from the Barbarians, which indicates that
he had been animated by patriotic feelings and intentions. In this view, he was most likely seeking to
compile a guide for the person that would possess the qualities and the capacity to unite Italy and to free it
from the foreign conquerors – from the barbarians, as he calls them. Other scholars, such as Ernest
Cassirer, shared the opinion that Machiavelli had had a much larger audience in mind: he was addressing
himself to the world and the world took notice of him.

It seems difficult, if not impossible, to know beyond a shadow of a doubt which are an author’s
true intentions, unless he cares to enlighten us himself. Fortunately, in Machiavelli’s case, we discover
some revelatory passages in his political writings and in his personal correspondence.

We shall start by taking a close look at some fragments of correspondence between Machiavelli
and his trusted friend, Francesco Vettori. A sharp contrast dominated their situation at the time when
these letters were exchanged. Machiavelli had been removed from the headship of the second chancellery
of the Florentine Republic and was living a secluded life in San Casciano; he was now facing poverty,
exclusion, oblivion and virtual house arrest, while Vettori was holding the position of Ambassador of the
Republic of Florence at Rome, and had ample dealings with the Pope himself. A particularly interesting
letter, dated December 10, 1513 (thus, immediately after The Prince was finished) depicts Machiavelli’s
daily activities, his expectations and inner struggles in very eloquent terms. Moreover, the fragment we
are about to look at encapsulates a declaration of his intention and a portrayal of his method, which will
be later explained in explicit terms in chapter XV of De Principatibus. His tone is overtly frank,
propensity which Machiavelli displayed until the end of his life and which brought about many unjust
accusations; yet one cannot but feel the weight and the sadness of such an honest confession:

“When evening comes, I return home and I step in my study; I leave my daily garments on the
threshold, for they are stained with mud and clay, and I drape myself in kingly, courtly robes. Now
that I’m adequately dressed for the occasion, I step in the ancient sanctuaries of people of old;
being lovingly welcomed by them, I fill up on nourishment that was made for me solum and for
which I was born. I am not ashamed to converse with them and ask them the causes of their deeds,
and they, in their generosity, answer my questions; for four hours I feel no boredom, I forget all
sorrow, I don’t fear poverty, and death isn’t frightening anymore […]. And, since Dante says that
keeping what you have understood is not science, I wrote down what I had stored in my mind
during these long conversations with them and I have put together a booklet, De Principatibus, in
which, as much as can, I go to length in thinking about these things and I discuss about what a
principality is, about the different types, about how to secure one and the reasons why they are
lost. And if you ever enjoyed some of the trifles I wrote, this writing should not be disagreeable to
you. To a prince, and especially to a new prince, it should be useful… […] I would wish that these
Medici gentlemen started using me again, even if I had to carry rocks at first; if, later on, I didn’t
manage to win their goodwill, I’d be terribly upset with myself; if this booklet of mine were read,
it will be obvious that I have not wasted the fifteen years I spent learning the art of governing; and
everyone should desire to make use of someone who has gained their experience at someone else’s
expense. As for my honesty, no one should question it, for I have always kept my word, and it
would not be the time to start breaking it now.”

Out of this long passage taken from the letter to Vettori, we can deduce relatively easily which
were Machiavelli’s intentions and expectations when he decided to write The Prince, and, furthermore,
which was, in fact, the method he used. We say intentions, for he had at least two in mind when he took a
break from writing Discorsi, in order to dedicate himself to The Prince. The first one, the more
immediate, was his craving to return to the former employment, or to any other political position,
irrespective of the sacrifices that would be required of him. He saw himself as destined to such a position
and his fourteen years of experience, coupled with his attested professionalism represented strong
arguments for his cause. The second goal, although more remote, was by no means less important: “the
liberation of Italy from the hands of the Barbarians” – he dedicates the last chapter to this objective. The
Italy of Machiavelli’s time was divided into a multitude of small republics, states or principalities, which
were constantly engaging each other in military combat; useless to say that this made them vulnerable, an
easy prey for the great powers that dominated Europe at that time: the Kingdom of France, the Kingdom
of Spain and the German Empire.

Machiavelli would have greatly desired for a ruler to emerge, one who would be bold and
determined, one who would free Italy and unite the principalities under one banner. Some critics argue
that this was, in fact, his greatest wish. For a period of time, it became apparent to Machiavelli that this
prince was none other than Cesare Borgia, whom he knew personally, having met him during the time
when Machiavelli was commissioned by the Counsel of the Ten, the most important political institution
of the Florentine Republic. Cesare was the son of Pope Alexander Borgia, and had been appointed head
of the pontiff’s army by his father.

What can be said of the third interpretation, namely that Machiavelli simply wanted to write for
anybody interested in learning about politics? A strong argument for this view is found at the beginning
of chapter XV, where he declares that he wants to write “useful things for those who understand them”.
So, who was he thinking of? Obviously, we do not have an explicit answer; however, it would not be
difficult to conjecture it. He could share his great love and passion for politics with those who dealt with
this field: political figures and state leaders, for they had the background knowledge to understand his
claims. His declared intention was to draft methods of acquiring and securing a state and to describe how
it can be lost; therefore, he was addressing himself to political leaders.

Others believed that Machiavelli addressed himself to anyone interested in politics, even the
proletariat, in which Antonio Gramsci, a socialist Italian scholar, identified the “modern prince”. After all,
the fate of a text is often different from the author’s original intentions. As for Machiavelli, his letters and
his correspondence reveal a man interested firstly in regaining his status as a public servant; secondly in
the liberation of Italy from the hands of the barbarians; and thirdly in the formulation of a political lesson
that was the product of his personal experience coupled with the extensive reading of ancient historians –
the two major sources that have underpinned his reflection.

What Adam Smith’s book The Wealth of Nations was for political economy, we can confidently
say that The Prince constitutes for political thought, namely a founding seminal work, a political
paradigm, if we are to accept that this concept, consecrated by Tomas S. Kuhn in The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions, deserves to be extended to the sphere of humanities. The publication of this
relatively short work, marked a radical change in the perception of politics, power, state, political figures
and in the understanding of their purposes; furthermore, it imposed ipso facto a new method of political
research and analysis. This new perception and interpretation of politics dominated with authority the
modern era, making Machiavelli an unavoidable reference point in the history of political science and
philosophy.

As for his Discourses, Machiavelli offers an explanation, in the introduction to the first book,
after having drawn his readers’ attention to the importance of possessing historical knowledge, which
would enable people to learn important lessons about practical and political life. Unfortunately, many
ignore to do so, therefore, he states:

“[…] willing to set straight this wrong judgement, I thought it would be good to write some things
about those books belonging to Titus Livius, which escaped the rigour of time, things which I,
being aware of both old and new times, believe to be important in order to understand them better;
thus, so that those who read these lines be able to truly make the most of having studied history.”

Consequently, if the aim of The Prince was to offer a practical guide to those who dabbled in
politics, writing about Titus Livy, a well known historian of ancient Rome, was meant as a warning sign
about the importance of knowing history for life in general and political life in particular.

3. MACHIAVELLI’S PHILOSOPHY: Has Machiavelli Got a Philosophy?

This issue is under controversy, similarly to the very personality and work of the author of The
Prince. Some critics will think that Machiavelli was a practical spirit, a man interested exclusively in the
fate of his country, an analyst of the contemporary political scene in Italy, displaying a refractory attitude
towards any philosophical speculation. Machiavelli himself seems to confirm such a viewpoint when, at
the beginning of chapter XV of The Prince, he openly expresses his preference for the concrete truth of
facts, to the detriment of “mere fancy” of any philosophical speculation. Therefore, considering a system
of philosophical thought or a philosophy in the systematic conception is out of the question.
 Nevertheless, a careful look on the entire Machiavellian work will unveil the existence of a vision
about the universe, man and history, which, in a broad understanding, could be assimilated to philosophy.
In fact, a careful study of philosophical thought would unveil the fact that any political system of thought
has its premises either in a view about the world (cosmology) or in a view about history or mankind. With
Machiavelli, we encounter all of these, to different degrees. Of course, Machiavelli never manifested the
intention to elaborate a philosophical system or doctrine. His philosophy is rather implicit, disseminated
in his work and more often than not dissimulated behind some affirmations which seem to discourage and
disqualify any speculative attempts to philosophise. However, paradoxically, Machiavelli’s conception is
built on a certain view about the universe, history and mankind.

Machiavelli has adopted the understanding according to which there is no real change in the
universe. Or rather, as a well-known quote from the biblical book Ecclesiastes, by the wise king Solomon
goes: “There is nothing new under the sun”.

Machiavelli deems that the universe remains the same and that there are no fundamental changes
within. Furthermore, he extends this view on history and human understanding. History is a continual
repetition of what has already happened and people remain basically unchanged, no matter what. It is
true, however, that Machiavelli considers fate as responsible for half of the actions that happen in history,
the other half being the product of human endeavour. One could therefore think that people – and
especially political people, princes, state leaders – are free to fashion history. However, despite any
amount of freedom a man could have, and especially the state leader, the one who possesses that
overwhelming energy that Machiavelli calls virtu (according to the Roman understanding of the word),
this man will never succeed in changing anything essential about history or the universe.

“People can help fate, but they cannot oppose it”, we read in the Discourses. In fact, Machiavelli
states: “fate blinds people, when it does not want that they oppose its plans” (Discourses II, 29). In the
world, the proportion between good and evil stays unchanged. History keeps repeating itself again and
again, even though people are born and die, their nature does not change. “No matter how you choose
them, people remain evil”. This is the view on which Machiavelli builds his understanding of politics. In
other words, in order to master the evil that resides in the unchanging human nature, we need an even
greater evil, embodied in the prince, the state leader. We could call this situation “the remedy of evil
through evil”, using a metaphor that belongs to Jean Starobinski. This is the premise that underlies the
Machiavellian doctrine about politics, state and power. As men are evil, people of goodwill would stand
no chance as long as others are not men of goodwill as well. The famous ethics of power draws its roots
from this pessimistic view on human nature.

Is this remark born of general observation, personal experience or simply prejudice? It would
probably be a bit of everything. People that he came in contact with must have revealed to him the truth
which was apparent to the Apostle Paul when he declared that “I want to do good, but evil is glued to
me”. Contrary to Machiavelli though, Christianity affirms that man can be changed, restored; in truth, the
Christian doctrine advocates bringing remedy to evil by doing good. Machiavelli delimits himself in this
respect not only from Christian thought, but also from the liberal thinking to which some critics, such P.
Manent, will try to affiliate him. In the liberal view, man is a mixture of good and evil. As Jean Baechler
said, in the article dedicated to liberalism in the Encyclopaedia Universalis: “Man is an angel of light and
a demon…” For Machiavelli, though, man will always remain evil, as his nature cannot be changed.

This is, in essence, the philosophy which has guided Machiavelli. Gramsci believes that any
human has a philosophy, by the simple fact that he uses language which is in essence an abstract means of
communication. But when it comes to Machiavelli, he is not a philosopher in only the general way that
Gramsci proposed; nor is he a philosopher in the consecrated sense of the word. Rather, despite his
 claimed rejection of speculation, Machiavelli allows to be guided by life experience which is to say that
he incorporates a certain vision on life and universe, history and mankind which plays a more important
role in the development of his political theories than had previously been believed.

4. MACHIAVELLI – THE FOUNDER OF MODERN POLITICAL SCIENCE

“Just as Galileo’s dynamics founded modern physics, Machiavelli laid the foundations of a new
political science”[2], said Ernst Cassirer, the renown author of The Myth of the State. What would enable
us to consider Machiavelli as the founder of a new political science? And what does it mean, in fact, to
establish a new science? According to a classic paradigm – illustrated in the majority of traditional
textbooks – to establish a discipline would primarily mean four things:

 The clear delimitation of a distinct field/area of competence, research and investigation – thus, of the
object of the new discipline; this presupposes establishing which phenomena belong to it;

 The identification of the method through which that field, once circumscribed, can be investigated and
analysed;

 The identification (the discovery) of the inner working of these phenomena;

 The process of establishing that particular discipline into a larger system of knowledge such as, in our
case, humanities.

Did Machiavelli do all these things? It is obvious that a “yes or no” answer to such a question
would be impossible. True enough, Machiavelli has never initiated formal proceedings to establish a
political science; The Prince does not constitute an epistemological enterprise. Nevertheless,
Machiavelli’s work can be considered as one of the founding blocks, just as Adam Smith’s The Wealth of
Nations was seen as the groundwork of political economy, despite its lack of epistemological content.

Similarly to Adam Smith, Machiavelli was not a theoretician or a science philosopher; such
endeavours were foreign to him. However, his approach led, in later centuries, to a certain
epistemological and methodological understanding of what the very field of political science was and the
type of method employed to investigate and analyse this field. But perhaps the most important step was
made when he postulated the autonomy of politics in relation to other spheres of human manifestation,
such as religion and morality, action which numerous experts later deemed as a capital action for the
investigation and understanding of what was specific for political science. Furthermore, by presenting
politics in close correlation with the necessity to understand human nature and psychology, Machiavelli
opened a way for later generations to make connections between the proper political science and other
disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, etc. In fact, it was agreed upon that one could not truly
study politics without incorporating the study of disciplines dealing with human nature.

4.1. The Object of Political Study

 Until Machiavelli, the research regarding politics aimed to identify the best social and political
order (thus, in Antiquity, Plato was looking for the perfect, ideal city, and Aristotle for the desired,
preferable city; in the Middle Ages, thinkers were seeking the Christian Republic, Respublica Christiana,
based on biblical principles). In his work The Republic, Plato’s concern was to discover and describe the
ideal, perfect city, while Aristotle took another approach, distancing himself from his mentor. He
performed a literal empirical research on political regimes existing in Ancient Greece, hoping to define
the traits of the desirable city, ruled by middle aristocracy and capable of satisfying its needs fully,
without outside connections or help.

As for the theologians-philosophers of the Middle Ages, they were interested in identifying the
Respublica Christiana, founded and based on biblical principles. Even Dante, who, according to some
historians, made the transition from the Middle Ages to modern times, was still preoccupied in identifying
that universal monarchy, that utopia, which would govern the entire world.

Machiavelli drastically alters these research avenues. As he explicitly and bluntly declares in the
beginning of chapter XV of The Prince, he is not even remotely interested in those “republics and
principalities which no one ever saw and no one ever knew they existed in the real world”.[3] It appears
that the author of The Prince deems more appropriate to seek the truth of concrete facts than mere fancy.
What interests Machiavelli in fact is the way in which political power can be seized and through it, the
methods that should be used to preserve and strengthen the state. But be warned, both political power and
the state are perceived as having a strong bond with the political ruler, his personality and his abilities.

Accordingly, one can easily infer what constitutes the object of political science. In fact, there are
three capital aspects which define the object of this discipline: Power, State and Political Figure (the state
ruler, especially). We shall expound on these three themes in order to understand what Machiavelli’s
reflection about them consisted of.

1. Power – Machiavelli did not use the term power in a formal sense, therefore we will
never find a definition of it. Nevertheless, he understood the nature and the intricate workings of power.
He perceived it as a specific human phenomenon, as a living relationship, a psychological one. To analyse
power meant to understand people as they are, and their way of relating, without idealising them. “In
truth,” says Machiavelli, “there is such a major difference between how people live and the way they
should live, that he who leaves aside what is for what it should be, sooner finds out how people perish
than how they succeed”.[4]
2. State – Machiavelli is the first one to have made the state the favourite object of
political research. According to Sartori, “Machiavelli was the first to have objectified the State as an
impersonal entity and has used the modern political denotations of the term – even though in an
incidental, isolated way. In Machiavelli’s time, political forms were still known under the generic name
of regnum and civitas (if they were republics)”.

In a footnote for chapter 3, Sartori made new remarks about the idea of State as seen by
Machiavelli. “Until Machiavelli, the term of ‘state’ generally meant status, social position. The term
describes a political entity for the first time in the first line of The Prince: ‘All states and powers which
have exercised or are exercising control over individuals are either republics, either principalities’. The
new meaning appears again in this passage: ‘When the Roano Cardinal said that Italians do not
understand war, I answered that the French do not understand the State.’[5] Nevertheless, both in the
Discourses and in the Florentine Histories, Machiavelli used the term of ‘state’ in a medieval sense. He
even made a distinction between two types of state: the principality (which was the most common form of
government during his time) in The Prince, and the republic in Discourses on the First Decade of Titus
Livy.”
 3. The Political Figure (the political ruler, the one who holds the power and exercises it):
the author of The Prince has paid much attention to this character, to such an extent that he often gives the
impression that power, in its true, living sense, is embodied by the ruler, especially in the case of the
principality. As a matter of fact, the state seems to identify itself with the person who is in charge of it. As
Sartori would remark: “Machiavelli observed a different state of things, in which the political endeavour
seemed to coincide with the nature of its prince […] in those times, politics and the prince were
synonymous”.[6]

Therefore, in Machiavelli’s view, what determined the destiny of a state, of a principality were
two main things: Fortuna (Luck, Fate) and the prince’s abilities. Consequently, political Power, the State
and the Political Figure are the three major aspects around which the field of political research is defined.
Following in his footsteps, later researchers would equate the object of political science either with
political power or with the state.

4.2. The Method of Political Science

If regarding the object of political science Machiavelli leaves us to discover the state of the things
without making clear-cut remarks, he is much more straightforward about the method. In some passages,
Machiavelli makes direct reference to the method used in political research. Firstly, in chapter XV of The
Prince, where we see the “phenomenological” perspective of his political analysis, we notice his concern
for empiric facts, that verita effetualle dela cosa, in direct opposition to any speculation of utopia. It could
be argued that, from this point of view, Machiavelli applied the empirical or inductive method, which had
been previously applied by Aristotle in Politics, and which would later on be formulated by Francis
Bacon.

Other relevant texts about method are found in the Discourses, especially those passages that
underline the importance of knowing the past in order to understand the present; in other words, he draws
our attention to the vital necessity of historical knowledge for understanding the present. Such a text can
be found, for example, in the Preamble of Book 1 of his discourses.

Knowing the past has relevance not only for theoretical awareness but also for practical
applications. Furthermore, knowing the past helps one anticipate the future. Machiavelli does not hesitate
to lament the fact that even political people and analysts ignore the past.

Machiavelli did not invent a new method, or, better said, he invented one starting from means and
methods already in use. In fact, he blended the psychologist’s observation skills with the effort of
knowing the past and with the talent of the writer who communicates with ease. And he did this better
than philosophers could do. By analysing facts, events, circumstances and people of the past, and by
making use of analogy, Machiavelli understood better than the majority of philosophers what exactly
Politics, the State and the Political Figure were. Moreover, he expressed this understanding in a highly
accessible and intelligible style. These qualities represented the strongest point but also his weakest, as
many could approach his text and criticise it.

However, Machiavelli had only one thing in mind: to present the truth of the matter and to
communicate useful things for the benefit of those capable of grasping them. Charles Benoist calls him “a
great reader of ancient things and a great observer of modern things”. This quote catches Machiavelli’s
method really well. In rigorous terms, this method is a combination – following a unique recipe – between
observation (of facts, events, circumstances, people), analogy (past and present), psychological intuition,
all of these enhanced by the capacity to express clearly and simply what others were trying to say in
sophisticated, obscure, philosophical ways. That is why Machiavelli’s method and ideas could be easily
grasped not only by political thinkers but also by political figures in general who did not hesitate to take
on his ideas and advice and to attempt to put them into practice in new situations and circumstances.

4.3. The Autonomy of Politics

One of Machiavelli’s major contributions consists in what we could call the autonomy of politics.
Machiavelli was the first author who understood politics as something distinct, a phenomenon set apart,
with specific reasoning and interests, rules and laws. Until Machiavelli, no one has dared to make such a
clear-cut distinction between religion and morality. He is the first also to consider that politics cannot be
reduced to other activities. This step can be seen as immensely important for the establishment of modern
political science.

5. MACHIAVELLI – A POLITICAL PHENOMENOLOGIST Avant la Lettre

There are two main ways in which politics can be (and, indeed, has been) approached. The first
one is the philosophical approach, inaugurated by Plato, which tried to answer the question: “What should
politics be like?” The other perspective, the phenomenological one, tries to understand and present
politics as it really is. What is political phenomenology and why can Machiavelli be thought of as its
founder?

Etymologically, the term “phenomenology” refers to the study of phenomena; therefore it means
“the science of phenomena”. Mutatis mutandis, political phenomenology would study political
phenomena. Machiavelli ignored this term, therefore he never used it; this is because was coined only in
1764 by the German mathematician and philosopher Johannes Lambert, in a work called Neus
Organonum (4 volumes). The term then has grown to have a brilliant ‘career’ in modern and postmodern
philosophy, being employed by renown philosophers such as Kant, Fichte, Hegel (modern times),
Heidegger, Husserl, Sartre (during the 20th century). In the past century Husserl was the phenomenologist
par excellence. His name is associated with the creation of phenomenological method and what is known
as “transcendental phenomenology”.

It is self evident that Machiavelli has very little to do with the way the above mentioned authors
understood phenomenology. However, there exists in Husserl’s writing, a principle which Machiavelli
illustrated in The Prince: “It is not from philosophers, but from deeds and actual problems that the
impulse for research should start”.[7]

Machiavelli illustrated this point of view, especially in The Prince, where he declares himself
against all speculations and fancies in favour of the verita effetuale della cosa. Nevertheless, the
distinction between his method and that of Husserl is immense. Machiavelli has observation of real life,
events and people as his starting point, while Husserl demands that the real world be suspended, or
practically annihilated. Machiavelli’s approach is closer to the etymological meaning of the term, that of
phenomenology as the study of phenomena. The best way to express his approach remains verita effetuale
della cosa.
 Machiavelli had everything going for him that would enable him to be considered a political
phenomenologist avant la lettre. Firstly, he was an excellent observer of facts, events, political
circumstances and people in general (either in political power or not). Secondly, he was intimately
connected with the historical past and endowed with an acute sense of history (which is exactly what
Charles Benoist perceived when he called him “a great reader of old things and a great observer of
modern things”). Thirdly, he was a very bright psychologist, capable of understanding and guessing what
lay behind the political rulers’ behaviour and actions. Fourthly he was a gifted writer, having an ease for
translating his observation in terms that were accessible. He had been equipped by the Creator with the
capacity of observing, understanding and describing things which might have gone unnoticed by others.
Both The Prince and the Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy represent an incontestable
illustration of this extraordinary capacity.

6. THE NATURE AND THE “LAWS” OF POWER

The phenomenologist’s task does not end at observing and describing events, circumstances,
people or the historical past. A true phenomenologist must try and be capable to grasp what lies behind all
these. He also must be capable of deciphering, in the end, their essence, the essence of politics, or as
Julien Freund says, the nature and the “laws” of power. This is something that Machiavelli managed to
achieve, unlike any other scholar before him.

It is worth noticing that he was the first to understand power as an essential human phenomenon
because it depends on the psychology, behaviour, interests and actions specific to people. Fate has its
place in the equation of power, but daring people can force destiny’s hand to achieve their goals.

At the same time, if we follow Machiavelli’s thought closely, we shall surmise that power is a
special phenomenon, an out of the ordinary relation, based on the fact that some give orders (dispositions)
and others hear and execute them. “Obedience is the real school of politics”, said Aristotle, opinion which
was later on adopted as well. Whoever understands the reason why people obey and submit themselves
has a great understanding of the mystery of power.

Machiavelli, however, disagreed with this view and claimed that the real mystery of power is
hidden in the capacity of the leader to impose himself before the crowd, by any necessary means. Power
resides thus in manipulating people and playing games with their minds. Cesare Borgia, the Duke of
Valentino, was the real man of power, and Machiavelli describes him as being “so quick to anger and, at
the same time, so capable, and he knew how one can win people or how to destroy them”.[8]

Political Power was thus a psychological relation, and those who had it exerted, by any possible
means, an influence on the minds and behaviour of others until the latter would do whatever the former
wanted. The power relation was tense, however, for both sides were suspicious of each other and were
ready to clash, despite the apparent calmness. “In any republic”, noticed Machiavelli, “there are two
parties: the party of the strong and that of the people; all laws favouring freedom are born out of their
opposition”.[9] Machiavelli placed a stronger accent on the selfish nature of Power, rather than on its
social side.

Perhaps Machiavelli’s greatest discovery and contribution in political phenomenology consisted

in the identification and description of the “laws” of Power (where “laws” stand for the relatively stable
tendencies manifested in its behaviour and actions).
  The first “law” is that of self-preservation. Power represents a living organism, a lively body
which, once brought into being, acts as any living body would do. And as we know, the law of living
organisms is self-preservation;

 The second law is that of growth. Any power has the tendency to grow. This was a natural course
in Machiavelli’s view; as such, he did not try to come up with ways to slow it down. At the opposite
spectrum, liberal thinkers were exceptionally preoccupied with how to limit power and the practical ways
to achieve this goal.

 The third law is that of concealment or appearance. Machiavelli was particularly interested in
how to keep up appearances. In chapter XVIII, entitled “How a Prince Should Respect His Word”, he
dealt with this aspect of concealing truth. Power is shrewd; and a political man must conceal his
shrewdness so that, under the impression of being honest, he must ready himself to be exactly that kind of
person whom people expected him to be. Appearances are of major importance in politics. “But you must
know how to hide your fox-like nature in different ways, to pretend and never expose yourself, because
people are so naïve and they submit so easily to present needs so that the one who cheats will always find
someone willing to be cheated.” In Machiavelli’s view, a prince must not necessarily have all the traits
that people see in him or expect of him, but it is absolutely necessary to appear as though he were in
possession of them. Therefore, a prince must “seem charitable, true to his word, kind, having integrity and
being religious and actually be that”.

 The fourth law of is that of corruption. Aristotle foresaw and debated it in Politics, raising the
alarm on its effects. Later on, the English historian Lord Acton expressed it bluntly: “Power corrupts;
absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Machiavelli sees corruption as a sort of fatality: “There are no laws,
no state organization to slow corruption down!”[10] And even if people are not corrupt, power will
corrupt them inevitably. Therefore, “it is not sufficient that the people are not corrupt, for, in a short
while, an absolute authority will corrupt them, making friends and allies”.[11] Political power holds the
germ of corruption; consequently, sooner or later, the whole society will be contaminated by this malady,
with all the consequences which this entails. A rich testimony of political history attests to the fact that
power not only is corruptible, but it corrupts the people.

 Finally, the fifth law, which Machiavelli sensed and illustrated (or legitimised), even though he
did not explicitly name it, is the Law of the State Reason. Louis XIV would later consider it as the first
law of politics, which suited his preference for absolutism.

About this concept (raggione di stato), introduced by Jean Bottero and discussed by one of
Machiavelli’s contemporaries, the historian Guicciardini, it can be said that it places the state above the
individuals and the selfishness of power above the interests of the few. The state is always right and its
actions are always justified, irrespective of the consequences it has on individuals. The founding premise
is that the state is everybody’s exponent, or at least, that of the majority; thus, its actions will always be
more important than individual actions. The “laws” of power have motivations in the human nature and
psychology, which are related to the fact that political power is not a concept, an abstract notion, but a
living reality, a relation. When power is made abstract, it hides its true face and conceals the way to the
identification of its laws. Of course, we must not perceive these laws of power as inexorable tendencies,
some that cannot be controlled, tempered down, calmed. The laws of power are not the same as the laws
of nature, but this does not mean that we can ignore their presence, action and consequences. In
Machiavelli’s view strong people, especially those gifted with virtue, can control even Destiny, if they are
determined enough to do it. Political power being a human phenomenon, the laws of power always act
through people.
 7. MACHIAVELLI AND THE POLITICAL MACHIAVELLIANISM

Although its name was inspired by the Italian scholar, Machiavellianism as a political attitude and
phenomenon does not start and end with the one who lent his name to the concept. As a matter of fact, the
Italian thinker inspired the word and promoted a type of Machiavellianism, but the phenomenon had long
preceded him. Charles Benoist considered that it would continue to do so after Machiavelli’s death in a
concept that is called “perpetual Machiavellianism”[12], for it is tightly connected to the nature of human
life, society and history. The same author stated that “there are different types of Machiavellianism: true
versus false, initiated by Machiavelli himself versus stemmed from his disciples or his enemies”.[13]

Machiavellianism isn’t present only in politics; it invades other spheres of human life too.
Benoist, quoting various authors in the third volume of his work Le Machiavélisme, includes a pietistic
Machiavellianism, a literary one, a theological one, a juridical one, etc. Tomassini considers that Ovid’s
The Art of Loving could have represented an erotic Machiavellianism, while Balzac saw a marital one.
D’Alembert evokes the spectre of a historical Machiavellianism, “which is a manner of practising the
past”.[14] The essence of political Machiavellianism is aptly summarised in the maxim: “the ends
justifies the means”, or as Benoist says: “Qui veut la fin veut les moyens”. Barthélemy-Saint-Hilaire, in
the well-known Dictionary of Politics, under the coordination of Maurice Block, defines
Machiavellianism as “the sacrificing of all principles in the name of interest; the violation of all moral
laws to success”.[15]

Machiavellianism does not constitute a doctrine to be applied; rather, it is an ideological-spiritual

reflex of a social-political society which deliberately ignores morality and for which only the end result is
significant, irrespective of the means that were employed to reach that end. In fact, there exists also a
theoretical Machiavellianism, present in different political or philosophical doctrines: (that of Nietzsche,
Spengler, etc.)

J. Burham includes Dante, Machiavelli, Mosea, Sorel, Michels, and Pareto among the theorists of
Machiavellianism; however, the list remains open. The American author, follower of the technocratic
alternative, appreciates their open spirit and the sincerity with which they approach issues. “The
Machiavellians are the only to have spoken the whole truth about power. Other authors have told us the
truth only about groups other than those on behalf of whom they speak. They present us with all the facts:
the primary practical purpose for all leaders consists of serving their own interest, of maintaining their
own powers and privileges. No exception! No theory, no promise, no goodwill, no religion, not even
morality will slow power down”.[16]

Far more grave and dangerous than theoretical Machiavellianism is the practical one, materialised
in the actual discrepancy between the declared purpose of political activity and the means that are
employed to reach it, which is revelatory of the politicians’ duplicity and (more or less acknowledged)
immorality.

This practical Machiavellianism reached its pinnacle during fascist and totalitarian regimes –
although its theoretical side was rejected, making this doctrine belong to “political realism”. Those who
hold this view adopt theses of traditional Machiavellianism, such as the state as a purpose in itself, the
pre-eminence of state reason, the separation between politics and morality (the political a-morality),
morality’s inefficiency, the imperfection of human nature, etc. They do this without having critically
examined the original Machiavellian precepts and they go even further by adding new theses, such as the
need to understand politics as a struggle for power, and the appreciation of conflict in order to obtain
supremacy.

In the view of political realists, the primary indicator in the sphere of international relations is the
concept of interest, defined in relation to power. This idea is strongly connected to the very core of
politics and it is not affected by circumstances, or at least not in a significant way. According to H.
Morgenthau, the main theoretician of this orientation, morality and politics should be considered
separately, as each has its own standard. Ethics judges action abstractly, according to the degree of
conformity with the moral law, while politics looks at an action through its consequences. Therefore, the
moralist asks: “Is politics in concordance with moral principles?” while political realists ask a question
that is altogether different: “How can this politics affect the power of the nation? Or, according to
different scenarios, the power of the government, congress, party, etc.?”[17]

It is not difficult to detect the similarities between political realism and “classical”
Machiavellianism concerning both the way in which they address problems and their methodology. The
latter is defined by Morgenthau as “the process of observing facts and conferring a meaning according to
reason”[18], where, naturally, reason is equated with political realism.

The essential criterion of judging political actions consists in the measure of success. For “what is
important to know,” explains the American author, “if we want to understand external politics, are not
mainly the motives of a state man, but his ability to understand the essential elements of external policy,
as well as his political capacity to transpose what he has learned into a successful political action”. The
self-evident consequence is that “morality judges the moral quality of motivation, while political theory
judges the political qualities of the intellect, reason and action. A policy that looks down on the role of
force in the name of moral values and commandments is condemned, in the vision of political realists, to
failure”.[19]

Postulating the autonomous nature of politics, attempting to separate this from other spheres of
human activity, and seeking to liberate political action from moral censorship, all these are false theses.
They ignore the holistic character, the integrated system of society and, as well, the need to see the human
being as a unitary entity. From a practical and strategic point of view, there is room for using any means
in order to achieve one end: efficiency. Or, under the circumstances in which nowadays political powers
have the means to bring about the annihilation of the entire human civilisation, an attitude such as the one
described above will bring about inacceptable risks.

8. MACHIAVELLI’S ACTUALITY: CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF

MODERN POLITICAL SCIENCE

Machiavelli’s work has constituted the object of research and analysis from two relatively
opposite perspectives: the historical one and the moral one. The former sees Machiavelli as “truly a man
of his time” (A. Gramsci), excessively preoccupied by the problem of unifying Italy. The latter harshly
judges him on the grounds that he is amoral and that he promotes cynicism and cruelty. Between the two,
there is another perspective, the scientific one. In its view, Machiavelli has in mind the creation of a
positive political science. Andrei Otetea, a Romanian historian, remarked: “Niccolò Machiavelli built a
system that summarises the experience and the political thinking of his time through sheer observation
and practice, as well as through studying Titus Livy”.[20]
 Historical research comes to confirm Antonio Gramsci’s view that Machiavelli had been a man of
his time. He wrote: “We need to consider Machiavelli as a necessary expression of his time, tightly
connected to the conditions and demands of his time, which resulted (1) from the internal struggles of
Florence and from the special structure of the state, which could not rid itself of the archaic remains of a
feudalism that had become a nuisance; (2) from the struggle between Italian states for a balance within
the Italian territory, balance that was prevented by the Pope’s existence, by municipal organisation and
not a territorial one; (3) from the struggles between Italian states for European balance; thus from the
contradictions between the need for an internal, Italian balance and the demands of European states that
were competing for hegemony”.[21]

“Through Machiavelli, as it was said, political science starts out on a new path, with thoroughly
new perspectives”.[22] Despite his declarations about the interest in the verita effetuale della cosa,
Machiavelli thought under the speciae aeternitatis. His conception had the universal as its goal and this
made him a man belonging to the Renaissance, and he left beyond a new perspective on how to judge
politics.

The Romanian historian Oţetea remarked: “The Renaissance brought an understanding about
science, coupled with a new view on society and on the art of governing”.[23] He could be easily called a
modern day Aristotle. “Machiavelli’s greatest merit”, notices Horkheimer, “is to have recognised,[24]
very early, the possibility of a political science which, in his view, corresponded with the new physics and
the new psychology, and that he expressed its fundamental traits in a simple, exact way”.

Of course, Machiavelli is not original through its topic as many before him had studied politics
and had done it so brilliantly, coming up with original works. What is original about Machiavelli’s
perspective is his method of approaching the political phenomenon: “Machiavelli invents a realistic
theory of politics. He bases the very ethical principles on the principles of politics which, in turn, rely
ontologically on the dialectic of purposes and means […] He is looking for cause and effect, believes in
experience, in the lesson of history, in actions. He discovers the psychology of people and that which is
permanent about it. He studies the universe of intent and action”.[25]

The author of The Prince can be seen as one of the most profound political psychologists for he
grasped human nature’s negative side, its vices, dark passions and hidden effects, reaching a deep level of
scepticism, on which he built his Machiavellianism. One thing is clear, though: “Machiavelli did not
invent shrewdness, treason or political crime. But he deduced a theoretical principle out of the political
practice, a universally valid norm and he conjured a decisive proof for the secularisation of thinking”.[26]
Machiavellianism as a practical political attitude is a despicable and dangerous phenomenon. However, it
is not Machiavelli who is responsible for it.

Machiavelli made an error when he tried to separate politics and morality, and to establish an
ethics in conformity with the interests and maxims of power. He was wrong in justifying absolute power,
state reason as reason per se, and as a supreme principle of governing. But, unveiling the intimate
mechanism of power, the hidden face of politics, without deformation and excuses, without illusions and
compromise, he forewarned people more than any creator of deforming utopias ever did. He shatters the
view that politics would pursue general good, as well as the belief in the sacred, divine power. We could
say that he humanises politics, placing it in a truer light and, through that, he helps us adopt a more
realistic attitude, in conformity with truth and reality. Burnham said: “if people generally understood what
Machiavelli had understood about the mechanism of power, they wouldn’t still be disappointed in
accepting leadership and they would know the necessary steps to take in order to stand up to it”.[27]
 The observation of real political facts is Machiavelli’s prime method; however, this has brought
about the awareness that careful researching of historical truth represents an indispensable source of
knowledge as that which is essential, general, repetitive in politics stands out as a gold nugget would. In
fact, Machiavelli thought politics under a double aspect: science and art. Political man is similar to a
sculptor who shapes a wonderful creation out of an amorphous material. Politics is creation, not just
technique and craft; it requires exceptional qualities from its leading figures who would then model it
according to their knowledge and virtues. It is no wonder then that one of the most famous Renaissance
historians, Burckhardt, believed that “out of all political architects, Machiavelli is the greatest, without a
doubt, without objection”.[28]

We have already established that Machiavelli was read and interpreted in different ways. Some
saw The Prince as a code for tyranny and cynicism. Others, on the contrary, saw in it a scientific work of
incontestable worth, even an expression of humanism. These two views constitute the extremes of the
numerous interpretations available. According to the ethical and political aspect, Machiavellian thought is
a polarised one, as Croce and Gramsci have pointed out. We subscribe to the view that considers as too
simplistic the attempt to analyse Machiavelli’s work according to the triad: moral, immoral, amoral,
because understanding it necessitates the use of nuances and subtleties.

Perhaps we are not exaggerating at all when we say that, of all political thinkers, Machiavelli has
become the less redundant, as many of his intuitions, observations and judgements still remain true. He
saw politics for what it was, vice and all, schemes and all. What we could reproach him is that he stayed
within the realm of politics exclusively, leaving aside the intersection points, the opening gates to ethical
and cultural aspects of life. That is the reason why his work seems somewhat incomplete, although
necessary. Even if we prefer Kant and his case for humanity, Machiavelli is crucial for understanding that
politics does not take into account subjective wishes and moral reasons, for it contains its own ends and
reasons.

“Machiavelli brings about a radical change in the European political thought; new concepts
emerge, new perspectives arise with the evolution of modern political reality”.[29] We must therefore
admit that without his honest, blunt and realistic spirit, we might have remained in the false paradise of
illusions and utopia, without ever knowing the true face of politics.
Bibliography

ADORNO, Theodor W., Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Allen Lane, London, 1973.

ARISTOTEL, Etica Nicomahicǎ, Editura Antet, Bucureşti, 1988.

BENOIST, Charles, Le Machiavélisme, tome III, Plon, Paris, 1936.

BURCKHARDT, Jakob, Civilizaţia renaşterii în Italia, vol. I, Editura pentru Literaturǎ, Bucureşti, 1969.

BURNHAM, James, The Machiavellians, Defenders of Truth, Gateway Editions, Washington, 1987.

CASSIRERC, Ernst, Mitul Statului, Institutul European, Iaşi, 2001.

GRAMSCI, Antonio, Note sul Machiavelli, Editura Politicǎ, Bucureşti, 1987.

HUSSERL, Edmund, Filozofia ca ştiinţǎ riguroasǎ, Paideia, Bucureşti, 1994.

MACHIAVELLI, Niccolò, Principele, (in vol. Mǎştile puterii), Institutul European, Iași, 1997.

MORGENTHAU, Hans, “Politics among Nations”, in Stanley HOFFMAN, Contemporary Theory in

International Relations, St. Martin, New York, 1965.

OȚETEA, Andrei, Scrieri istorice alese, Dacia, Cluj, 1980.

SARTORI, Giovanni, Teoria democraţiei reinterpretatǎ, Editura Polirom, Iaşi, 1999.

USCĂTESCU, George, Proces umanismului, Editura Politicǎ, Bucureşti, 1987.

[1] ARISTOTEL, Etica Nicomahicǎ, Antet, Bucureşti, 1988, p. 8.

[2] Ernst CASSIRER, Mitul Statului, Institul European, Iaşi, 2001, p. 170.

[3] Niccolò MACHIAVELLI, Principele, (in vol. Mǎştile puterii, Editura Institutului European, 1997), p. 92.

[4] Ibidem, pp. 92-93.

[5] Giovanni SARTORI, Teoria democraţiei reinterpretatǎ, Polirom, Iaşi, 1999, p. 72.

[6] Ibidem, p. 60.

[7] Edmund HUSSERL, Filozofia ca ştiinţǎ riguroasǎ, Editura Paideia, Bucureşti, 1994, p. 73.
[8] See Mǎştile puterii, p. 67.

[9] Discorsi, I, 4.

[10] Discorsi, I, 18.

[11] Discorsi, I, 33.

[12] Charles BENOIST, Le Machiavélisme, tome III, Plon, Paris, 1936, p. 4.

[13] Ibidem (tome I, Plon, Paris, 1907, ed. III), p. 2.

[14] Ibidem, tome III, pp. 5-7.

[15] Ibidem, p. 3.

[16] James BURNHAM, The Machiavellians, Defenders of Truth, Gateway Editions, Washington, 1987, p. 246.

[17] Hans MORGENTHAU, Politics among Nations, in Hoffman, S., Contemporary Theory in International Relations, St.
Martin, New York, 1965.

[18] Ibidem.

[19]Ibidem. In his book, The Theory of Democracy, Giovanni Sartori shows that, among the things that differentiate the realistic
and the legalistic view on politics, it is the use of power that makes a capital difference: for the latter, force is kept as a last resort,
whereas for the former, it is prima ratio (Giovanni Sartori, op. cit., p. 30).

[20] Andrei OŢETEA, Scrieri istorice alese, Dacia, Cluj, 1980, p. 19.

[21] Antonio GRAMSCI, Note sul Machiavelli, Editura Politicǎ, Bucureşti, 1987, p. 19.

[22] George USCǍTESCU, Proces umanismului, Editura Politicǎ, Bucureşti, 1987, p. 208.

[23] Andrei OŢETEA, Scrieri istorice…cit., p. 19.

[24] Theodor W. ADORNO, Max HORKHEIMER, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Allen Lane, London, 1973, p. 16.

[25] George USCǍTESCU, Proces umanismului…cit., pp. 209-210.

[26] Andrei OŢETEA Scrieri istorice…cit., p. 19.

[27] James BURNHAM, The Machiavellians…cit., p. 77.

[28] Jacob BURCKHARDT, Civilizaţia Renaşterii în Italia, vol. I, Editura pentru Literaturǎ, Bucureşti, 1969, p. 70.

[29] George USCǍTESCU, G., Proces umanismului…cit , pp. 220-221.