The well-worn path of scholarly consensus would seem to lead one from Machiavelli, through Hobbes, and inevitably to the terminus of realism. Challenging this accepted wisdom can seem a daunting task, for when wandering the road seldom travelled the signposts become few and confused. Outside the realist interpretation, the authors' best recognized works – namely, Machiavelli's Il Principe (The Prince) and Hobbes' Leviathan – have had their intentions subject to accusations ranging from satire1, to blasphemy2, to the outright promotion of evil3, and their political aim anywhere from the establishment of stable governance4, to a defence of the Calvinist Church5, of all things. It is thus in the spirit of full disclosure that I must readily admit this paper to contain not just a minority view of these works, but a minority amongst a diverse legion of such, from some of which this paper shall borrow before concluding. Nonetheless, it is the intention of this paper to illustrate that, in fact, within both The Prince and Leviathan can be discovered many of the foundational principles of liberalism.
To this effect, then, we shall begin with examining the contexts of each author and the aforementioned works, and attempt to establish therefrom the intentions behind each work. Then, examining each text in light of the established intentions, we shall briefly discuss what elements of each can be demonstrated to have underwritten key aspects of liberalism. Finally, having treated each work in turn, we shall conclude with the consideration of the influence of both on modern liberal thought.
On Machiavelli
It is typically considered unfortunate that little is known about Machiavelli's early life6; this speaks, I would argue, more to the influence of Machiavelli on the modern political landscape than in any value intrinsic to details about Machiavelli's childhood or education, such that later scholars are hungry to know more of his personal context amidst their attempts to ascribe meaning to his work. This lack does, perhaps, suggest one reason for why so many can accept at face-value the contents of The Prince from this worldly, intelligent diplomat – but we shall address this matter at further length shortly. For now, we shall simply agree with the authorities that his family, being an influential, if not particularly wealthy one7, as well as the evidence of his own work, suggests Machiavelli enjoyed a stable upbringing and an enriching education. The contents of this education have been purported to be particularly humanist in nature8, but this belongs properly to the realm of speculation.
What remains is a fairly detailed picture of the era in which
Machiavelli is to be found, his sterling record as a diplomat9,
and his highly influential works of prose10.
Most of these details can be abstracted away for our present
purposes11
– however, there are a number of details which will allow us to
establish important context both for Machiavelli himself, and for The
Prince, which we shall treat in brief hereafter. Before doing so,
however, it would seem reasonable to assert that Machiavelli cannot
be considered merely a product of his time and environment12,
for else his impact on later political philosophy is not to be
understood, nor the division of periods of medieval and modern
political theory around him13.
Thus, what context shall provide us with is not a way of evaluating
Machiavelli within the framework of his era, but transcending it,
working counter-culture – both to the current era, and to the
realist elements of the era to follow, a topic which shall be
discussed at greater length shortly. For now, suffice to say that
those who conclude that Machiavelli was a product of his time, and
his works were principally aimed at such goals as could be achieved
in his lifetime (such as ingratiation with the ruling Medici
family)14,
is to discount the philosophical framework established within his
work, the obvious disconnect with the legacy of medieval
scholasticism, and the possible subversiveness of his intent.
To return to the matter at hand, however, among those elements of
historical context immediately meaningful to our purpose, primary are
the state of his native Florence during both his diplomatic
incumbency, and during the writing of The Prince. When at the
height of his diplomatic career, Florence thrived under a republican
government, and so did Machiavelli himself15.
However, during the period of the writing of The Prince (as
well as Discourses on Levy, as well as a number of other
works), the Medici family had, with the aid of Spanish troops,
conquered the territory that had previously ousted them from power –
and with the return of the Medici came, shortly after, the torture
and exile of Machiavelli16.
It becomes obvious that Machiavelli can be considered to come by his
love of republics naturally17,
and has no reason to love the tyrants he professes to desire to
educate in The Prince.
The final historical element
worthy of consideration is Machiavelli's choice of role model for the
would-be tyrant – one Cesare Borgia. If this were a successful
prince, who had executed his cruelties quickly and been careful to
part men from their pater and not their patrimony18,
and then governed a state in relative peace and prosperity, he would
have indeed been a suitable model in line with those principles
advocated in The Prince. Indeed, many evaluations of The
Prince, struggling to establish Machiavelli within the realms of
realist theory, contain just such a Borgia19
20
– an ahistorical account, according to any number of others,21
22
23
which paint a portrait of a man bloodthirsty and cowardly by turns,
and in no way a capable administrator – including just such a
portrayal by Machiavelli himself24,
only ten years previous to his writing of The Prince. How then
do we reconcile this historical context with the contents of The
Prince, and in what way does this relate to realist
interpretations, or discerning the foundations of liberalism in
regards to The Prince? It is these questions which we shall
now address.
Explaining the Joke
In comedy, amongst the many considerations of timing, appropriateness, audience participation, etcetera, there remains one cardinal principle – do not, under any circumstances, explain the joke. Any humour inherent in what is being said shall surely fail to survive being analyzed or presented piecemeal. It is, therefore, no surprise that generations of modern scholars have failed to grasp, or else outright objected this simple premise: that The Prince is, amongst other things, a work of satire. When one has spent a significant portion of one's life explaining the joke, and building upon the work of countless scholars before you who have done the same, it should be no surprise that you fail to see anything funny.
Having examined in brief some aspects of the historical context of The Prince in the preceding paragraphs, however, it becomes clear that a face-value interpretation of The Prince is not to be understood. Many scholarly sources, where they do not ignore the possibility of satire entirely, subject the character of Machiavelli to the indignity of suggesting he was so eager to ingratiate himself with the tyrants25 now ruling his beloved Florence that he was willing to not only misrepresent his political convictions26, but to misrepresent recent history27, as though the people of Florence would somehow be unaware of events and persons a mere decade past. At the same time, these scholarly sources will praise Machiavelli's realist philosophy and his sharp insights! How does a man both perjure himself and yet offer truth about the world?
The only reasonable answer would appear to be that The Prince is necessarily a work of juvenalian satire. Like Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, The Prince contains sharp insights into human nature, but in aid of a subversive message against the proclivities of princes. The common understanding of The Prince is thus neatly inverted – those aspects near the centre survive intact, while those which seemed skewed toward one extreme must now be re-evaluated in favour of a deeper understanding of The Prince as a critique, and not a support, of despotism. If Swift had not carefully pointed out that his Proposal was meant to be a satirical critique, would he too have been subjected to scholarly assumption of his intent as serious? Perhaps now we would speak of Swiftian personalities, who engage gleefully in cannibalism?
Machiavelli and Liberalism
It is with our reformed perspective that we can now approach The Prince as a work favourable to the democratic republic, and see it as an indictment of much realist philosophy. Even without admitting satirical intentions on Machiavelli's part, much support for liberalism is in view, as could be shown at length. In the interest of brevity, however, we shall here draw only in broad strokes – that is, how can Machiavelli's The Prince, whether as a satire or otherwise, be considered supportive of liberalism?
As we have attempted to establish subversive intentions, the answer to such a question must compose two parts – namely, that which is supportive of liberalism when read as a satire, and that which is supportive of liberalism regardless of its intention and which is manifestly existent within the work regardless of theoretical interpretation.
When reading The Prince as a satire, Machiavelli's support for the necessities of trust, loyalty and shared enterprise, based in the general good nature of man – the opposite meanings of those typically understood from The Prince, but necessary for lining up with Machiavelli's other works, such as Discourses On Livy, become notable28 – and it is many of these same ideals that underpin liberalism. In fact, when reading Machiavelli as satire, it becomes a stirring defence of the ideals of freedom, as seen in a satirical reading of Machiavelli's approval of Cesare Borgia and his ruthless methods, as well as those inhumane and oppressive methods discussed elsewhere. The entirety of The Prince can be understood in terms of a manual on how not to do it, making a list of arguments supporting liberalism no difficult task to compile.
Having thus established some number of the satirical elements supporting liberalism that can be found in The Prince, one must wonder what the point is in evaluating it any other way. If The Prince is truly satire, then to what purpose does one evaluate it seriously? To this it must be answered: that if The Prince is indeed satire, then it is quite obviously a spectacularly unsuccessful one; and it is the reasons for this lack of success which formulate the reasons for evaluating some elements of The Prince in all seriousness. To put it plainly, the reasons why The Prince is typically not evaluated as a satire is that Machiavelli coupled with his humour a piercing insight into human nature, and a methodology that would inform modernity.
For the former, Machiavelli has often been considered to understand hard truths about the selfish nature of man29, advising the prince in reasonable seeming ways regarding how one is to go about securing oneself against them. However, consider Machiavelli's heartfelt appeal to the power of republic and, tellingly, liberty, in cities accustomed thereto. He advises princes that the only way to not be destroyed by the power of the rallying cry that is liberty is to utterly destroy that which they seek power over in the first place30. This would seem to indicate that the former is intended as satirical, or at least an appraisal of men in the absence of liberty31, and the latter Machiavelli's true intent – that freedom is a basic desire of men, and will be sought after at any opportunity – a key component of liberalism.
For the latter, one can finally return to an aspect of The Prince typically understood of it – that is, the absence of religious underpinnings and emphasis on the will of the individual. Unlike the medieval and ancient scholasticism that preceded The Prince, no special virtue is assumed or required of the ruler – rather, pragmatism, necessity and cold rationality are the new underpinnings of political philosophy32. Moreover, such conceits as the divine right of kings is nowhere in view – rather, it is the will of the individual which directs political life, as opportunity allows33. While it can be argued that this is yet another element of Machiavelli's satire, suggesting the moral inadequacy of any prince as a ruler, yet this emphasis on the individual is yet another key component of liberalism, and will inform the thinking of others yet to come. On such a note, then, we shall turn to our second subject matter, Hobbes' Leviathan.
On Hobbes
In evaluating the context of author and principle work, what can be expected of Hobbes? Surely, his was not also a work of satire, despite its shared position squarely within the realm of realism? No, this would be to go much too far. Not many texts which purport to support realism are likely to be attempts at sardonic wit – although the world would perhaps be a gentler, happier place were it so. The shared ideas between Hobbes and Machiavelli's The Prince are definite34, and not due to any interpretation based on humorous intent; nonetheless, it is to be contended that, in fact, many of these shared ideas are those which support liberalism. Before examining such, however, it is worthwhile to establish a context for Hobbes and Leviathan, so as to best understand the text in light of its intention.
With Hobbes, there is no lack of specific detail regarding his early life and education, although it is no more meaningful than the early life of Machiavelli would likely have been. Two notable aspects of his personal history, however, include his familiarity with the scientific method being defined at this period35 and his love of mathematics through such36, and his familiarity with the ancient philosophers through his university study37 (with the result that he disagreed with the ancient philosophers and reviled his teachers38). Both of these aspects play in to the liberal interpretation of his work, as shall be shown shortly.
Meanwhile, to establish a context for the Leviathan, one must cast the net farther abroad, to the state of England during this period. According to many contemporary scholars, Hobbes was born into a nation recoiling both from the wars of religion that had rocked the European continent for the century previous39, and the recent succession of England from the the ecclesiastical authority of Rome40. In this period, the king was not well reconciled with his people, who had been under the long tutelage of the Catholic clergy, and was forced to rely on the people's representatives in order to maintain legitimacy41 - indeed, this necessity devolved into civil war between the royalists and the parliamentarians42. This, then, sets the stage for a discussion of Hobbes as decidedly liberal in his expressed ideology, and for comparison in circumstance and ideology to Machiavelli.
Hobbes, Machiavelli and Liberalism
While it has been expressed that the general consensus concerning Hobbes places him solidly in the realist camp, in truth one need not delve too deeply to discern, as with Machiavelli, a significant if minority trend towards understanding Hobbes in a different tradition. While this alternative interpretation can, and has, occupied some number of scholars for lengthy sections of their respective works, up to and including entire books, we shall deal only briefly with some major themes, derived in part from the previously defined historical context. These themes shall include emphasis on the individual and the place and purpose of religion. Before delving into these topics, however, it is worthwhile to briefly compare the contexts of Machiavelli and Hobbes, illustrating as we go those similarities which contributed to their similarity in thought, and likewise their support for liberalism.
To this effect, we shall begin with such contrasts as the history discussed herein offers, before offering comparison. This is meaningful, because it offers an explanation as to why Machiavelli, who we contend offered elements of his philosophies within The Prince as satirical jest, was taken so seriously by Hobbes. To wit, the most telling element of contrast involve the level of actual involvement with politics within their lifetimes. While Machiavelli was an accomplished diplomat, well acquainted with the operations of the political system of his time, and a skilled manipulator thereof43, Hobbes was on the level of the arm-chair politico44 – well read and involved within the theory of the discipline, and little experienced with its real-world application. This is not, of course, to suggest that any individual actually practised within the field of politics would not favour a literal understanding of Machiavelli – else the concept of realpolitik is not to be understood45. Rather, it is to suggest Hobbes' particular revulsion at the concept of republic46, and his intent to focus all power into the hands of a single individual as the surest guarantor of peace47, both of which stand in sharp contrast to the understanding of Machiavelli espoused herein, lies in his different – perhaps even lacking – direct experience of the nature of princes, as so well understood by Machiavelli. It is these themes of absolutism which stand in contrast to the understanding of The Prince expressed herein, and to many of the liberal ideologies expressed elsewhere in Leviathan, as will be shortly shown, and it is thus reasonable to offer a possible explanation in Hobbes' relative naivete on the matter.
In comparison, however, and offering many possible areas of overlap and shared experience which may have, outside of even any knowledge by one of the other, led to similar political theories, lie Hobbes' experience of a fractured home nation48, the problem of religion and religious authority49, and the distinct break with the ancient western philosophers.
To return to our previously expressed topics and begin with the individual then, as did Hobbes himself, it is clear that we can see here both the influence of a man informed by the scientific method of his time, and the enlightenment thinking which inspired such50. Possessed of a strongly individualistic emphasis51, those themes of absolutism which pervade are not contradiction to such, but rather an extension of both the times52, and the sought after stability (which, too, is expressed as desirable in Machiavelli)53. This individualistic emphasis is also in line with Machiavelli's rendering regarding the source of political authority in the individual, collectively in the sovereign54, and with liberalism, which would be expanded with further conceptions of Hobbes' social contract theory55. Hobbes conception of the state as composed of many individuals, expanded from Machiavelli, in which the many necessarily formed the support for (and, in Hobbes, the authority of) the one, would compose much of the recognizable thrust of future liberal thought as a source of legitimacy for rule outside ancient and medieval scholasticism was sought56.
In regards to the place and purpose of religion, Hobbes continued in Machiavelli's thinking57 by making it a tool in the sovereign's hands, as opposed to an instrument by which the sovereign is bound – and moreover, influenced the understanding of religion as having no particular bearing on, or control over, civic affairs in liberalism58, at least in the traditional sense. It is Hobbes, after all, from which most begin to garner the sense of a civic religion of sorts, and yet this was not without foundation in Machiavelli59. Hobbes attempts to found the people's best interests in a religion of earthly peace-seeking60, and especially allowing for and encouraging the pursuit of science, which he fully expects, in the finest enlightenment (and, following from such, liberal) tradition to bring about material prosperity61. In this final aspect he most clearly echoes Machiavelli and anticipates liberal tradition – that is, in the area of expecting material prosperity to be the sum of prosperity, and its attainment of chief, perhaps sole, importance62. After all, did not Machiavelli, as previously noted, advise that men more quickly forget the loss of their father than their inheritance?63 Although Hobbes frames this expectation in words less direct and, certainly, with no ironic intention, yet he echoes this sentiment throughout his appraisal of the driving force of human nature, namely passion64.
Conclusion
Although it is clear that so many political philosophers succeeding him took Machiavelli's The Prince at face-value, it is nonetheless clear in Hobbes' that this did not, on the whole detract from the propagation of the liberal values embedded in either of their principle works, and through them, to the political philosophers of the majority of the modern age. To summarize, then, the point is this – that Machiavelli's The Prince, interpreted as satire or otherwise, nonetheless contains many elements of liberalism in its individualistic emphasis and appeal to the authority and will of the individual as the source of legitimacy for any governance, as opposed to divinity or virtue; and that these same elements are present, indeed exemplified, in Hobbes' Leviathan. Whether the interpretation of these texts presented herein is accurate, let alone absolute, is of course questionable being, as earlier admitted, a minority position – nonetheless, the richness added to the liberal tradition by the inclusion of these works is all but inarguable.
Sources:
Johnston, Ian. “Lecture on Machiavelli's The Prince”. A paper presented during a panel discussion of Machiavelli at the Vancouver Island University, Vancouver, Ontario, February 2002. http://records.viu.ca/~Johnstoi/introser/machiavelli.htm. Retrieved: 17/03/2010.
'House of Commons Journal Volume 8: 17 October 1666', Journal of the House of Commons: volume 8: 1660-1667 (1802), pp. 636-637. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=26780. Retrieved: 18/03/2010.
Strauss, Leo. Thoughts On Machiavelli. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1958.
Gilje, Nils & Gunnar Skirbekk. A History Of Western Thought: From Ancient Greek to the Twentieth Century. London: Routledge, 2001.
Martinich, A. P. The Two Gods of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on Religion and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 'Niccolò Machiavelli'. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/. Retrieved: 18/03/2010.
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 ed., s.v. “ Nicolò Machiavelli”.
Mansfield, Harvey. Machiavelli's Virtue. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Manent, Pierre and Jerrold Seigel. An Intellectual History of Liberalism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Tr. W. K. Marriott, 1908.
Sabatini, Raphael. The Life of Cesare Borgia. http://www.third-millennium-library.com/readinghall/GalleryofHistory/Cesare_Borgia/Door.htm. Retrieved: 19/03/2010.
Mattingly, Garrett. "Machiavelli's Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?" The American Scholar 27 (1958): 482-491.
Sullivan, Vickie. Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Aubrey, John. “A Brief Life of Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679”, in Aubrey's Brief Lives. London: Martin Seeker & Warburg Ltd., 1949.
Weithoff, William. “A Machiavellian Paradigm for Diplomatic Communication”. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Nov., 1981), pg. 1090-1104.
Heineman, Rorty. Authority and the liberal tradition: from Hobbes to Rorty. New Jersey: Carolina Academic Press, 1984.
Beiner, Ronald. “Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau on Civil Religion”. The Review of Politics, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Autumn, 1993), pg. 617-638.
Footnotes:
1Johnston, Ian. “Lecture on Machiavelli's The Prince”. A paper presented during a panel discussion of Machiavelli at the Vancouver Island University, Vancouver, Ontario, February 2002. http://records.viu.ca/~Johnstoi/introser/machiavelli.htm. Retrieved: 17/03/2010.
2'House of Commons Journal Volume 8: 17 October 1666', Journal of the House of Commons: volume 8: 1660-1667 (1802), pp. 636-637. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=26780. Retrieved: 18/03/2010.
3See especially Leo Strauss, who in a striking passage accuses Machiavelli of being both evil and triumphant in it – advocating those deadliest of political realities, which ancient scholars preceding him had found necessary to cloak beneath the guises of dialectic characters, under his own name. Strauss, Leo. Thoughts On Machiavelli. (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1958), 9-10.
4Gilje, Nils & Gunnar Skirbekk. A History Of Western Thought: From Ancient Greek to the Twentieth Century. (London: Routledge, 2001), 177.
5Martinich, A. P. The Two Gods of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on Religion and Politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 64.
6Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 'Niccolò Machiavelli'. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/. Retrieved: 18/03/2010.
7Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 ed., s.v. “ Nicolò Machiavelli”.
8Ibid.
9Ibid; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 'Niccolò Machiavelli'.
10Such as The Prince and Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy.
11For those interested in a lengthy appraisal of Machiavelli and the impact of his environment upon him, Leo Strauss' Thoughts On Machiavelli presents such a review – while I do not agree with many of its premises or conclusions, it is a worthwhile read, and has been important in formulating some of the opinions on Machiavelli's life and thought exhibited in this paper. Additional reading may include Machiavelli's Virtue By Harvey Claflin Mansfield, Jr., which first alerted me to Strauss' earlier work, or be selected from the bibliography of this paper, any number of which would provide additional (although often conflicting) viewpoints on Machiavelli's life and philosophy.
12See, for instance, the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 ed., which admonishes its readers not to judge Machiavelli too harshly, reminding us often that he was “a typical representative of the Italian Renaissance”.
13Any number of works will remind us of the divide, either by reminding us that “[Machiavelli] goes beyond imitating the Ancients to improving on them”, or declaring that “Machiavelli ... set the terms for the modern definition of [politics]”. For the former: Mansfield, Harvey. Machiavelli's Virtue. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 125-126.
For the latter: Manent, Pierre and Jerrold Seigel. An Intellectual History of Liberalism. (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995), foreword viii.
14Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 'Niccolò Machiavelli'.
15Ibid.
16Ibid.
17It is almost certainly fallacious to attribute his idealistic vision for a united Italian republic, as noted previously, to a mere matter of his personal comfort. However, for the purpose of illustration, even if he had no particular ideal of a Roman-like republic, which both The Prince and, at much greater length, Discourses On Livy attest to, that he should support that form of government which supports him, and revile that which does not, would only seem natural when placed against Machiavelli's own appraisal of human nature as presented in The Prince.
18Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Tr. W. K. Marriott, 1908. Chapter 17. “... men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.”
19Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 ed., s.v. “ Nicolò Machiavelli”. “His aim was to point out the best way for ... how a kingdom may be best built up and established ... and collected examples ... especially from the career of Cæsar Borgia”.
20Sabatini, Raphael. The Life of Cesare Borgia. http://www.third-millennium-library.com/readinghall/GalleryofHistory/Cesare_Borgia/Door.htm. Retrieved: 19/03/2010.
21Mansfield, 10.
22Mattingly, Garrett. "Machiavelli's Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?" The American Scholar 27 (1958): 482-491. Of Borgia: “a Spaniard, a bastard, convicted, in the court of public opinion anyway, of fratricide, incest, and a long rote of abominable crimes, a man specially hated in Tuscany for treachery and extortion and for the gross misconduct of his troops on neutral Florentine soil, and a man, to boot, who as a prince had been a notorious and spectacular failure.”
23Johnston. “... Cesare Borgia, whom Machiavelli holds up as a role model, was viewed by many contemporaries as something of a brutal fool or, at least, a colossal failure.”
24Ibid.
25While it is true that tyrant was until recent times a value-neutral term, it can be considered that much of its modern pejorative meaning can be traced back to the attitudes and methodologies of a tyrant as described in The Prince.
26Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 ed., s.v. “ Nicolò Machiavelli”.
27Ibid; Mattingly.
28Johnston.
29Consider Machiavelli, Chapter 19.
30Machiavelli, Chapter 5.
31That Machiavelli considered it reasonable that a transformation of the human nature of a tyrant and his subject occurs within the realm of a tyranny is in view within Chapter 17, where he decries the people as “ungrateful, fickle, treacherous, cowardly, and greedy.”
32Consider Machiavelli, Chapters 5-8.
33Machiavelli, Chapter 6.
34I say here definite, rather than intended, as there is no definitive evidence that Hobbes was aware of Machiavelli or The Prince. Nonetheless, the similarity between aspects of their work is not to be dismissed. See also: Sullivan, Vickie. Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 80-81.
35Aubrey, John. “A Brief Life of Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679”, in Aubrey's Brief Lives. (London: Martin Seeker & Warburg Ltd., 1949), 147-159.
36Ibid.
37Ibid.
38Ibid.
39Manent, 21.
40Ibid, 23.
41Ibid, 21.
42Skirbekk, 181.
43Weithoff, William. “A Machiavellian Paradigm for Diplomatic Communication”. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Nov., 1981), pg. 1090-1104.
44Aubrey.
45Skirbekk, 178.
46Sullivan, 82.
47Ibid.
48For Machiavelli, in the Italian city-states, in Hobbes' the English civil war.
49It is likely Machiavelli is sincere in considering the papacy a hindrance to the unification of the Italian peninsula, and certainly Hobbes' was well acquainted with the wars of religion of his period.
50Ibid, 181-182.
51Skirbekk, 181.
52Ibid.
53Heineman, Rorty. Authority and the liberal tradition: from Hobbes to Rorty. (New Jersey: Carolina Academic Press, 1984), 35.
54Sullivan, 80.
55Manent, 26.
56Heineman, 33.
57Beiner, Ronald. “Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Rousseau on Civil Religion”. The Review of Politics, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Autumn, 1993), pg. 617-638.
58Heineman, 33-35.
59Beiner.
60Sullivan, 161.
61Ibid, 262.
62Beiner.
Augustine is sometimes portrayed as a plagiarist of Plato, with Christian flavour. This essay considers the accuracy of this assertion.
We look at the last aspects of fading in images via the HTML5 Canvas, and how to reverse the process.
Machiavelli and Hobbes are both credited (blamed?) for aspects of modern realist political theory - but perhaps they could better be understood as the progenitors of modern liberalism?
We get into the meat of the fade effect used on the front page.
A downloadable, customizable Flash version of the clock from Majora's Mask.
We discuss how to get the animation set up and images loaded, in preparation for our fade effect.
Running into security violation errors when trying to get image data from a canvas? Here's some of the why and what of it.