Suchergebnisse

Flattery is an often overlooked political phenomenon, even though it has interested thinkers from classical Athens to eighteenth-century America. Drawing a distinction between moralistic and strategic flattery, this book offers new interpretations of a range of texts from the history of political thought. Discussing Cicero, Pliny, Castiglione, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Mandeville, Smith, and the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates, the book engages and enriches contemporary political theory debates about rhetoric, republicanism, and democratic theory, among other topics. Flattery and the History of Political Thought shows both the historical importance and continued relevance of flattery for political theory. Additionally, the study is interdisciplinary in both subject and approach, engaging classics, literature, rhetoric, and history scholarship; it aims to bring a range of disciplines into conversation with each other as it explores a neglected - and yet important - topic

Republicanism, Rhetoric, and Roman Political Thought develops readings of Rome's three most important Latin historians - Sallust, Livy and Tacitus - in light of contemporary discussions of republicanism and rhetoric. Drawing on recent scholarship as well as other classical writers and later political thinkers, this book develops interpretations of the three historians' writings centering on their treatments of liberty, rhetoric, and social and political conflict. Sallust is interpreted as an antagonistic republican, for whom elite conflict serves as an outlet and channel for the antagonisms of political life. Livy is interpreted as a consensualist republican, for whom character and its observation helps to maintain the body politic. Tacitus is interpreted as being centrally concerned with the development of prudence and as a subtle critic of imperial rule

Abstract
Building on a number of recent studies that have turned to Hobbes in light of covid-19, I explore the context of Hobbes' own encounters with plague while at Oxford, along with efforts to mitigate plague by the regime of James I. I then explore what role his encounters with plague may have played as he wrote his philosophical masterpiece, Leviathan.

"Republicanism, Rhetoric, and Roman Political Thought develops readings of Rome's three most important Latin historians - Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus - in light of contemporary discussions of republicanism and rhetoric. Drawing on recent scholarship as well as other classical writers and later political thinkers, this book develops interpretations of the three historians' writings centering on their treatments of liberty, rhetoric, and social and political conflict. Sallust is interpreted as an antagonistic republican, for whom elite conflict serves as an outlet and channel for the antagonisms of political life. Livy is interpreted as a consensualist republican, for whom character and its observation helps to maintain the body politic. Tacitus is interpreted as being centrally concerned with the development of prudence and as a subtle critic of imperial rule"--

This article explores the relationship between the prince and his subjects in Machiavelli's The Prince. Drawing on Cicero's On the Ideal Orator, I develop a reading of the prince as acting out a persuasive ethos while appealing to the pathos of his audience. Rather than viewing this relationship as one of sheer manipulation and deception, however, I suggest that the beliefs and experiences of his subjects constrain the prince, preventing him from engaging in utter dissimulation. However, whereas Cicero's orator projects good character and cultivates goodwill, Machiavelli's prince need not cultivate good character, and rather than seek his audience's love, he need only avoid their hatred. Adapted from the source document.

This article explores the relationship between the prince and his subjects in Machiavelli's The Prince. Drawing on Cicero's On the Ideal Orator, I develop a reading of the prince as acting out a persuasive ethos while appealing to the pathos of his audience. Rather than viewing this relationship as one of sheer manipulation and deception, however, I suggest that the beliefs and experiences of his subjects constrain the prince, preventing him from engaging in utter dissimulation. However, whereas Cicero's orator projects good character and cultivates goodwill, Machiavelli's prince need not cultivate good character, and rather than seek his audience's love, he need only avoid their hatred.