The law needed to begin with this contrast because law applies only to free persons, not to slaves. So one crucial question was: what makes a slave?
The answer given in the legal texts is that a slave is someone who is in potestate , in the power of a master. The contrast is with someone who is sui iuris , able to act in their own right. Long before these argument were summarised in the legal texts, they had been elaborated by a number of Roman moralists and historians, above all Sallust, Livy and Tacitus.
These writers were interested in the broader question of what it means to say of individuals — or even of whole bodies of people — that they have been made to live in the manner of slaves. The answer they give is that, if you are subject to the arbitrary will of anyone else, such that you are dependent on their mere goodwill, then you may be said to be living in servitude, however elevated may be your position in society.
- Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England.
- Vickie B. Sullivan.
- Nastawgan : the Canadian North by canoe and snowshoe.
- You may also be interested in....
- An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.?
- Volume 22 (): Issue 2 (Jan ).
- Parliamentary History;
So, for example, Tacitus speaks of the servitude of the entire senatorial class under the Emperor Tiberius, so wholly subject were they to his lethal caprice. Was Machiavelli influenced by it, either negatively or positively? Yes, this vision of freedom is the one that underlies Renaissance Italian discussions about the vivere libero , that is, the sort of constitution that is needed to uphold a free way of life. Machiavelli was undoubtedly deeply influenced by these ideas.
You ask if this influence was positive. If by that you mean to ask if he agreed with the neo-Roman analysis, I would say that he emphatically endorsed it. In his opening two book Livy had contrasted the lack of freedom suffered by Rome under her early kings with the civitas libera , the free state, that the people were able to set up with elected consuls in place of hereditary kings after the expulsion of the Tarquins. Was it influential in the development out of Lutheran and Calvinist and other religious groups of that time of the right to protest, resist and revolt?
The right of resistance developed in the course of Reformation struggles was chiefly based on classical ideas, but mainly on the Roman law maxim that vim vi licet repellere , that it is always lawful to resist unjust force with force. The contrast between freedom and servitude is certainly important to the leading Reformation thinkers, including both Luther and Calvin.
A Machiavellian Conception of Democracy? Democracy and Conflict | SpringerLink
But this is mainly because they were predestinarians, and rejected the very idea of human freedom in the name of the claim that we are all slaves to sin, and are freed only by divine grace. How was it developed in Britain? Was it the sort idea of Rome Shakespeare would have known about and presented? Shakespeare has much to say in his Roman plays, and especially in Julius Caesar , about the allegation that, if a polity falls under the will of a single person it becomes enslaved, just as individuals becomes enslaved if they become subject to a master.
When Brutus addresses the plebeians in Act III, his justification for assassinating Caesar is that his death was necessary to keep Rome free and prevent her citizens from becoming slaves. Yes, John Milton offers a purely neo-Roman view of freedom and free states in both the major political tracts he published after the execution of Charles I. In his Tenure of Kings and Magistrates he argues that, unless the people are able to govern themselves, then they will live as slaves, since they will be living under the will of someone else.
On the eve of the Restoration he published The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth , in which he presents monarchy as an enslaving form of government. His argument is that kings always enjoy prerogative powers, and that such powers are by definition discretionary. But to live subject to the mere discretion of another person is what it means to live as a slave.
So he exhorts the people, in both these texts, to retain political power in their own hands as the only means to uphold their political liberty. What different view of liberty did he present? Was he drawing a different tradition or was he developing his ideas through his polemics, kind of making it up from whatever argument carried the day?
Machiavelli's Prince throughout the centuries
Hobbes changes his mind about the nature of political liberty. When he circulated his first political treatise, The Elements of Law , in , he still accepted the classical view that individuals are unfree if they are dependent on the will of someone else. He argued, however, that in order to assure peace and prevent a return to the state of nature — which he equates with a state of war — it is essential to set up an absolute form of sovereign authority to which we submit ourselves.
But he agreed that, if you submit yourself to the will of such a sovereign, you thereby forfeit your liberty, which consists in the absence of any such submission and dependence. His answer at this stage is that, if what you want is peace, then you will have to give up liberty.
- Machiavelli's Prince throughout the centuries.
- Death in Abeyance: Illness and Therapy among the Tabwa of Central Africa.
By the time he published his next political work, his De cive of , he had changed his mind. He now argues that, in establishing sovereign power, we do not have to give up our freedom, and he makes this point by way of arguing that everyone has misunderstood the true character of personal liberty. Personal freedom, he now insists, consists not in being independent of the will of others, but merely in not being obstructed from acting as we will. Freedom is not absence of dependence; it is simply absence of external impediments to motion.
Given this ontology, he is committed to the view that the only sense we can make of the idea of human liberty is to think of it as the freedom of an object to move. On this account, you are unfree if your movements are impeded by external impediments, but free if you are able to move without being obstructed. So Hobbes thought that even under the most coercive force of law left people free. He maintains — and this is surely plausible — that the main reason why people obey the law is that they are more frightened of the consequences of disobedience.
But as he now argues, fear does not take away freedom. But fear is not an external impediment. On the contrary, fear is a motivating force, and one that generally drives us to obey. So he insists that, when we obey the law, we always do so freely, and we are always free to disobey.
I agree that at first sight the argument does not look convincing, but if you recall how Hobbes defines human freedom then you can see that it is at least wholly consistent. Why was Hobbes so against the Roman idea?
One can only speculate, but I have the impression that Hobbes was worried about the extent of the demands that might be made in the name of liberty if the neo-Roman theory were left unchallenged. It is an obvious and crucial implication of the neo-Roman theory that you can be unfree even in the absence of any coercive threat. This is because, if you are living in dependence on the goodwill of someone else, you will be sure to self-censor in the hope of keeping out of trouble. But this will have the effect of limiting your own liberty.
Since her reading of the Discourses endeavors to establish the impossibility of peace and the necessity of expansion through warfare, Sullivan elides the passages where Machiavelli praises David, Mahomet and Romulus for ordering a way of life to allow a successor to preserve it for many years with the arts of peace alone. Moreover, she attributes Machiavelli's unavoidable populist sympathies to the decidedly patrician end of continually not to say constantly nurturing war. That is, Sullivan's Machiavelli teaches how to arrive at an awesome, acquisitive, aggressive, predatory, martial empire, which "consistently trump[s] the people's" concern to live in peace and ultimately not be "fodder for war" pp.
To this end, Machiavelli finds the best means in the ancient Roman republic. Rome extinguished the liberty of its partners and subjects by channeling the inborn and acquired passions of men, for either property or honor, toward the pursuit of empire p. From Machiavelli's analysis of the perfection and decline of Rome, Sullivan concludes that to restrain the excessive ambition of the great and hold corruption permanently in abeyance, republics must model themselves on Rome's tumultuous orders, but resort with more alacrity to awesome, stern punishment of rulers and ruled alike.
In the synthesis, however, the martial virtues and the necessity of a martial republic disappear completely. Instead, liberal republicanism channels human avarice to acquire along commercial paths rather than by conquest, which is now considered shameful.
All that remains of Machiavelli's specifically republican bequest consists merely of the necessity for "political space" in which the many can participate in their regime and defend against the oppression of the few. In crediting Machiavelli in this manner and in attempting an Einfluss study in the history of ideas-literally the history of sentences-by judiciously examining textual subtleties and similarities, Sullivan reveals the extent to which Nedham, Harrington et al.
Describe the connection issue. SearchWorks Catalog Stanford Libraries. Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the formation of a liberal republicanism in England. Responsibility Vickie B. Physical description x, p. Online Available online. Full view. Green Library. G7 S85 Unknown. More options. Find it at other libraries via WorldCat Limited preview.
click here Bibliography Includes bibliographical references p. Contents Acknowledgments-- Introduction-- Part I. The Foundations of Liberal Republicanism: 1.