Esta dissertação se dedica a estudar qual o lugar dos humores no pensamento republicano de Nicolau Maquiavel. Entendendo por humores os grupos de cidadãos que constituem o corpo político grandes/nobres e povo , bem como os desejos e apetites próprios de cada um destes dois grupos, este estudo pretende mostrar como o autor florentino elabora seu pensamento republicano a partir dos conflitos civis, que é efeito da relação entre eles. Partimos da investigação do significado do termo humor na medicina antiga e renascentista, para tentar compreender a apropriação que Maquiavel faz para pensar a dinâmica entre os grupos políticos da cidade. Em seguida, dedica-se a compreender como o florentino elabora o modelo romano, isto é, como justifica a grandiosidade da tumultuosa república, sobretudo a partir dos desejos e apetites dos grupos políticos e das instituições que se originam dos conflitos entre eles. Por último, a análise da decadência romana apresenta a razão do funcionamento deturpado das instituições e o uso de vias extraordinárias para a resolução de conflitos por parte dos grupos políticos. Observa-se que Maquiavel apresenta, a partir da análise da corrupção, as condições necessárias para a fundação de uma república, bem como os efeitos da ambição por bens e do excesso do desejo popular por liberdade que podem, também, provocar a irrupção do processo de corrupção. Logo, este trabalho tenta pensar o modelo republicano de Maquiavel a partir da chave humoral, o que acaba colocando em destaque tanto a relação entre seus grupos internos, como as paixões que os movem. / This dissertation is dedicated to studying what is the place of the humours in Nicolo Machiavelils republican thought. Understanding by humours citizen groups which constitute the political body grandi/nobles and the people , as well as their own desires and appetites, this study aims to show how the Florentine author elaborates his republican thought from the civic conflicts. We start from the investigation of the term humours in Renaissances and ancient medicine to better comprehend Machiavellis appropriation of it to analyze the dynamics between the citys political groups. From then on the idea is to perceive how our Florentine builds up the Roman model, that is, how does he justify the grandeur of the tumultuous republic, especially accounting for the political groups desires and appetites and the institutions which follow from their conflicts. Finally, a study about Roman decadence offers the reasons for the perverted functioning of its institutions and the resulting use of extraordinary ways for conflict resolution. Machiavellis analysis of the corruption shows what conditions are necessary for the foundation of a republic, as well as the effects of property ambition and the popular desire for freedom both can start a corruptive process. Thus, this work offers a reflection on the Machiavellian republic model through its humours, highlighting the relationship between its internal groups and the passions driving each of them.

[pt] O objetivo deste trabalho visa analisar a relação entre o conflito de grandes e povo e a liberdade política dele decorrente. Para tanto, inicialmente, será feito um estudo de como Maquiavel entende a virtú e a fortuna. Após, analisar-se-á a forma como Maquiavel pensa a ética, a religião, a moral, a Política, as armas, a liberdade e a igualdade. Uma vez dissecadas essas premissas básicas e necessárias, passar-se-á ao estudo da teoria dos humores que se inicia com a máxima que o povo não quer ser dominado e oprimido, enquanto que os grandes desejam dominar e oprimir. Posteriormente, será demonstrado como se deram os Conflitos das Cidades, iniciando-se com o modelo Romano, o modelo Florentino e o modelo de Esparta e Veneza. Estabelecidas às bases de seu pensamento, será demonstrada que a lei, resultante do conflito entre os grandes e o povo, gera a liberdade de todo o corpo político. / [en] This study aims to analyze the relationship between conflict of the great and the people and political freedom brought by this. Therefore, initially, a study of how Machiavelli understands the virtu and fortune will be made. After, we will examine how Machiavelli thinks about ethics, religion, morality, policy, guns, freedom and equality. Once dissected the this basic assumptions, the study will analyze the theory of humors, that starts with the maximum that people do not want to be dominated and oppressed, while the great wish exactly to dominate and oppress them. After that, the study proceeds about how were the Conflict of Cities, beginning with the Roman model, Florence model, the model of Sparta and Venice. After established the bases of his thought, this work will demonstrate that the resulting law of conflict between the great and the people generates the freedom of all political body.

Virtú has long been associated with manly traits like strength, cunning, valor, and ruthlessness. Much has been debated among these lines, whereas others have taken the approach of letting virtú and its meaning be undetermined. In this thesis a comparison between the different theoretical and practical meanings of Machiavelli’s teachings are discussed, with the conclusion being that there might be a case for virtú as being similar to showmanship, alternatively, an ingrained part of human nature. This conclusion is derived from comparison of different sources regarding Machiavelli’s works, with the Prince and the Discourses as the core of the interpretation. The flexibility of virtú and its circumstantial nature creates, through the arguments in this thesis, a basis for virtú as something other than a trait to have or to be developed. That being said, I am cautious to finalize a meaning to virtú, because of the nature of the word and its meaning. It has been interpreted to fit different subjective realities ever since its release, whereas this thesis might be found to do the same. Virtú and Machiavelli is hard to fully grasp, which makes it all the more interesting to try to derive meaning where none might be found.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The author offers a comprehensive analysis of the thought of Machiavelli situated against the backdrop of political and biographical developments in the early 16th century.

What defines demagogues and what sort of threat do they pose to democracy? Contemporary politics has recently witnessed a rise in demagogic leaders around the globe. Following this trend, many notable scholars have sought to better define the ancient term and to provide politics with advice on how to handle them. However, demagogy is hard to define, and research is divided over what truly makes for a demagogue. Scholars tend to either focus on the intention, the tools, or the effects of leaders to categorize demagogy. While they might disagree over which aspect of demagogy is most salient, they are more unanimous in their claims regarding the threat that demagogy poses to democracy. Before we outright condemn demagogy, I argue that we should better understand the phenomenon and its relationship to democracy. This dissertation turns to Machiavelli and Aristotle in order to better grasp and better define the phenomenon of demagogy. I first build a concept of demagogy through Aristotle's Politics and then use that concept to detect a similar phenomenon within the work of Machiavelli. In many ways Aristotle and Machiavelli affirm the claims of contemporary scholars, especially regarding the threat that demagogy poses to democracy. According to both thinkers, demagogy involves the use of factions, class enmities, and the corruption of law. Possibly more troubling, both show how the methods of demagogy remain an ever-present possibility to democratic rule. Nevertheless, Aristotle and Machiavelli disagree with contemporary scholarship on how to address the problem of demagogy. Rather than seek out ways to constrain the demagogue, the two philosophers dedicate themselves to providing an education to demagogues. Even more surprisingly, this dissertation argues that both have covertly tried to persuade others to adopt the methods of demagogy for the sake of better preserving democracy and perhaps even to improve upon it.

L'objet de cette recherche est d'unifier les idées de Machiavel en les réunissant autour de la notion de pérennité du pouvoir politique. Après avoir fait ressortir séparément les grands thèmes des deux oeuvres majeures de Machiavel, soit Le Prince et les Discours sur la première décade de Tite-Live, nous tenterons d'établir une théorie politique pertinente pour les deux grands types d'États analysés par l'auteur italien, soit les monarchies et les républiques. Bien que Machiavel utilise fréquemment des exemples précis et qu'il analyse les situations au cas par cas, son but est toujours d'assurer que le système politique en place perdure. Nous voudrons sortir quelque peu de la méthode machiavélienne afin de regarder les idées de l'auteur dans leur généralité. Ce faisant, les rapprochements entre la pérennité d'une principauté et d'une république seront plus évidents, ce qui permettra de faire ressortir une théorie politique unifiée dans l'oeuvre de Machiavel.

Political thinkers of the Renaissance, foremost among them Niccolò Machiavelli and Desiderius Erasmus, authored works commonly referred to as “mirrors of princes.” These writings described how princes should rule, and also often recommended a certain arrangement or relationship between the intellectual class and the political powers. François Rabelais’s five books of Pantagruel also depict and recommend a new relationship between these elements of society. For Rabelais, the tenets of a philosophy that he calls Pantagruelism set the terms between philosophers and rulers. Pantagruelism, defined in Rabelais’s Quart Livre as “gaiety of spirit confected in contempt for fortuitous things,” suggest a measured attitude toward politics. Rabelais’s prince, Pantagruel, accordingly rejects the tendencies of ancient thinkers such as Diogenes the Cynic who viewed politics as futile. Yet Pantagruel also rejects the anti-theoretical disposition of modern thinkers such as Machiavelli who placed too much confidence in politics. I demonstrate how Rabelais warns against the philosophers’ entrance into public service, and how he simultaneously promotes a less selfish philosophy than that of Diogenes. I argue that Pantagruel’s correction of his friend Panurge through the consultations of experts regarding the latter’s marriage problem shows that fortune will always trouble human life and politics. I also argue that Pantagruel’s rule over the kingdom of Utopia exemplifies a Socratic form of rule—reluctant rule—which relies on a trust that necessity (embodied in the Tiers Livre in the Pantagruelion plant) and not fortune (embodied in the Tiers Livre in Panurge’s future wife) governs the world, including the political world.