This essay examines wether the prevailing opinion of Machiavelli as a prominent figure in political realism is correct or if the author is misinterpreted and can be said to represent something more. Thus, the puropse of this essay is to revise the description of Machiavelli given in widely used Swedish textbooks. This is done on the basis of a thesis saying that Machiavelli, judged not by his renowned book ‘The Prince’ (Fursten), but in the light of his extensive work ‘Discourses’ (Republiken), does not advocate a sovereign power but rather promote a pluralistic society. The method used in this essay is a qualitative textanalysis, which is done on the two books in purpose to examine three central themes in Machiavelli’s writing; the morality, the view on humanity and the state and citizen. Though there is an obvious similarity between Machiavelli’s ‘Discourses’ and the writing of Aristoteles no effort is done in this essay to describe what they have in common, but only to present a contrasting picture vis á vis the established and prevailing role of Machiavelli in Sweden. Throughout the essay it becomes clear that there is more to the subject than the authors of the textbooks let us know. By reading ‘Discourses’ I therefore stress the importance of civic virtue and rule of law in Machiavelli’s thinking.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:oru-7357 |
| Date | January 2009 |
| Creators | Sonnsjö, Hannes |
| Publisher | Örebro universitet, Samhällsvetenskapliga institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds