in A. Lee and B. J. Maxson, eds., The Culture and Politics of Regime Change in Italy, c.1494-c.1559 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2022), pp. 166-189., 2022
Written in late 1520 or early 1521, Machiavelli’s "Discursus rerum florentinarum post mortem iuni... more Written in late 1520 or early 1521, Machiavelli’s "Discursus rerum florentinarum post mortem iunioris Laurentii Medices" set out to explain how Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici could overcome the challenges facing his family and secure their regime in the long term. It was framed around a critical assessment of the city’s past. Over the past century, Machiavelli noted, Florence had been governed by three stati: the “‘aristocratic”’ regime of the Albizzi; the “‘princely”’ government of Cosimo and Lorenzo de’ Medici; and a “‘popular”’ republic. While they had all shared a common weakness, they had each collapsed for different reasons – and it was only by examining these, Machiavelli believed, that the Medici could be saved from a similar fate. It has often been assumed that the "Discursus" reflects a broadly consistent attitude towards regime change across his later works – and that a close parallel is to be found in the "Istorie fiorentine". Yet this paper will argue that the relationship between the Discursus and the "Istorie" is more subtle than has been supposed. Through a close comparison of the two texts, it will reveal that, far from remaining static, Machiavelli’s attitude towards regime change underwent a significant transformation in the period c.1520–1525. Turning to examine the reasons for this shift, it will suggest that, just as Machiavelli sought to prevent regime change in the future by looking to the past, so his understanding of earlier stati was shaped, in part, by his experience of regimes in the present.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Books by Alexander Lee
For more than a century, scholars have believed that Italian humanism was predominantly ‘civic’ in outlook. Often serving in communal government, fourteenth-century humanists like Albertino Mussato and Coluccio Salutati are said to have derived from their reading of the Latin classics a rhetoric of republican liberty that was opposed to the ‘tyranny’ of neighbouring signori and of the German emperors. In this groundbreaking study, Alexander Lee challenges this long-held belief. From the death of Frederick II in 1250 to the failure of Rupert of the Palatinate’s ill-fated expedition in 1402, Lee argues, the humanists nurtured a consistent and powerful affection for the Holy Roman Empire. Though this was articulated in a variety of different ways, it was nevertheless driven more by political conviction than by cultural concerns. Surrounded by endless conflict—both within and between city states—the humanists eagerly embraced the Empire as the surest guarantee of peace and liberty, and lost no opportunity to invoke its protection. Indeed, as Lee shows, the most ardent appeals to imperial authority were made not by ‘signorial’ humanists, but by humanists in the service of communal regimes. The first comprehensive, synoptic study of humanistic ideas of Empire in the period c.1250–1402, this volume offers a radically new interpretation of fourteenth-century political thought, and raises wide-ranging questions about the foundations of modern constitutional ideas. As such, it is essential reading not just for students of Renaissance Italy and the history of political thought, but for all those interested in understanding the origins of liberty.
Papers by Alexander Lee
In March 1506, Machiavelli was in the Casentino when he received a letter from Agostino Vespucci in Florence. A few weeks earlier, Machiavelli had arranged for his Decennale primoa verse history of Florence between 1494 and 1504to be printed by Bartolomeo de' Libri, with Vespucci bearing the costs. It was the first of his works in print and had already met with some success. Much to Vespucci's alarm, however, a rival printer, Andrea Ghirlandi da Pistoia, was now selling a pirated version, festooned with mistakes. This article explores how Vespucci tried to protect Machiavelli's interests and his own investment. It shows how Vespucci successfully circumvented the lack of copyright protection by casting the pirated version as a form of defamation and exploiting both secular and ecclesiastical authorities. In doing so, it casts fresh light on the legal and commercial challenges of printing in sixteenth-century Florence.
For more than a century, scholars have believed that Italian humanism was predominantly ‘civic’ in outlook. Often serving in communal government, fourteenth-century humanists like Albertino Mussato and Coluccio Salutati are said to have derived from their reading of the Latin classics a rhetoric of republican liberty that was opposed to the ‘tyranny’ of neighbouring signori and of the German emperors. In this groundbreaking study, Alexander Lee challenges this long-held belief. From the death of Frederick II in 1250 to the failure of Rupert of the Palatinate’s ill-fated expedition in 1402, Lee argues, the humanists nurtured a consistent and powerful affection for the Holy Roman Empire. Though this was articulated in a variety of different ways, it was nevertheless driven more by political conviction than by cultural concerns. Surrounded by endless conflict—both within and between city states—the humanists eagerly embraced the Empire as the surest guarantee of peace and liberty, and lost no opportunity to invoke its protection. Indeed, as Lee shows, the most ardent appeals to imperial authority were made not by ‘signorial’ humanists, but by humanists in the service of communal regimes. The first comprehensive, synoptic study of humanistic ideas of Empire in the period c.1250–1402, this volume offers a radically new interpretation of fourteenth-century political thought, and raises wide-ranging questions about the foundations of modern constitutional ideas. As such, it is essential reading not just for students of Renaissance Italy and the history of political thought, but for all those interested in understanding the origins of liberty.
In March 1506, Machiavelli was in the Casentino when he received a letter from Agostino Vespucci in Florence. A few weeks earlier, Machiavelli had arranged for his Decennale primoa verse history of Florence between 1494 and 1504to be printed by Bartolomeo de' Libri, with Vespucci bearing the costs. It was the first of his works in print and had already met with some success. Much to Vespucci's alarm, however, a rival printer, Andrea Ghirlandi da Pistoia, was now selling a pirated version, festooned with mistakes. This article explores how Vespucci tried to protect Machiavelli's interests and his own investment. It shows how Vespucci successfully circumvented the lack of copyright protection by casting the pirated version as a form of defamation and exploiting both secular and ecclesiastical authorities. In doing so, it casts fresh light on the legal and commercial challenges of printing in sixteenth-century Florence.
Tout en discutant des usages du concept d’exclusion en tenant compte des apports critiques, ce livre explore la manière dont la notion éclaire les dilemmes et les complexités contemporaines du rapport à l’autre. Il entend ainsi dévoiler l’envers de l’ordre civique, en révélant la permanence d’une gouvernementalité par l’exclusion.
Ce livre est coordonné par Julien Le Mauff, historien, ATER à l’université de Lille, rattaché au CERAPS, et membre associé au Laboratoire d’études sur les monothéismes, et Réjane Sénac, directrice de recherche CNRS au Centre de recherches politiques de Sciences Po - CEVIPOF.
Ont participé à cet ouvrage Axelle Brodiez-Dolino, Alexander Lee, Janie Pélabay, Serge Paugam et Florence Renucci.