بنیادهای اندیشه سیاسی مدرن: رنسانس

The Foundations of Modern Political Thought #1

by Quentin Skinner, کاظم فیروزمند (Translator)

مجموعه دو جلدی
جلد نخست: رنسانس

Genres: History, Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Political Science, Renaissance, Academic

488 pages, Hardcover

First published November 30, 1978

About the author

Educated at Caius College, Cambridge, where he was elected to a Fellowship upon obtaining a double-starred first in History, Quentin Skinner accepted, however, a teaching Fellowship at Christ's College, Cambridge, where he taught until 2008, except for four years in the 1970s spent at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. In 1978 he was appointed to the chair of Political Science at Cambridge University, and subsequently regarded as one of the two principal members (along with J.G.A. Pocock) of the influential 'Cambridge School' of the history of political thought, best known for its attention to the 'languages' of political thought.

Skinner's primary interest in the 1970s and 1980s was the modern idea of the state, which resulted in two of his most highly regarded works, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: Volume I: The Renaissance and The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: Volume II: The Age of Reformation.

Reviews

[Σωτήρης Αδαμαρέτσος · Rating 5 out of 5]

Κατόρθωμα! Καθηγητής πολιτικής φιλοσοφίας και ιστορίας του Κέμπριτζ, ο Κουέντιν Σκίννερ έδωσε με αυτό το magnus opus του την πρώτη γνήσια ιστορική μελέτη της πολιτικής σκέψης στην κρίσιμη περίοδο της μετάβασης από τον Μεσαίωνα στους νεότερους χρόνους. Μοναδική καταγραφή των ιδεών του δυτικού τρόπου σκέψης. Γιατί τα πάντα, αγαπητοί μου, ξεκίνησαν από εδώ, απ την Δύση, όπου οι ιδέες της πολιτικής και της ελευθερίας γεννήθηκαν η μία μέσα από την άλλη, αντιπαρατεθηκαν και συγκρουστηκαν σκληρά και διαμορφωθηκαν. Και γεωγραφικά ακόμα, με αφετηρία τον Αριστοτέλη και τον Κικερωνα, παιδιά των ανεξάρτητων πολιτειών της Βόρειας Ιταλίας της Αναγέννησης, ενηλικιωνονται στο πανεπιστήμιο των Παρισίων, συγκρούονται στην Μεταρρύθμιστικη Γερμανία του Λούθηρου και στην Ελβετία του Καλβίνου, οριοθετουνται στη Γαλλία των θρησκευτικών πολέμων, περνάνε στην Ολλανδία και μέσω της καλβινικης Σκοτίας, στην Αγγλία του Κρομγουελ. Ήταν, είναι κ θα είναι πάντα αυτές οι ιδέες, παιδιά της Δύσης και του Δυτικού τρόπου σκέψης. Και η αφορμή ήταν...η χριστιανική ηθική και θεολογία!

Με απλά λόγια· η Αναγέννηση που διαμεσολάβησε για τη μετάβαση από τον Μεσαίωνα στην προνεωτερικότητα διευκόλυνε τη μετάλλαξη των αγώνων αντίστασης των ελεύθερων πόλεων της Βόρειας Ιταλίας στην Αγία Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία, στην Παπική Ρώμη και σε ηγεμόνες - τυράννους, σε υλικό πολιτικού προβληματισμού σχολαστικών, θωμιστών, ουμανιστών, νεο-σχολαστικών, νεο-θωμιστών ή συνταγματιστών λογίων, ενώ οι ιδέες των λουθηρανων, καλβινιστών και ουγενότων ενέπνευσαν τη δημιουργία δημοκρατικών θεσμών στην Ολλανδία πριν από το τέλος του 16ου αιώνα και στην Αγγλία του 17ου αιώνα, μέχρι τον Διαφωτισμό. Η παράθεση των κειμένων είναι δοκιμασία για κάθε αναγνώστη· Οκαμ, Δάντης, Μαρσίλιος της Πάντοβας, Μπάρτολος, Βάλα, Γκουιτσαρντινι, Μακιαβέλι, Λούθηρος, Καλβίνος, Τόμας Μορ, Ερασμος, Μονταινιος, Μορνέ, Μπιουκαναν, Ιησουιτες αντιμεταρρυθμιστες και Ουγενοτοι καθηγητές του δικαίου, είναι λίγα από τα ονόματα που πρωτοστάτησαν στις διεργασίες Ιστορικής Αυτοσυνειδησίας της Ευρώπης και παρατίθενται εδώ εξαντλητικά....

Αιτία όλων; Το πρωτείο του Πάπα. Με πρώτο αίτιο να γκρεμιστεί το δικαστικό και νομοθετικό πρωτείο Παπα και Αυτοκράτορα, γεννιέται η ιδέα της συνοδικης εξουσίας της Εκκλησίας. Οι Ουμανιστες έγραψαν εγχειρίδια πολιτικής για τον homo universalis που μέσω της ηθικής και της γνώσης πρέπει να κυβερνά. Ο Μακιαβέλι έγραψε τον Ηγεμόνα για τον κυρίαρχο του κράτους που πρέπει να είναι και λιοντάρι και αλεπού, χωρίς ηθικούς ενδοιασμούς, προς όφελος του κράτους του αλλά και του λαού του. Οι βασιλιάδες των νέων κρατών της Δυτικής Ευρώπης διεκδικούν την πολιτική εξουσία από τον Παπα στα κράτη τους μέσω των νόμων τους. Ο Λούθηρος και η Μεταρρύθμιση μίλησαν για την λύτρωση μέσω της πίστης του καθενός και την πολιτική υποταγή των ανθρώπων στην εξουσία των βασιλιάδων που τους έθεσε ο Θεός, κατά τον Απόστολο Παύλο, και σε αντιδιαστολή στο παπικο πρωτείο. Οι Αντιμεταρρυθμιστες των Ιησουιτων με ριζοσπαστικες αναφορές στις σχολαστικες παραδόσεις του ρωμαϊκού δικαίου, αντεταξαν με τη σειρά τους στην εξουσία των νόμων, το νόμο του Θεού ΑΛΛΑ και το φυσικό δίκαιο της ελευθερίας του Ανθρώπου έναντι των βασιλιάδων του!
Ο προτεστάντης Καλβίνος και οι Ουγενοτοι της Γαλλίας κατόπιν, έθεσαν το δικαίωμα των αξιωματουχων να ελέγχουν και να ανατρέπουν τον ηγέτη που κυβερνά χωρίς την ηθική του θείου νόμου. Και εδώ γεννιέται η ιδέα της αντίστασης στον κυρίαρχο του κράτους!

Μέχρι τότε οι προτεστάντες είχαν προσπαθήσει να υπερασπιστούν την νομιμότητα της αντίστασης τους στους καθολικούς βασιλιάδες χρησιμοποιώντας ένα από τα εξής τρία επιχειρήματα : τη λουθηρανικη θεωρία των κατωτέρων αξιωματουχων· την καλβινιστικη θεωρία των "εφορευτικών" αρχών που ελέγχουν τον ηγέτη· και τη θεωρία του ιδιωτικού δικαίου για την ατομική αντίσταση σε περιπτώσεις αυτοάμυνας.
Παραδόξως, και για να στηρίξουν την επιχειρηματολογία τους, οι ίδιοι οι προτεστάντες στράφηκαν στις ριζοσπαστικες παραδόσεις συνταγματισμου του σχολαστικισμου και του ρωμαϊκού δικαίου για το imperium, που υποστήριζαν οι αντίπαλοι του Αντιμεταρρυθμιστες! Απέρριψαν την προτεσταντική αρχή ότι ο Θεός τοποθετεί τους ανθρώπους σε κατάσταση πολιτικής υποταγής ως θεραπεία για τις αμαρτίες τους. Άρχισαν αντίθετα να υποστηρίζουν πως η αρχική και θεμελιώδης κατάσταση του λαού θα έπρεπε να είναι εκείνη της φυσικής ελευθερίας, του φυσικού δικαίου. Αυτό τους επέτρεπε να εγκαταλείψουν το λόγο του Απόστολου Παύλου περί εξουσίες ορισμένες απευθείας από το Θεό. Αντίθετα, συμπέραιναν πως κάθε νόμιμη πολιτική κοινωνία θα έπρεπε να προέρχεται από μια πράξη ελεύθερης συναίνεσης εκ μέρους όλου του λαού. Κατ αυτόν τον τρόπο ήθελαν να περάσουν το δόγμα τους ως μια μη θρησκευτική μόνο αλλά και πολιτική ηθική του Χριστιανισμου.
Έτσι τώρα μπορούσαν να εξάγουν το δικαίωμα αντίστασης στον βασιλιά από μια γενική θεωρία της κυριαρχίας. Αυτό με τη σειρά του, τους επέτρεψε να την παρουσιάσουν την θέση τους έναντι των καθολικών ως καθαρά πολιτικό και όχι πια θρησκευτικό επιχείρημα. Το ηθικό δικαίωμα γίνεται πλέον πολιτικό καθήκον (όλων).

Από κει και πέρα η αρχή του φυσικού δικαίου έναντι του βασιλικού νόμου (αντιμεταρρυθμιστικη ιδέα περί ελευθερίας μέσα στα όρια του νόμου της φύσης) οδήγησε στην ιδέα ότι η δημιουργία των πρώτων πολιτειων πρέπει να έγινε με σκοπό την ευημερία του λαού· και παράλληλη την διατήρηση της ιδιοκτησίας που είχε ο καθένας. Η μεταβίβαση της εξουσίας στον ηγεμόνα είχε ως κίνητρο την εξασφάλιση μεγαλύτερης εγγύησης για την περιουσία του καθενός, και την σίγαση των συγκρούσεων ανάμεσα στο λαό για τα ζητήματα των υλικών αγαθών (το δικό μου "meum" και το δικό σου "tuum"). Αυτή η ταύτιση ευημερίας των πολιτών με διατήρηση όμως των δικαιωμάτων ιδιοκτησίας είχε ως σκοπό την επισήμανση υποχρέωσης του εκάστοτε ηγεμόνα να εξασφαλίζει πρωτίστως τα υλικά αγαθά των υπηκόων του, με τη μορφή ενός συμβολαίου (pactum) ή lex regia μεταξύ μελλοντικού ηγεμόνα κ των αντιπροσώπων του λαού· παράλληλα με το θρησκευτικό σύμφωνο (foedus) αυτού προς το Θεό ως υπόσχεση να δρα με ευσέβεια έναντι των υπηκόων του.

Κατ αυτόν τον τρόπο φτάνει μέσω Ολλανδίας και Σκοτίας στην Αγγλία η πολιτική θεωρία της επανάστασης που θεμελιώνεται πάνω σε μια αναγνωρίσιμα νεωτερικη εκκοσμικευμενη θέση για τα φυσικά δικαιώματα του ανθρώπου και του λαού επί της περιουσίας του. Οι Άγγλοι θα καρατομησουν τον Κάρολο Α γιατί θέλησε να είναι απόλυτος μονάρχης - όπως πέτυχαν οι Γάλλοι βασιλιάδες μετά την ήττα των Ουγενοτων στους θρησκευτικούς πολέμους - και θα προχωρήσουν στην θέσπιση των πρώτων κοινοβουλευτικων ελευθεριών. Αυτή την αλλαγή στον τρόπο διάθεσης της εξουσίας από τον Παπα, στον βασιλιά και μετά στους αντιπροσώπους και στο λαό θα περάσει κατόπιν στους διαφωτιστές του 18ου αιώνα και στην γαλλική επανάσταση. Τα υπόλοιπα είναι η νεότερη ιστορία της Ευρώπης!

[Katie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is NOT the sort of book that deserves to be skimmed. Due to external circumstances, though, I did not have a very long time to spend with it, and I had to read it much more quickly than I would have liked. I'd like to come back to it someday, but for now it's very possible that I missed important nuances here and there.

Quentin Skinner's book is a classic, and it doesn't take long to see why - it has a genuinely impressive breadth of vision (and must have required a crazy amount of close reading by Skinner) and an insightful interpretation. As with everyone who writes about civic humanism, it's helpful to read him in light of Hans Baron. Where Baron sees civic humanism being generated by a specific combination of forces in a specific, ten-or-twelve year period, Skinner sees civic humanism (or later, the concept of 'liberty') as something that had been gestating for hundreds of years, dating at least back to the twelfth century.

Skinner sees the concept of liberty emerging from Italian city republics: first the de facto authority claimed by Lombard communes against the claims of Frederick Barbarossa and his successors, and then the somewhat delayed de jure justification provided by Bartolus of Saxoferrato and Marsilius of Padua in the 14th century. This early trumpeting of republican ideologies, Skinner argues, must be seen as an integral part of later civic humanism.

The idea evolved, of course - Bruni's civic ideas weren't those of Marsilius of Padua, whose own ideas were not those of a 12th century commune. Renaissance humanism in Skinner's view is perhaps best summed up in the phrase "virtu vince fortuna, 'virtu' conquers fortuna." [virtu is a difficult concept to translate into English, but it means something along the lines of active, purposeful strength]. It drew on both scholastic thought and early humanist thought and could be flexibly applied to both republics and cities under the control of a prince (in the former the republic itself possessed virtu, in the latter it belonged to the prince himself).

It's a really fascinating, detailed work. I'd definitely recommend it.

[Justin Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

What's to review? There's no competition, nothing else you can read that will fill in the story for you so well or so clearly. It can get a bit dry, but you can put up with that for a couple hundred pages, because the garbage that Skinner had to read to write this must have been equally if not more dry, and run into the hundreds of thousands of pages. A wonderful combination of history, history of ideas, and the ways they act on each other.

[Amin Riahi · Rating 5 out of 5]

این‌که تکوین اندیشه سیاسی در رنسانس چگونه بود و این‌که رنسانس با قرون وسطی، جمهوری رم و دولت‌شهرهای یونان پیوست داشته یا که تمدن جدید حاصل یک گسست است و البته این‌که تبار ایده آزادی را تا چه سالی می‌توان دنبال کرد در این کتاب به بهترین شکل ممکن به بحث گذاشته شده است.

[mohab samir · Rating 5 out of 5]

إن الفلسفة السياسية من أقدم الموضوعات التى شغلت بال الإنسان بل تعد من أولى الموضوعات التى شغلت بال هذا الكائن الإجتماعى بعد مواضيع الميثولوجيا الأولية كالبحث فى وجود إله .
والفلسفة السياسية كالحياة تتطور وتعتمد فى تطورها على أحداث الماضى وبدقة أكثر فهى دائريه دائرية التاريخ فتعود لتكرر نفسها لكن فى اثواب مختلفة نسجتها ظروف عصرها .
فالأسباب التى أدت إلى كل الديموقراطيات التى قامت عبر التاريخ من ديموقراطية أثينا إلى ديموقراطية الغرب الحالية هى هى ذاتها فى كل زمان ومكان لكنها تختلف فقط فى شكلها الخارجى وفى درجة تطور الفكر فى كل عصر نتيجة لظروفه العلمية والعملية .
يبدأ كوينتن سكينر الفيلسوف السياسى فى هذا الكتاب بآراءه الخاصة بنشأة الفكر السياسى الحديث بدايةً من عصر النهضة فى إيطاليا فى بدايات القرن الرابع عشر وأصوله من أواخر القرون الوسطى ليوضح بدقة عبر الكتاب كيف تطور هذا الفكر بشكل متدرج وبطىء لكنه كان تطور شبه يومى نتيجة للظروف السياسية الحرجة فى أوروبا . لينتج فى نهايةالقرن السادس عشر فكر سياسى كامل الأركان يحمل بحرفية صورة لفكر عصر تميز بدرجة كبيرة من العملية والثورة على الجمود القديم وركود العصور الوسطى .
يبدأ هذا الفكر السياسى بدانتى وبترارك من أوائل المعروفين بمهاجمة الكنيسة فى العصور الوسطى والداعين إلى الحرية وكانت هذه الأفكار جديدة على شعوب أوروبا المعزولة عن بعضها ولكن لم تكد تربط التجارة بينها حتى رأينا هذه الأفكار التحررية تنتشر فى جميع أرجاء أوروبا فيتطور الفكر الفلسفى السياسى فى كل أرجائها مرورا ببارتولوس صاحب أولى الأبحاث المتعلقة بحرية شعوب المدن الإيطالية من سلطة الإمبراطور عن طريق نقد وتحليل قوانين جستنيان القديمة ثم دفاع مارسيلو البادوى عن حرية الشعوب ضد سلطة الكنيسة والباباوية .
ثم يأتى القرن الرابع عشر بكُتّابه النثريين الذين بدأوا بدراسة المؤلفات الفلسفية القديمة وإحيائها ثم نقدها وتحليلها بل وفى كثير الاحيان تطويرها رغم تبجيلهم لها بعد دفن هذه المؤلفات لمدة الف عام كاملة .
فنصب هؤلاء الكتاب النثريين انفسهم مستشارين للأمراء والملوك واخذوا ينصحوهم بالفضائل القديمة كالعدالة والحكمة ثم يتطور هذا الفكر الفلسفى القديم ليشمل إنتقادات على سياسة الإقطاع ونقد البناء الإجتماعى للمدن الأوروبية فى إطار نشئة الطبقة الوسطى الجديدة من أصحاب التجارة فتم نقد مفهوم النبالة لتصبح إمتلاك الفضائل بأعلى درجة عن شرف المولد.
ومرورا بظهور الكتاب الإنسانيين فى القرن الخامس عشر والسادس عشر أمثال إراسموس وجويشياردينى وميكيافيللى وبوديه وغيرهم كثيرون من كتاب مرآة الأمراء الناصحين والمربيين الأميريين وغيرهم ممن كتبوا فى الأبحاث الإنسانية السائدة فى هذا العصر كانت الطبقات الوسطى من التجار قد تمكنت من إحكام سيطرتها على المدن الأوروبية فى معظم أرجاء أوروبا ليصير الفكر الفلسفى مؤيداً لتعريف النبالة المؤهلة للحكم على أنها حيازة الفضائل بجانب الثراء الذى يجلب بعض الشرف ويؤهل لحياة الفضيلة أكثر من الفقر ويساعد على حسن التنشئة المطلوبة .
ونتج أيضا لذلك ونتيجة للحروب الكثيرة التى قامت بين المدن والدول بسبب التجارة وطرقها وتنافسها ان ظهر فكر ميكيافيللى ونتج أيضا أفكار مضادة له كرد فعل على هذه الأفكار ومؤيديها .
وأخيرا يبحث سكينر فى كتاب اليوتوبيا للسير توماس مور آخر إنسانيي عصر النهضة والذى أظهر فيه ميله لأفكار العدالة الإجتماعية وإزالة الفروق الطبقية وما إلى ذلك من أفكار شيوعية وهو أيضا نتيجة لذات الأسباب المادية السائدة
لكن فى النهاية ما ساد من هذه الأفكار الكثيرة التى نشأت فى ظل هذا العصر المفعم بالأحداث والتطور هى ما كانت أكثرها عملية وجلباً للربح وحفاظاً على النظام . وكان إستغلال العلم كالفكر أيضا فى سلطة التجارة والمال وكانت الطابعة هى أهم ما وصل إليه العلم فى هذا العصر .

[Nektarios kouloumpos · Rating 5 out of 5]

*Διάβασα μόνο το μισό βιβλίο περίπου γιατί αυτό χρειαζόμουν. Η κριτική είναι βασισμένη στα 3 πρώτα κεφαλαία αν και δεν πιστεύω να αλλάξει!

Ένα τεράστιο πολιτικό κοινωνικό και φιλοσοφικό έργο. Δύσκολο αλλά ευκολοδιαβαστο. Είναι τόσες οι πηγές που αναφέρονται σε κάθε θέμα που καταπιάνεται όποτε είναι άθλος το γεγονός ότι διαβάζεται σχετικά εύκολα!
Σίγουρα δε μπορείς να το πάρεις παραλία αλλά οπωσδήποτε πρέπει κάποιος να το διαβάσει αν ασχολείται με τις πολιτικές επιστήμες και την κοινωνική-πολιτική φιλοσοφία!

Καλή ανάγνωση σε όλους

[Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don’t understand the actual meaning of Pocock’s contextualism, and I have heard that his contextualism is different from skinner’s version. Insofar I will only give my impression of his version. It is first of all historical, historical in the sense of intellectual history that is occasionally accompanied by sporadic episodes of historical events, consisting of mostly bibliographical accounts of specific writers or important political events at that particular moment. Skinner clearly believes in the continuity of intellectual history, and that is fine with me. Wittgenstein has once commented, though I remember neither the exact location of the quotation nor the exact phrasing, that all thoughts essentially provoke thoughts, and that is all what they are going to accomplish. I mostly agree with this diagnosis, to use another word of his, of philosophical history, which is why I always hold a more pessimistic and gloomier view of philosophy as a vocation, that there are no innovations in the strict sense but only elucidations, as pointed out by both continental philosopher like Bergson and analytical philosophers such as Rafael Ferber or Wittgenstein (more pessimistically), but that interpretation might be enough for us humans in this life anyway. Or as Marx pointed out, philosophy gave no solution. It is from this starting point that I agree with this methodology of taking the theorists out of their general historical context and put into an arena where they battle for fame, armed with their political theories (the advice books for princes, the educational schemes (beginning of liberal arts), mirror-for-princes, state over citizens or otherwise, who has more power (who should have power, pope vs secular vs emperor), and so on). And those who don’t comply end up like the author of Utopia, which only becomes more so in recent years. The central theme of this first half of a great project is the interpretation of the concept virtus, the ancient Greco-Roman concept that is discovered and rediscovered for a myriad of times in Renaissance, both Northern and Southern Renaissance. It begins with the fights of the legal theorists to pre-humanists and all the way extend to the scholasticists, the humanists, and others. Like many other concepts in Greek and Roman thoughts, they are singular but always polysemic and, sometimes worse, contradictory, to quote the beginning of Bergson’s Metaphysics. In the Platonic fashion, and this is a clue that can be traced from the beginning, or prior to, of the Renaissance all the way to the ending of the first half—Utopia’s revolutionary force in completing the journey of Plato in eliminating all “degrees,” something that would be unthinkable to most Renaissance writers. It is then all the more interesting that the political theorists look to the ancient theories, as suggested by Machiavelli and his, of course, coming from Livy himself in the preface to his histories as monumentum, to arrive at the kind of conclusions of utopia, whereas Machiavelli who championed the studying of history, especially successful ones as against the failures, later followed by Nietzsche who talked about the use and misuse of history (who treated histories as changing modalities of different values), chose to be least theoretical in his writing, talking about metaphors, allegories, and historical precedents. Is Skinner hinting at Utopia as the final development a fully fledged ideology as he mentioned earlier when talking about how new blood (philological studies that was extended to philosophical, legal, moral, and finally political sphere) from Hebrew-Greco-Roman studies demystifies the old beliefs and prompted the scholars to look into the “customs” to form laws and political theories.
“This in turn meant that discussions about legal and political principles tended to resolve increasingly into discussions about historical precedents. Correspondingly, history became ideology: the conduct of political argument came to be founded to an increasing extent on the presentation of rival theses about the alleged dictates of various ‘ancient constitutions’.” (from the last paragraph of chapter “Humanism and Legal Scholarship”)

For him, there was a time when history was historia and not ideology. The making of political thoughts is the making of ideology. This is rather evident in the different thinkers’ treatment of classical thinkers/politicians/philosophers for use. In this case, the recovering the virtus becomes not only difficult but also irrelevant. The focus was always the human itself. The transition from the studia virtutis to vir virtutis in Renaissance is then only natural.

“One effect of this immensely influential argument was that, in all orthodox discussions about man’s nature and capacities throughout the Middle Ages, the possibility of aspiring to the attainment of virtus ceased to be mentioned, just as the representation of the concept is wholly absent (so Panofsky assures us) from medieval art (Panofsky, 1960, p. 177).”
(from chapter “THE CONCEPT OF ‘VIRTUS”)

The treatment of Machiavelli and Machiavellian thoughts then become an interesting phenomena. He is too fervent in his pursuits from the advice books to princes in the Prince to the later republican dreams in discourses on Livy, so much so that it would be bad faith for us to say his thoughts are ideology, even after learning about his initial attempts of appeasing the Medici family for “fame and glory.” But it is the double irony as pointed out by Skinner with respect to More who disliked the position the scholars took to advise kings when they cannot be kings themselves, those who dreamt of actually making a difference. Once you are a scholar, you are stranded in this grand irony of scholarship, that it has to rely on some kind of bureaucracy, some kind of degree, some kind of distinction. Or in another aspect, are we able to distinguish a fancier version of ideology, one provided by Machiavelli if we believe that he understands the mechanism of politics, as supposed to the more simple and straightforward ideologies provided by the lesser, less prominent political theorists? But I guess Skinner would object to this perspective: there is no degrees in ideology. Not clearly spelt out but Skinner has hinted that Machiavelli most likely already understood how ideology and the production of politics through stasis works. A friend of mine once told me that the whole political philosophy of Machiavelli is the state as machina. A similar point was made by Agamben.

“So they failed to attain what Machiavelli clearly regarded as a fundamental political insight: that ‘all legislation favourable to liberty is brought about by the clash’ between the classes, and thus that class-conflict is not the solvent but the cement of a commonwealth (p. 113)” (from chapter "The Contribution of Machiavelli").

The prejudice against political thinkers no longer hold when sometimes they wish for the best in the worse of the time and sometimes frankly they don’t give a fuck about the time they live in and just want to find targets from previous thinkers, only hoping that their theories will hit the target of appeasing someone on the way. Myopic and innocent at the same time. If one has learnt anything from this first half journey, that is the fancier ideologies are made of the same historical materials which are used to make the lesser ideologies, favored more or less because of the tempus not because of their innate superiority. Thus has Skinner always avoided the more extreme interpretations of these thinkers and attempted to construct a continuous line of thoughts. Ironically then, the Straussian methodology then proves legitimate in its most classical meaning, taking the serving of the sovereign as the fundamental goal. Even if there are ruptures (debate, imitation, and deviation) in continuities, it does not hurt his thesis of political thought as ideology because those points of departure only strengthens the original narrative by correcting it. Shakespeare can be interpreted in two ways as to agree both with the firmest upholding of hierarchies and with the harbinger of shattering of degrees, so can most of the Roman politicians(good or bad Caesar), biblical teachings (St. Augustine’s opponents), and legal histories (interpretation of Roman laws in the strict same sense vs. the more adaptive ones). As Skinner pointed out when discussing how the new philological studies influenced society that “philology is capable of determining doctrine” (Humanism and Biblical Scholarship). Of course, here he is mostly talking about the influence of philological studies on the interpretation of the Bible, but the saying still rings true and alarming for all times. To philosophize is to nit-pick the words. Philosophy is Philology in its most inward manifestation. Just as people look back to Aristotle for the correct interpretation of their politics, to steal Benjamin’s words, a weak Messianic force is endowed with the historians philosophers to salvage the broken, lost episodes of history.

[Majd · Rating 3 out of 5]

.
هذا الكتاب هو الجزء الاول في من دراسة مستفيضة عن نشأة تكون الافكار السياسية في الغرب وبدأ تحديدا من القرن الثالث عشر، واذا ذكر القرن الثالث عشر وعصر النهضة لا مفر من ذكر إيطاليا رائدة النهضة والشاعر العظيم دانتي صاحب الكوميديا الالهية، فهي كما يرى عدد من المؤرخين ان دانتي احد نقاط التحول من العصور الوسطى الى عصر النهضة.
.
كانت شبه الجزيرة الإيطالية ممزقة لدويلات كثيرة ومنها جمهورية فلورنسا وجمهورية البندقية على سبيل المثال لا الحصر، وفي هذه الاجواء كانت هذه الجهوريات مطمعا بين الاباطرة والباباوات وهو ما ساعد على ظهور تيارات مناهضة للامبراطورية والبابوية ونادت بالحرية والاستقلال لهذه الجمهوريات، وبها بدأ يظهر ادب النثر المعبر عن خذه الافكار والمطامح التي رفضت وصاية البابا المدعية امتلاك السلطة الالهية ونادت بانزال الافكار السياسية من السماء الى الارض ليقوم الناس بتدبير شؤونهم بعيدا عن الكنيسة وهو ما سمي بالمذهب الإنساني، والمذهب الإنساني لا الإنسانية الشائعة بهذا الزمان التي يتبادر في ذهن المستمع لهذا المصطلح ان المقصود بها الكرامة والرحمة، وانما هي كل ما يتعلق بالامور الدنيوية بعيدا عن الدين او ما الماورائيات، وبهذا المفهوم يصبح ميكافيلي صاحب مبدأ الغاية تبرر الوسيلة هو فيلسوف انساني
.
ومع مرور الزمن بدأت تنتشر افكار النهضة الإنسانية، فمنهم من حاول التوفيق بينها وبين المسيحية والقيم العليا، ومنهم من نقد هذا المذهب واعتبره مثاليا ورائد هذا التيار الواقعي هو ميكافيلي، واللافت ان إنسانيو عصر النهضة كسبوا نفوذا في كل اوروبا تقريبا وصار بينهم سجالات فكرية كثيرة داخل الفكر الانساني.
.
الكتاب صعب جدا ومتخصص واخد مني مجهود عال لاستطيع هضم جزء منه، ولكن لي وقفة مع الجزء الثاني الذي يتكلم عن الاصلاح البروتستانتي ان شاء الله.
.

[Illiterate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Among the best surveys/text-books I have read.

[Andrej Virdzek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Prof. Skinner is known as one of the leading intellectual historians in the contemporary academia. In reading this book you will find some very good reasons to share this judgment.

First of all, and I cannot overstate the point, the book finds a very delicate balance in two areas. One is the historical vs. theoretical side of the subject matter. On one hand you are presented with the necessary institutional, educational and political background, on the other, you can see the arguments presented in front of yourself in a very natural, free-flowing manner. So the internal and the external history are given their fair share. Skinner almost never falls into the trap of petty scholastic debates, which is, given the subject and method, very remarkable.

The other part is the textual vs. contextual axis. Skinner brings the study of lesser known authors to the forefront of the history of ideas. This brings with it a technical problem when writing such a book, that one has to let the most important authors (Marsilius, Machiavelli, More, etc.) shine. In this I find the strongest part of the book, where after important, yet time and time repeated points from the less known authors, the ideas of Machiavelli and More seem pretty radical, but not out of touch with the contemporary debate.

Second reason is that the philosophy, or rather political theory here presented is clearly a part of human practices. It serves human goals and in this way Skinner doesn't need to give a further justification for why it is important. Neither for what he or the thinkers discussed are doing.

Third reason is that Skinner writes very clearly. Which is always good for a book which was intended as an introduction of sorts (historical outline of the main reinessance political texts). Even if you think that this should be the easy part, there are good authors in philosophy and history who have big problems with writing lucidly.

In the end, I cannot do anything else, but give the book 5 stars. If you are intersted in Reneissance, or Machiavelli, this is a must read. If you want to get an understanding of culture different from ours, yet with some very familiar practices, this is a must read.

I cannot yet judge whether Skinner has succeded in showing the conceptual development of the term "state", I will try to give my answer on this question after reading the second part.

[Himanshu Khurana · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is the nature and importance of political thought for a society and state? Does it serve only an instrumental purpose to the extent that political and social ideas are only the means geared towards the prudent objectives of the political actor? Or is it the case that ideas drive the course of history and it is ideology that is the overarching factor determining the nature of political action? Quentin Skinner, in his magnum opus, attempts to chart and navigate this dialectic through a succinct survey of the social and political thought from the foundation of the Renaissance in Italy to its marvellous bloom in other European countries such as England, France, Germany, and Spain.

In this majestic survey, the author begins with studying the foundations of the Renaissance in the cities of northern Italy describing how in the 12th and 13th centuries they initially resisted the expansionist designs of the Holy Roman Empire and then later the temporal ambitions of the Papal Church. Bartolus of Saxoferrato and Marsiglio of Padua made excellent and original contributions to the political ideology of these cities to enable them to maintain the fragile freedoms of the City governments of northern Italy. In the 13th and 14th centuries, the emergence of the study of rhetoric on the one hand and scholastic studies on the other hand led to major developments and innovations in the development of the political ideology of liberty and self-government in the Italian cities of Lombardy and Tuscany.

With the onset of quattrocento, that is, the 15th century the blooming of the ideas of renaissance found ground particularly in the city of Florence. The pursuit of individual virtue founded on the right kind of education for all citizens and not just the magistrates could safeguard the independence of the Republic and also enable positive participation in the affairs of the government. Petrarch, Bruni and his followers made landmark contribution to political and social philosophy. Virtue became to be the true marker of nobility and it was equally applicable for all men and not just the traditional rulers or monarchs. Further, in a departure from scholastic thought ancient texts began to be studied on their own terms and as documents of essentially historical significance. In Panofsky’s words, ‘the classical past was looked upon, for the first time as totally cut off from the present.’

With the demise of the heyday of Republican governments and emergence of the ‘age of princes’, there was a marked change in the nature of works on political and social thought. With the accelerating consolidation of princely forms of despotic and tyrannical rule, the subject for the pursuit of virtue shifted from all men to the prince or the ruler. This also led to major developments such as advice-books and mirror-for-princes literature which in turn became the predominant medium of diffusion of political ideas. Though other writers still emphasised on the importance of pursuit of virtue, Machiavelli marked the most radical departure in his The Prince, which showed that to ‘maintain his state’ being the preeminent concern of any ruler, a conventionally virtuous disposition might be counter-productive and instead it is important to take decisions which are essentially not virtuous and maybe even cruel in order to maintain his power and security. However at the same time he insists that in the eyes of public ‘maintenance of appearances’ of a virtuous and honourable rule should be kept up.

Even with the relative decline of Republican self-government in the 16th century, the Republican values and ideas were kept alive however feebly in Italy by writers none other than Machiavelli in his later works, Guicciardini, Patrizi and others. The author then undertakes an assessment of the ‘diffusion of humanist scholarship’ exemplified in the intellectual development of the Northern Renaissance. Thinkers such as Erasmus, Bude, Richard Starkey, Thomas Elyot, John Colet and their works are explored to explain the growth Renaissance and humanist thought in other European countries. A distinguishing feature of this development with respect to the Italian thinkers is the lack of concern with the preservation of liberty and focus on development of national armies. The growing attraction of studia humanitatis influenced by the Italian Universities and its consequential rise in native universities led to initiation of ‘an intellectual revolution which eventually led to the overthrow of scholasticism.’

Thomas More’s Utopia exemplifies the culmination and pinnacle of humanist political thought geared towards the inculcation of virtue in political affairs, denigration of the traditional nobility as antithetical to the ideal of virtue, which then departs from the 'unduly comfortable social philosophy of his fellow humanists’ and insists instead on the ‘abolition of the entire structure of degree.’ For More, the only way to abolish and eradicate all distinctions of ‘degree’ is rooted in the unequal distribution of wealth and private property which in effect breeds the sin of pride. Therefore, the solution to establish a good and peaceful society is the ‘altogether giving up of money and private property.’

Finally, Quentin Skinner’s first volume of ‘The Foundations of Modern Political Thought’ is a magnificent introduction to the plethora of political and social ideas and ideologies that remain prevalent in modern age right upto the present-day. I am particularly thrilled by the attractions of the second volume and what it holds in store. This book is therefore a timeless classic and deserves to be read and re-read.

[Ergun Kocabıyık · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quentin Skinner, Rönesans ve Hümanizma hareketinin modern siyasal düşüncenin ortaya çıkışındaki etkilerini inceliyor. Çok iyi yazılmış bu eser Rönesans ve Hümanizmayı anlamak isteyenler için önemli bir kılavuz.

[Daniel Wright · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rating this book seems like something of an act of lèse-majesté; when I read Skinner I am too much in awe of the depth and breadth of his literacy and understanding. His ability to continue to use the standard dry academic register while nevertheless evoking in the reader an sincere fascination with the subject. In fact, his selection and presentation of content alone is enough to maintain interest, even when studying the abstract musings of obscure mediaeval Italian lawyers.

I am not, of course, qualified or sufficiently educated to give a formal 'review' of this book, but here is my summary. The main thesis is fairly straightforward: that early Renaissance Italy was the birthplace of modern ideas of 'liberty' that eventually gave rise to Enlightenment liberalism. Skinner descends into the mess of difficult sources that come out of the period, generally written by men most of us have never even heard of, and amid the pen-scratching of the peculiar mediaeval mindset (which he is perfectly frank about) finds a few indicative gems.

Even if you disagree with his thesis and the compelling arguments made (I'm sure an alternative case could be made), this book gives an invaluable glimpse into the intellectual world of the period, and is worth reading for that reason alone.

[Domhnall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Political concepts can certainly be defined but what they mean is not always stable or universal. A set of ideas which was developed in the Italian city states of the 12th to the 16th centuries (Florence, Milan, Venice, Rome and others) has had a lasting impact in modern European politics but they are the product of ideological debates which tested many different permutations not only – or even primarily – in the writings of generations of scholars but also in the brutal context of the constantly changing system of states that still prevails across Europe. In other words political ideas always served a practical purpose in a particular context.

The catalyst for this particular strand of political thought was the emergence of a number of autonomous city states with republican constitutions of various types, continually at risk of internal domination by individual tyrants or aristocratic elites, surviving not only in regular competition with other city states but, crucially, against external forces seeking to subject them to domination by the Holy Roman Empire, the Papal states, France or Spain.

At the start of this period, the emergence of wealthy city states created a demand for education, which was satisfied by teaching a very traditional form of rhetoric based on ancient Latin sources. In time, teachers became ambitious to serve also as political advisers, and to this end uncovered a rich seam of useful material in the writings of the ancient Romans. In particular, the Roman Republic, rather than the later empire, offered models of political organisation and public life for the new republics and their leaders to emulate.

What these city states could not, in the end, withstand, was the capacity of their much bigger neighbours to put together immense armies and unleash them to pillage their wealth and destroy their autonomy. Skinner suggests that their political theories reached their peak as the republics came to an end. However he follows their continued development further North in very different political settings and particularly in England, closing the volume with an account of Thomas More’s Utopia.

The simple premise of their theories was that we can learn from history and especially from the successful experiences of the Roman Republic. It soon became more complex when scholars searched out ever more historical archives and learned to challenge the accepted or conventional accounts, applying their methods to increasingly sensitive materials, first in legal matters but ultimately including religious belief. By exposing the fraudulent character of the Donation of Constance they debunked a cornerstone of papal authority both religious and temporal. By examining early sources for the epistles of St Paul and ultimately the Hebrew, Greek and rival Latin versions of the New and Old Testaments they exposed explosive defects in the accepted (vulgate) Latin bible and hence again discredited claims to Papal authority.

This process came in time to have radical implications because it gave a basis to make comparisons and argue for alternative political choices in a world more attuned to conforming with traditions and yielding to authority. The political questions raised were both fundamental and unsettling.

What is the task of government? Is it to facilitate the ambitions of its princes, or those of its subjects or alternatively to provide the stability and security they need even at the expense of political freedoms?
What is the purpose of education and what content is appropriate for a Prince, for ambitious members of the social or economic elites, for active citizens or loyal subjects?
What is the value and the purpose of politics as a social activity?
Is factional conflict a good or bad thing?
What are the responsibilities and the rights of each social class?
What is the proper relationship of church and secular authorities?
How can a state balance competing interests or induce individuals or groups to serve the good of all rather than selfish or factional priorities?
How can the state or its leaders maintain high standards of virtue or morality in the face of the realities they confront?
What role does war play, is it ever just and how can it succeed?
Is it better for a leader to be loved or feared?
Is destiny something we can control, is it entirely in God’s hands or are we mere playthings of fickle fortune?

If the topics are diverse so too were the voices contributing to their examination. The outstanding names still easily recognised today – Dante, Plutarch, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Erasmus, More – were just a few of those who were influential in their day and Skinner makes their work far more understandable by describing the context within which they wrote and against which they often struggled. They were serious people, engaged in practical politics at the highest levels, while as likely as the ancient philosophers to have stood in a line of infantry or participated intimately in murderous intrigue; they often risked and sometimes lost their lives. Skinner groups them into schools of rhetoric, scholastic philosophy, Renaissance and humanism, while using Northern Humanism as a descriptor for humanism elsewhere in Europe (including Spain) as it evolved from Italian roots. He credits Italian humanists with dividing European history into a classical age, a dark age and the Renaissance, attributing the Dark Ages, when learning and civilisation itself was lost to barbarism, to the ruin of classical virtues by the rise of Christianity; the conventional or default values against which they revolt are often those of Augustine’s City of God while the virtues to which they appeal are those of the classical age.

This volume provides a straightforward narrative history with all the anecdotes, serendipities and unexpected insights one could hope for. It is never obscure or pretentious and rarely if ever tedious or confusing. It tells its story with skill and presents information in a form – including section headings and organisation of material – that will earn the gratitude of student and general reader alike.

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very good. A fine summary of some key movements in political thought throughout the Italian Renaissance. The key idea is the importance of the rise and impact of humanism on the re-shaping of political thought. Skinner also emphasises the important role that scholastic thought had in all of this, but humanism is the main game.

[Corey Rowe · Rating 3 out of 5]

get his shorter books to find main ideas, then sift through this index. don't read cover to cover, use as reference. he's too smart for normal folk. but memorize some of his quotes to impress at cocktail parties:)

[Samuel Weiss · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first section of this book (The Ideal of Liberty) is a superb work of scholarship which neatly demonstrates Skinner's methodological approach to intellectual history. It is in this section that he vindicates his belief that political texts are best seen as interventions in ongoing intellectual debates, which aim to legitimate and influence positions in related political debates.

It may be worth restating Skinner's argument in the first section to show its brilliance. Starting from the mid twelth century, the city states of Lombary sought to establish their independence from both the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope. Later on, these same republics faced similar threats to the preservation of their liberty in the form of foreign rule and internal tyranny. There were two broad traditions that proponents of republicanism could draw upon to legitimate their independence. The first was scholasticism. This can be understood as the attempt to assimiliate the philosophical work of Aristotle, newly re-introduced to the West from the Islamic world, with traditional medieval philosophy, heavily influenced by St Augustine. Whilst its most famous proponent, St Thomas Aquinas, used the scholastic method to justify the rule of kings, other thinkers, notably Marsilius of Padua, were able to use the tradition to use republican rule.

The philosophical tradition must used by proponents of republicanism to legitimate their claims, however, was humanism. Humanism grew out of a growing interest in rhetoric among universities which specialised in teaching prospective lawyers, though really came into its own with the rediscovery of Ciceronian texts in the thirteenth century. Roughly, the difference between the humanistic and the scholastic approaches is that the former puts more of an emphasis on civic and individual virtue as the quality which secures whatever goal a state is meant to promote (some writers are more concerned with security, whilst others are more concerned with liberty), the latter tends to focus on the role of institutions.

Humanism takes the focus of the rest of the book due to its greater influence on republicanism and the Renaissance project more generally. However, the next two sections lack the methodological brilliance that exemplifies the first. Rather, they are a rather tedious survey of humanist thought, though Skinner does a good job of explaining the differences and similarities between the various waves of humanism. The intellectual debate takes the foreground, and the political debate which influences and is influenced by it seems to almost disappear. Another point of value is the way he evaluates a well-known thinker in the context of their tradition to show just how orginal they are and how much they abide by the conventions of that tradition. For example, he evaluates the humanism of Sir Thomas More in the context of Northern Humanism.

[Mina Herz]

Here’s a simple bullet-point summary of *The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: Volume 1, The Renaissance* by Quentin Skinner:

- **Focus**:
- Explores the development of modern political thought during the Renaissance period (15th–16th centuries).

- **Key Themes**:
- **Revival of Classical Ideas**: Examines how Renaissance thinkers revived and adapted classical political theories from ancient Greece and Rome.
- **Humanism**: Highlights how Renaissance humanists emphasized human agency, civic virtue, and the role of individuals in shaping society.
- **Secularization of Politics**: Traces the shift from religious to secular foundations of political authority and governance.
- **Emergence of the State**: Investigates the origins of the modern concept of the state and the separation of politics from morality or religion.

- **Key Thinkers Covered**:
- Niccolò Machiavelli: Focus on power, pragmatism, and the autonomy of politics.
- Francesco Guicciardini: Analysis of history and political realism.
- Other Renaissance humanists like Erasmus and Thomas More.

- **Style and Approach**:
- Combines intellectual history with political theory.
- Focuses on the historical context of ideas and how they shaped modern political institutions.

- **Overall**:
- A foundational work for understanding how Renaissance ideas laid the groundwork for modern political thought, emphasizing the transition from medieval to modern political concepts.

[Mahitosh Mandal · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is a fabulous work. I fell in love with the discipline of political theory after reading this book. The language is very lucid. Anyone interested in European Renaissance - from a historical, cultural or political perspective - should definitely read this book. I found the chapters under Part 2 on the Italian Renaissance immensely useful. The concept of vir virtutis and the contextualization of Machiavelli is simply superb. Skinner is a reputed scholar of European intellectual history. He is an expert in the field Renaissance. His work on Machiavelli is also a gem. Foundations of Modern Political Thought is divided into two volumes. The second volume is on Reformation. However, it is the first volume on Renaissance that I found sharper in terms of argumentation and also pertinent to my research.

[B & A & F · Rating 4 out of 5]

Academic book, not popular writing, with a lot of repetition, direct citation and cross reference. The advantage is that it is a very clear layout of political theories transitioning from medieval to penumbra of modern time.

[Joseph Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply wonderful. The best introduction to Renaissance political thought you could possibly imagine. Skinner combines tremendous scholarship with beautiful style.

[Levy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great survey of Renaissance political thought. Covers a period which gets less attention compared to the post-hobbes period despite being just as interesting.

[Luke Ziegler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Please Dr. Riches assign us an interesting book I’m begging.

[Clay · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 rounded down. nothing is wrong with this book i just didn't really care about the topic. if you're interested in this sort of thing, i'm sure it'd be a much easier read than it was for me

[Youssef · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book on Renaissance political thought but i found the second part on the Northern Renaissance to be weaker than the first. The author mostly discusses the Northern thinkers in relation to the Italian humanists and much of it repeats points covered earlier.

[Daniel]

post.

[austra]

Incredibly solid survey.

[Barış Yıldırım · Rating 3 out of 5]

2014 çeviri maceramızdan. Nitelikli bir ikincil kaynak.