Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: John Milton is often represented in contemporary literature on the subject of republicanism as a disciple of Machiavelli. That he was familiar with the "Discourses on Liberty" there can be no doubt. But the evidence clearly indicates that, after reading the work with great care, he rejected Machiavelli's modern populism and embraced once again the classical republicanism of Aristotle.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Popular democratic politics places a premium on persuasion and consent. But these are not automatically or spontaneously generated in a republic or in a democracy. While other forms of government may rely on tradition, past usage, or custom, popular governments and popular politics are compelled actively to generate and to shape public opinion and mass beliefs. There are various ways to do this, such as the use of morality, patriotism, even traditional values and beliefs may be useful, and especially religion. Since mass consent and mass obedience (and thus stability and order) can no longer be taken for granted, they must be sought and actively acquired. And since the conflict among the "diversi umori" guarantees competition and opposition among contenders for power and interest, rhetoric, and its concomitants deception and fraud, must address the "opinion of the many." Thus without persuasion and rhetoric there can be no force (certainly no force that is useful in war and in armed conflict). In effect, Machiavelli's criticism of rhetoric is paradoxically a call for a new way to use rhetoric, to organize the people politically and to organize them militarily.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: If subjectivity is constituted by prevailing rules of identity, is there a doer behind the deed? What permits individuals to resist prevailing discourse and its rules? In this paper, I respond to the abstractions of current feminist political theory with a historical case study, that of inventive agent Elizabeth I. I deploy a theory of identitiy and agency from Machiavelli's The PRince to develop a relatively thick account of agency (as called for by Seyla Benhabib) while also employing a notion of performativity (Judith Butler).

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Harvey Mansfield has argued that despite the prominence of sex as a central plot device in Machiavelli’s Mandragola, it is not a play about eros. He is correct in this regard: insofar as love enters into the plot, it seems to do so only as a derivative of the baser passions. However, desire in Mandragola exercises a tremendous force, and it is not, end of the day, without reference to love. This paper argues, then, that although the Mandragola is not a play about eros in the classical sense, it is certainly a play that explores love and desire, and one that reveals something about the place of these in politics. It argues that although love in the Mandragola seems to be debased, it remains as powerful and politically relevant a force as forms of love that point to something higher. This baser love disarms those who are vulnerable to their desires and so provides arms to those who possess the virtù to manipulate those desires. Insofar as it can be wielded as a weapon, then, love becomes a political tool, one that I will argue is, for Machiavelli, a potent accessory to virtù. The paper examines Machiavelli’s treatment of love and desire in the Mandragola within this context, and considers what insights this yields into the interplay of desire and virtue in his political teachings.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Machiavelli has unsettled generations of readers for, among many reasons, his lack of regard for almost all the familiar standards of judging statesmen. Tradition, piety, and justice all give way to Machiavelli’s novel version of virtue in his evaluation of political history, and his counsels for existing and aspiring rulers. Whether Machiavelli also rejects nature, another familiar guide, is a much more complicated matter however. In his most famous work, The Prince, Machiavelli argues against the kind of political rule he initially identifies with nature—the hereditary principality—and advocates a new prince, one who will flourish on account of his virtue, which would seem to be opposed to nature. However, in The Prince and the Discourses he also urges his reader to study nature, both human and non-human, if he hopes to be politically successfully. Machiavelli identifies an abundance of heretofore underutilized possibilities, resources in human nature and the cosmos that are favorable to the assertion of new modes and orders, from the “young and restless” of society who are always ready to abet revolution, to the periodic cataclysms wrought by the heavens that wipe out civilization and compel it to begin anew. The first aspect of Machiavelli’s account of the natural foundation of politics that I draw out, then, is his radical reworking of the conventional understanding.
While he identifies underutilized instruments of flux in nature, Machiavelli also emphasizes the constraints nature imposes on human action. Political affairs are greatly influenced by natural forces exceeding human control and even understanding, which shape the disposition and fortunes of collective bodies in addition to those of individuals. However, those who carefully study history and the world around them can gain at least some insight into the necessities characterizing nature, anticipate them, and even take advantage of them. Natural constraints, by being understood, can expand the opportunities for virtue to assert itself. Nature can be “well used.” Thus, nature turns out to be both a limiting and liberating variable for political rule, and knowledge of nature fundamental to Machiavelli’s political teaching.
In accordance with his understanding of nature, Machiavelli advocates a new kind of prince and the establishment of republics inspired by Rome. Machiavelli counsels political rulers to be ready and willing to shift their modes in order to accord with the changing circumstances of rule. To the extent that individuals are bound by their native temperament, republics have to recommend themselves the built-in flexibility to change a leader of one nature for that of another as the times change. In addition to their ability to draw on a variety of human temperaments, republican systems order political bodies such that the friction between the divergent humors, particularly that of “the few and the many” is “vented,” contributing to the strength and longevity of the state. A “republican regimen,” it seems, is desirable not so much for moral reasons, but because it is good for the health of the body politic.