1. Read and translate the text:

The name of this Florentine philosopher has become almost a synonym for cold, calculating political intrigue. In a contemporary age Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) has come to be seen as the originator of a novel but eminently practical approach to politics, which counseled all means, fair or foul, that might be needed to assure the success of a candidate, policy or measure.

The ancient philosophers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) emphasized the importance of virtue for the nurturing of just men and just regimes. In doing so, they understood that the possibility of just men actually ruling was generally dependent on chance or Fortuna. It was this chasm between the reality and the ideal that led Machiavelli to make the following statement: “there is such a distance between how one lives and how one should live that he who lets go that which is done for which ought to be done learns to ruin rather than his preservation…”(“The Prince”, Chapter 15)

In Machiavelli’s opinion, most men most of the time would fall considerably short of the lofty standards that the ancient philosophers envisioned as being necessary for a virtuous life. One part of Machiavelli’s solution was deceptively simple: lower the standards of excellence so that its realization was more easily within men’s grasp. The other part involved increasing the odds that rulers possessing the (now lowered) standards of excellence indeed come to rule. Appropriate rule was grounded not on reason but on the passions, the most reliable part of human nature. Of the three elemental passions – love, fear, hate- the ruler would be wise to concentrate on fear, for it was neither dangerous to his rule (like hate) nor dependent on others (like love). In this way Machiavelli favoured a rule where evil was punished swiftly, credibly and, above all, here on earth. By the expedient and judicious applications of traditional vices and virtues a ruler could “make” the ruled be “good” not because of their own virtues, but because they would be rendered almost stupefied from fear of punishment.

Machiavelli believed there was always the same amount of goodness and evil in the world and the human nature was constant. What fluctuated was the ability of rulers to control evil and protect good. Much of the difference depended on the virtues being promoted. Sparta and Republican Rome, for instance, were celebrated for their virtues of temperance, justice, wisdom and courage. But Machiavelli was especially intrigued by the way in which the Spartakian and Roman rulers assisted to the inculcation of these virtues through the passionate fear of punishment. In his view, while the corruption of his own time was merely part of the historical fluctuations between good and evil, it was being abetted by the soft virtues of Christianity. By preaching that the citizenry should turn the other cheek to evil, Christianity made it easier for evil to prey on good.

2. Answer the following questions:

1. What was Machiavelli’s approach to politics?

2. Who emphasized the importance of virtue for nurturing just men?

3. What can be dependent on Fortuna?

4. What kind of distance was of Machiavelli’s concern?

5. What was Machiavelli’s solution for leading a virtuous life?

6. What are the passions applicable in ruling? Which one is preferable?

7. How can the ruled be “made” “good”?

8. What is constant and what can fluctuate in Machiavelli’s opinion?

9. What ancient countries were celebrated by Machiavelli for their virtues?

10. What was negative in Christianity in Machiavelli’s opinion?