The following comparison of political theories, as developed by Machiavelli and Rousseau, serves to illustrate the evolution of classical republicanism throughout the early modern period. For Machiavelli, the republic represented a political reality that was declining during his lifetime, whereas for Rousseau it existed primarily as a normative ideal of an imagined sovereign community. Although the two authors were separated by more than two centuries and wrote under markedly different political circumstances, this analysis demonstrates several parallel conceptions concerning the meaning, preservation, and organization of a republican political community. The comparison begins with an examination of the anthropological assumptions underlying the thought of both authors. This section will highlight Machiavelli’s understanding of man as homo politicus, while in Rousseau’s thought it will emphasize the solitary nature of the so-called “natural man.” The discussion will then turn to Machiavelli’s political theory, with particular attention given to his republican ideas as articulated and situated within Discourses on Livy. Subsequently, his arguments in The Prince will be examined, both as a manual of political manipulation and as a sophisticated treatise on early modern realpolitik. Within the framework of Rousseau’s political theory, the analysis will address his account of the emergence of political society as a consequence of the material progress of human society (la perfectibilité). This will be followed by an examination of Rousseau’s attempt, in The Social Contract, to reconcile sovereign authority with the political freedom of citizens. The concluding section of the comparison will focus on the similarities between the two thinkers’ views regarding the nature and meaning of political community. It will reveal a striking convergence in their understanding of the cohesive elements necessary for sustaining any republican order – namely, the cultivation of exemplary figures and the instrumental role of religion. Most importantly, this analysis will demonstrate that both authors conceive politics as an art shaped by virtuous and exceptional individuals who give meaning to, preserve, and ultimately sustain the republic as well as political liberty.
|
