A recepção de Maquiavel nos republicanismos de James Harrington e de Algernon Sidney

• Ano de defesa: 2015
• Autor(a) principal: Falcão, Luís Alves
• Orientador(a): Jasmin, Marcelo Gantus
• Banca de defesa: Guimarães, Cesar Augusto Coelho , Ostrensky, Eunice , Starling, Heloísa Maria Murgel , Silva, Bernardo Medeiros Ferreira da
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Política
• Departamento: Centro de Ciências Sociais::Instituto de Estudos Sociais e Políticos
• País: BR
• Palavras-chave em Português: Republicanismo; Maquiavelismo; Harrington; Sidney
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Republicanism; Machiavellism; Harrington; Sidney
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::CIENCIA POLITICA
• Link de acesso: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/12448

The thesis analyzes the reception of Machiavelli in the republicanisms of James Harrington and of Algernon Sidney. Instead of the more common approaches, which tend to prioritize the context, languages and their transformations in the generations of thinkers, it is intended, instead, to address the differences and similarities of each Republican proposal from the perspective of the central terms of Machiavellian republicanism. Harrington is several times considered the main receptacle of the Florentine secretary in seventeenth-century England and responsible for allowing the continuation of the central terms of the Florentine republicanism. In fact, the author of Oceana was that most referenced to the author of Discorsi, though not deny the criticism. In a broad sense, Harrington's reception refers to the military and expansive citizenship Republican States, the mixed government and the rule of law to the detriment of the government of men. It is argued, contrary to most interpretations, which Harrington also follows the strong claim Machiavelli in relation to conflicts. Criticism, explicit and constant, the Florentine are directed fundamentally to secondary aspects, the causes of explanations, although the findings are almost always the same. Sidney is something different, since, unlike Harrington, he accepted and is part of the natural law in Hobbesian terms, which ultimately justify his criticism of moral background to the secretary of Florence. His definition of freedom means that men are able to break the law of nature as reason and, therefore, men are also able to act to break the common good. The ideal of Sidney of virtue as the best of governments is a clear limit when confronted with historical events. The natural right of the author of Discourses depends on some level of historical confirmations, and if so, Machiavelli is helpful for him as a reliable measure for the construction of a well-ordered republic, including the theme of conflict. Finally, the contrast of the authors shows that both contributed incisively to republicanism, by rejecting the criterion of heredity, the government of the law, of mixed government, freedom as an alternative to purely physical concept, equality in political relations, and the role of citizenship and virtue. The differences, supported by the rejection or acceptance of natural law, respectively, can be seen clearly by Machiavelli different uses by Harrington and Sidney. For different reasons, the Machiavelli of each one receives a strong republican approach.