西方学者对马基雅维里共和思想的研究
Western Scholars' Studies on Machiavelli's Republicanism
作者：孙锦泉;任军锋;
Author：
收稿日期： 年卷（期）页码：2013,189(06):-23-28
期刊名称：四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版)
Journal Name：Journal of Sichuan University (Social Science Edition）
关键字：文艺复兴;人文主义;马基雅维里;共和主义
Key words：
基金项目：
中文摘要
长期以来,马基雅维里是西方学界的研究热点之一。虽然自1940年至1976年,三位西方学者对马基雅维里的研究动态作了较为详尽的述评,但是随着时间的流逝,新的研究成果层出不穷,特别是20世纪80年代迄今,又有若干重要的研究成果相继问世,涉及对马基雅维里共和思想的再认识和对其人的重新定位。因此有必要再对马基雅维里共和思想的研究成果和信息进行汇总和评析,期望更加客观公允地评价马基雅维里。
参考文献
①Hans Baron,“Machiavelli the Republican Citizen and Author of The Prince,”English Historical Review,Vol.76(1961),pp.217-253.此文后来被巴龙收进自己的另一部论文集,见Hans Baron,In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism,Princeton,New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1998,pp.101-151.关于巴龙的马基雅维里学术研究历程,可以参见J.M.Najemy,“Baron's Machiavelli and Renaissance Republicanism,”The American Historical Review,Vol.101,No.1(1999),pp.119-129.
②John Pocock,The Machiavellian Moment:Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition,Priceton,New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1975,pp.7-8.有些学者对波考克的观点进行了批评,参见V.Sullivan,“Machiavelli's Momentary‘Machiavellian Moment’:A Reconsideration of Pocock's Treatment of the Discourses,”Political Theory,Vol.20,No.2(1992),pp.309-318;Christopher Nadon,“Aristotle and the Republican Paradigm:A Reconsideration of Pocock's‘Machiavellian Moment’,”The Review of Politics,Vol.58,No.4(1996),pp.677-698;Mark Jurdjevic,“Virtue,Commerce,and the Enduring Florentine Republican Moment:Reintegrating Italy into the Atlantic Republican Debate,”Journal of the History of Ideas,Vol.62,No.4(2001),pp.721-743;同时参照周春生:《马基雅维里思想研究》,上海:三联书店,2008年,第15页。
③Quentin Skinner,The Foundations of Early Modern Political Thought,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1978,pp.180-189;Quentin Skinner,Machiavelli,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1981;Quentin Skinner,“Machiavelli On the Maintenance of Liberty,”Politics,Vol.18(1983),pp.3-15;Quentin Skinner,Visions of Politics:Renaissance Virtue,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,Vol.2,2002,pp.160-185;Quentin Skinner,Machiavelli and Republicanism,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990,pp.121-141,293-309;Quentin Skinner,Liberty before Liberalism,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1998,pp.18,46-47,63-64.斯金纳和波考克倡导的历史语境主义的方法,现在通过剑桥大学出版社出版的《语境中的概念和剑桥政治思想史系列丛书》(Ideas in Context and Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought)牢固地树立起来了,斯金纳是这套丛书的编辑之一。对于斯金纳的历史语境主义方法的优点和不足之处,参见Mark Jurdjevic,“Hedgehogs and Foxes:the Present and Future of Italian Renaissance Intellectual History,”Past and Present,Vol.195(2007),pp.241-268;还可以参见作者的另一篇文章,Mark Jurdjevic,“Machiavelli's Hybrid Republicanism,”English Historical Review,Vol.122,No.499(2007),pp.1228-1257.在这篇论文中,尤尔德耶维克对“剑桥学派”思想家,尤其是斯金纳的观点进行了言辞激烈的批评。
①A·布雷特等:《重思〈近代政治思想的基础〉》,胡传胜、邵怡译,上海:华东师范大学出版社,2010年,第62-63页。
②M.Viroli,Machiavelli,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1998,pp.115,147,174.
③M.Viroli,Niccolo's Smile:A Biography of Machiavelli,New York:Hill&Wang,2002.
④John.P.McCormick,“Machiavelli against Republicanism:On the Cambridge School's‘Guicciardinian Moments’,”Political Theory,Vol.31,No.5(2003),pp.615-643;还可以参见John.P.McCormick,“Subdue the Senate:Machiavelli's‘Way of Freedom’or Path to the Tyranny?,”Political Theory,Vol.40,No.6(2012),pp.714-735.在这篇文章中,麦考密克对施特劳斯学派的解释进行了嘲讽,认为他们大大低估了平民审判和平民统治在马基雅维里政治思想中的作用。
⑤参见Timothy J.Lukes,“Descending to the Particulars:The Palazzo,the Pizza,and Machiavelli's Republican Modes and Orders,”Journal of Politics,Vol.71,No.2(2009),p.520.
⑥Ryan Ballot,Stephen Trochimchuk,“The Many and the Few:On Machiavelli's‘Democratic Moment’,”The Review of Politics,Vol.74(2012),pp.559-588.
①Jurdjevic,“Machiavelli's Hybrid Republicanism,”pp.1228-1257.
②“施特劳斯学派”是美国一个“保守主义”政治学派,其代表人物有利奥·施特劳斯(1899—1973)和哈维·曼斯菲尔德(1932—),这一学派反对自由主义,主张回归古典政治哲学,希望从古典政治学中寻找解决当今美国政治和社会问题的政治门径。这一学派的学者占据了美国大多数大学的讲台,不仅对美国也对中国学界产生了重大影响。
③Hanan Yoran,“Machiavelli's Critique of Humanism and the Ambivalences of Modernity,”History of Political Thought,Vol.31,No.2(2010),pp.247-282.
④Mary G.Dietz,“Trapping The Prince:Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception,”The American Political Science Review,Vol.80,No.3(1986),pp.777-799.关于戴兹和兰顿的学术争论,参见John Langton and Mary G.Dietz,“Machiavelli's Paradox:Trapping or Teaching the Prince,”The American Political Science Review,Vol.81,No.4(1987),pp.1277-1288;Joseph M.Parent,“Machiavelli's Missing Romulus and The Murderous Intent of The Prince,”History of Political Thought,Vol.26,No.4(2005),pp.625-645.
⑤参见Viroli,Machiavelli,p.15.
⑥Janet Coleman,“Structural Realities of Power:The Theory and the Practice of Monarchies and Republics in Relation to Personal and Collective Liberty,”in Martin Gosman,Arie Johan Vanderjagt and Jan Veenstra,Egbert Forsten,eds.,The Propagation of Power in the Medieval West,Groningen:Egbert Forsten,1997,pp.218,230;科尔曼在她的另一部专著中重申了这种解释,见Janet Coleman,A History of Political Thought:From the Middle Ages to the Renaissance,Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,2000,pp.266-271;同时参见N.Rubinstein,“The History of the World Politics in Early Modern Europe,”in Anthony Pagden,ed.,The Languages of Political Theory in Early Modern Europe,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987,pp.41-56;还可以参见N.Rubinstein,“Italian Political Thought,1453-1530,”in J.H.Burns and Mark Goldie,eds.,The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450-1700,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1991,pp.41-45.
①A.Brown,“Lucretius and the Epicureans in the Social and Political Context of Renaissance Florence,”I Tatti Studies:Essays in the Renaissance,Vol.9(2001),pp.11-62.
②P.A.Rahe,“In the Shadow of Lucretius:The Epicurean Foundations of Machiavelli's Political Thought,”History of Political Thought,Vol.28,No.1(2007),pp.30-55.
③Q.Skinner,“Machiavelli's Discorsi and Pre-Humanism Origins of Republicanism,”in G.Bock and Q.Skinner,eds.,Machiavelli and Republicanism,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990,pp.121-141;还可以参见Q.Skinner,“The Republican Ideal of Political Liberty,”in Bock and Skinner,Machiavelli and Republicanism,pp.293-309;M.Viroli,“Machiavelli and the Republican Idea of Politics,”in Bock and Skinner,Machiavelli and Republicanism,pp.143-171;P.J.Osmond,“Sallust and Machiavelli:From Civic Humanism to Political Prudence,”Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies,Vol.23(1993),pp.407-438;B.Fontana,“Sallust and the Politics in Machiavelli,”History of Political Thought,Vol.24(2003),pp.86-108;D.Kapust,“Cato Virtues and The Prince:Reading Sallust's War with Catiline with Machiavelli's The Prince,”History of Political Thought,Vol.28,No.31(2007),pp.443-448.
④Viroli,Niccolo's Smile.
⑤Victoria Kahn,“Machiavelli's Afterlife and Reputation to the Eighteenth Century,”in John M.Najemy,ed.,The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2010,pp.239-255;相关的研究还可以参见Keith David Howard,“Fadrique Furio Cerio's Machiavelli Vocabulary of Contingency,”Renaissance Studies,Vol.26,No.5(2011),pp.641-657.
⑥Jeremie Barthas,“Machiavelli in Political Thought from the Age of Revolutions to the Present,”in Najemy,The Cambridge Companion to Machiavelli,pp.256-273.
①Pocock,The Machiavellian Moment,pp.333-552;Skinner,Liberty before Liberalism;Maurizio Viroli,Machiavelli's God,Princeton,New Jersey:Princeton University Press,2010,pp.208-294.
②V.K.Sullivan,Machiavelli,Hobbes and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2004,p.259.
③Paul A.Rahe,Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2006.
【关闭】
