Editing Niccolò Machiavelli (section)

=== Influences ===
Commentators such as Leo Strauss have gone so far as to name Machiavelli as the deliberate originator of [[modernity]] itself. Others have argued that Machiavelli is only a particularly interesting example of trends which were happening around him. In any case, Machiavelli presented himself at various times as someone reminding Italians of the old virtues of the Romans and Greeks, and other times as someone promoting a completely new approach to politics.<ref name=Fischer/> Machiavelli emphasizes the originality of his endeavor in several instances. Many scholars note that Machiavelli seems particularly original and that he frequently seems to act without any regard for his predecessors.<ref>Mansfield, Machiavelli's Virtue, pg. ix (Introduction)</ref><ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lII5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA36 | title=The Modern Turn | isbn=978-0-8132-3005-4 | last1=Rohlf | first1=Michael | date=December 2017 | publisher=CUA Press }}</ref>

That Machiavelli had a wide range of influences is in itself not controversial. Their relative importance is however a subject of ongoing discussion. It is possible to summarize some of the main influences emphasized by different commentators.

'''The Mirror of Princes genre'''

{{Harvcoltxt|Gilbert|1938}} summarized the similarities between ''The Prince'' and the genre it imitates, the so-called "[[Mirror of Princes]]" style. This was a classically influenced genre, with models at least as far back as [[Xenophon]] and [[Isocrates]]. While Gilbert emphasized the similarities, however, he agreed with all other commentators that Machiavelli was particularly novel in the way he used this genre, even when compared to his contemporaries such as [[Baldassare Castiglione]] and [[Erasmus]]. One of the major innovations Gilbert noted was that Machiavelli focused on the "deliberate purpose of dealing with a new ruler who will need to establish himself in defiance of custom". Normally, these types of works were addressed only to hereditary princes. (Xenophon is also an exception in this regard.)

'''Classical republicanism'''

Commentators such as [[Quentin Skinner]] and [[J.G.A. Pocock]], in the so-called "Cambridge School" of interpretation, have asserted that some of the republican themes in Machiavelli's political works, particularly the ''[[Discourses on Livy]]'', can be found in medieval Italian literature which was influenced by classical authors such as [[Sallust]].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GF6X2ow__MgC&q=quentin+skinner+machiavelli|title=The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: Volume 1, The Renaissance|last=Skinner|first=Quentin|year= 1978|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0521293372|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1oj8CwAAQBAJ&q=pocock+machiavelli|title=The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition|last=Pocock|first=J. G. A.|year=2016|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-1400883516|language=en}}</ref>

'''Classical political philosophy: Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle'''

[[File:Xenophon.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Xenophon]], author of the ''[[Cyropedia]]'']]
Political thinkers usually engage to some extent with their predecessors, even (or perhaps particularly) those who aim to fundamentally disagree with prior thoughts.<ref>Berlin, I. (2014). ‘The Originality of Machiavelli'. In Reading Political Philosophy (pp. 43-58). Routledge.</ref> Therefore, even with a figure as seemingly innovative as Machiavelli, scholars have looked deeper into his works to consider possible historical and philosophical influences. Although Machiavelli examined ancient philosophers, he does not frequently reference them as authorities. He mentions neither Plato nor Aristotle in ''The Prince'', and he mentions Aristotle only once in The Discourses.<ref>New Modes and Orders, p. 391</ref> He usually does not speak of philosophers as such, but mentions "writers" and "authors".<ref>Harvey Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov, "Introduction to the Discourses". In their translation of the ''Discourses on Livy''</ref> One of the writers Machiavelli mentions the most is Xenophon.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=lII5DwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20modern%20turn&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref> In his time, the most commonly cited discussion of classical virtues was Book 1 of Cicero’s ''[[De Officiis]]''. Yet, Cicero is never mentioned in The Prince, and is mentioned only three times in the Discourses.<ref>[https://iep.utm.edu/machiave/ Niccolò Machiavelli, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref>

The major difference between Machiavelli and the Socratics, according to Strauss, is Machiavelli's materialism, and therefore his rejection of both a teleological view of nature and of the view that philosophy is higher than politics. With their [[teleological]] understanding of things, Socratics argued that by nature, everything that acts, acts towards some end, as if nature desired them, but Machiavelli claimed that such things happen by blind chance or human action.<ref name=Strauss>{{Harvcoltxt|Strauss|1958}}</ref>

'''Classical materialism'''

Strauss argued that Machiavelli may have seen himself as influenced by some ideas from classical materialists such as [[Democritus]], [[Epicurus]] and [[Lucretius]]. Strauss however sees this also as a sign of major innovation in Machiavelli, because classical materialists did not share the Socratic regard for political life, while Machiavelli clearly did.<ref name=Strauss/>

'''Thucydides'''

Some scholars note the similarity between Machiavelli and the Greek historian [[Thucydides]], since both emphasized [[power politics]].<ref>Paul Anthony Rahe, ''Against throne and altar: Machiavelli and political theory under the English Republic'' (2008), p. 282.</ref><ref>Jack Donnelly, ''Realism and International Relations'' (2000), p. 68.</ref> Strauss argued that Machiavelli may indeed have been influenced by [[pre-Socratic philosophers]], but he felt it was a new combination:
<blockquote>...contemporary readers are reminded by Machiavelli's teaching of Thucydides; they find in both authors the same "realism", i.e., the same denial of the power of the gods or of justice and the same sensitivity to harsh necessity and elusive chance. Yet Thucydides never calls in question the intrinsic superiority of nobility to baseness, a superiority that shines forth particularly when the noble is destroyed by the base. Therefore Thucydides' History arouses in the reader a sadness which is never aroused by Machiavelli's books. In Machiavelli we find comedies, parodies, and satires but nothing reminding of tragedy. One half of humanity remains outside of his thought. There is no tragedy in Machiavelli because he has no sense of the sacredness of "the common". – {{Harvtxt|Strauss|1958|p=292}}</blockquote>