Abstract - This paper closely examines two statements proposed by Feijoo: 1. Machiavelli sets his doctrine in history, and their works doesn't suppose a really original position; 2. Feijoo writes on Machiavelli, but says he never read The Prince. He only read some fundamental quotes, cited by other authors. It is clear that the all his references also appear in the voice “Machiavelli” of Pierre Bayle’ Dictionnaire. Moreover, Feijoo‘s interpretation is very different from Pierre Bayle's: for the French author the work of the Florentine it is admirable because Machiavelli breaks with ignorance and hypocrisy revealing the truth of history. According to Feijoo, the Florentine master didn't discover anything original and his works merely present the worst examples of governance practices.
Benito J. Feijoo y el Machiavel del Dictionnaire historique et critique de Pierre Bayle
GHIA, Gualtiero
In corso di stampa
Abstract
Abstract - This paper closely examines two statements proposed by Feijoo: 1. Machiavelli sets his doctrine in history, and their works doesn't suppose a really original position; 2. Feijoo writes on Machiavelli, but says he never read The Prince. He only read some fundamental quotes, cited by other authors. It is clear that the all his references also appear in the voice “Machiavelli” of Pierre Bayle’ Dictionnaire. Moreover, Feijoo‘s interpretation is very different from Pierre Bayle's: for the French author the work of the Florentine it is admirable because Machiavelli breaks with ignorance and hypocrisy revealing the truth of history. According to Feijoo, the Florentine master didn't discover anything original and his works merely present the worst examples of governance practices.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
