权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

John Donne and Jesiuts' views of Machiavelli

约翰·多恩和耶休茨对马基雅维利的看法

基本信息

批准号：
08610474
负责人：
TAKAHASHI Shohei
金额：
$ 1.34万
依托单位：
Niigata University
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
财政年份：
1996
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
1996 至 1998
项目状态：
已结题

项目摘要

This research originated from John Donne's Ignatius His Conclave (1611). In it Machiavelli as an important "novelist" was refuted by Ignatius Loyola, When we bear in mind that Loyola was a Jesuit, one question arises about what Jesuits' view of Machiavelli really was. In order to examine this, I selected two Spanish representative Jesuits, Antonio Possevino and Pedro de Ribadeneira, and one English Jesuit, Thomas Fitzherbert and examined their views of Machiavelli. As a result, Possevino's view of Machiavelli turned out to be fragmentary and reflect Innocent Gentillet's personal, emotional criticism of Machiavelli. Ribadeneira's view of Machiavelli was moral, asserting that Machiavelli's prince was not a true prince and his doctrine produced only a tyrant. He said that religion and virtue which Machiavelli rejected were absolutely necessary for the preserving of a state. Thomas Fitzherbert's criticism followed Possevino and Ribadeneira, and focused on attacking Machiavelli's evil only. He regarded Machiavelli as a teacher of evil, a teacher of tyrants and tyranny, and discussed how contradictory evil was to nature, reason and the Scriptures. He concluded that rulers based on evil were sure to collapse and God's punishment was unavoidable. His view of Machiavelli was a traditional and typical one. He took his criticism of Machiavelli from Ribadeneira. Against the background, John Donne's Machiavelli in ignatius His Conclave was different from these Jesuits. Donne not only referred to Machiavelli's aspect of a teacher of evil but pointed out Machiavelli's two faces as a monarchist and a republican. Donne introduced a new view of Machiavelli which was not discussed by the Jesuits. This shows that Donne knew Jesuits' view of Machiavelli and their view was based on ignorance. Donne's Loyola, who speaks as if he knew everything, was in fact ignorant of Machiavelli's intention.

这一研究起源于约翰·多恩的《伊格那丢的秘密会议》（Ignatius His Conclave，1611年）。在它马基雅维里作为一个重要的“小说家”是驳斥了伊格内修斯洛约拉，当我们记住，洛约拉是一个耶稣会士，一个问题出现了什么耶稣会士的马基雅维里的看法真的是。为了检验这一点，我挑选了两位西班牙耶稣会代表人物安东尼奥·波塞维诺（Antonio Possevino）和佩德罗·德·里瓦德内拉（Pedro de Ribadeneira），以及一位英国耶稣会代表人物托马斯·菲茨赫伯特（Thomas Fitzherbert），考察他们对马基雅维利的看法。因此，波塞维诺对马基雅维利的看法被证明是支离破碎的，反映了英诺森·真蒂莱对马基雅维利的个人情感批评。里巴代内拉对马基雅维利的看法是道德的，他断言马基雅维利的君主不是真正的君主，他的学说只会产生一个暴君。他说，马基雅维里所拒绝的宗教和美德，对于维护国家是绝对必要的。托马斯·菲茨赫伯特的批评追随波塞维诺和里巴德内拉，集中攻击马基雅维里的邪恶。他认为马基雅维利是邪恶的老师，暴君和暴政的老师，并讨论了邪恶与自然，理性和圣经的矛盾。他的结论是，建立在邪恶基础上的统治者肯定会崩溃，上帝的惩罚是不可避免的。他对马基雅维里的看法是传统的、典型的。他对马基雅维利的批评来自里巴德内拉。在此背景下，约翰·邓恩的《马奇亚维利在伊格那丢的秘密会议》与这些耶稣会士不同.多恩不仅提到了马基雅维利的邪恶教师的一面，但指出了马基雅维利的两张面孔，一个君主主义者和一个共和主义者。多恩介绍了一个新的马基雅维利的看法，这是没有讨论的耶稣会士。这表明多恩知道耶稣会士对马基雅维利的看法，他们的看法是基于无知。多恩笔下的洛约拉，说得好像他什么都知道，实际上他对马基雅维利的意图一无所知。