- giuseppe.sciara@unito.it
giuseppe.sciara@gmail.com
- University of Genova, Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche (DI.S.PO.), Department MemberUniversite Paris-8, France, Etudes italiennes, Department Memberadd
- Political History, French history and politics, Machiavellism, Liberalism, Democracy, French History, and 28 moreModern Italian History, French Restoration, Liberalismo, Machiavelli, Rousseau, History of Political Thought, Niccolò Machiavelli, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Social Networking, Twitter, Machiavelli500, Machiavellismo In Politica, PRINCIPE, Political Theory, Intellectual History, Comparative History of Political Thought, European History, History of Ideas, Politics, Republicanism, Liberalism and Republicanism, Machiavellianism, 19th century France, France, Monism, Pluralism, Political Thought, and Benjamin Constantedit
- - FRA - J'ai obtenu un diplôme en Études européennes (mention très bien, avec les Félicitations du jury) et le titre ... more- FRA -
J'ai obtenu un diplôme en Études européennes (mention très bien, avec les Félicitations du jury) et le titre de docteur de recherche en « Études politiques » chez le Département d'Études Politiques de l'Université de Turin (2012). J'ai obtenu un deuxième titre de docteur de recherche en « Sciences politiques - Pensée politique et Communication politique » chez le Département de Sciences politiques (DI.S.PO) de l'Université de Gênes, en cotutelle avec l'Université de Paris 8 Vincennes–Saint-Denis (2017). Je suis Chercheur postdoctoral et Professeur à contrat chez le Département de Culture, Politique et Société de l'Université de Turin. Je collabore avec les revues académiques “Il Pensiero politico” et "Storia del pensiero politico".
Ma recherche porte sur le libéralisme français post-révolutionnaire, sur la présence de Machiavel dans la culture française du XIXème siècle et sur la pensée politique italienne du XXème siècle.
- ENG -
I received a MA in "European Studies" (summa cum laude) and a PhD in "Political Studies" at the University of Turin (2012). I received a second PhD in "Political Sciences - Political Thought and Political Communication" at the University of Genoa and at the University of Paris VIII - Vincennes - Saint-Denis (2017). I'm Postdoctoral research fellow and Adjunct Professor at the Departement of Culture, Politics and Society of the University of Turin. I collaborate with scientific journals like "Il Pensiero politico" and "Storia del pensiero politico".
My research focuses on the post-revolutionary French liberalism, on the presence of Machiavelli in French culture of the Nineteenth century and on the Italian political thought of Twentieth century. He published articles, essays, review, and recently a book on the political thought of Benjamin Constant.
- ITA -
Laureato in Studi europei nel 2008 presso l'Università degli Studi di Torino, nel marzo 2012 ho conseguito il titolo di Dottore di Ricerca in "Studi Politici. Storia e Teoria" presso il Dipartimento di Studi politici dell’Università degli Studi di Torino. Attualmente sono assegnista di ricerca e professore a contratto presso il Dipartimento di Culture, Politica e Società dell'Università di Torino.
Collaboro con le riviste scientifiche "Il Pensiero politico" e "Storia del pensiero politico".
I miei interessi di ricerca vertono sul liberalismo francese nel periodo post-rivoluzionario (in particolare su Benjamin Constant), sul machiavellismo in Francia e in Italia nell’Ottocento e sul pensiero politico italiano contemporaneo.edit
Mentore di tiranni e disvelatore delle loro trame, ispiratore di governanti senza scrupoli e guida per i popoli, cinico teorico del successo e geniale scienziato politico: Machiavelli e i suoi molti volti hanno permeato la storia del... more
Mentore di tiranni e disvelatore delle loro trame, ispiratore di governanti senza scrupoli e guida per i popoli, cinico teorico del successo e geniale scienziato politico: Machiavelli e i suoi molti volti hanno permeato la storia del pensiero politico moderno rivelandosi in tutta la loro straordinaria fecondità in modo particolare nei momenti di cesura e di svolte epocali. In questo volume l’Autore analizza commentari e traduzioni delle opere machiavelliane, ricostruisce le interpretazioni di intellettuali di diversa ispirazione, indaga l’incidenza delle letture e degli usi di Machiavelli nelle dinamiche politico-istituzionali francesi, affrontando così da una diversa prospettiva alcune delle questioni più complesse della Francia post-rivoluzionaria.
Research Interests: French History, French Revolution, History of Political Thought, Machiavelli, Niccolò Machiavelli, and 13 moreMachiavellianism, Restauration, French Restoration, Restaurazione, Machiavellismo, Anti-Machiavellismo, Storia Del Pensiero Politico, monarchie de Juillet, Rivoluzione Francese, Deuxième République, Machiavellismo In Politica, Storia della Francia, and Seconda Repubblica
Un pensatore e attore politico isolato, una voce fuori dal coro: questa l'immagine di Benjamin Constant che emerge da questa monografia dedicata a un periodo breve, ma cruciale per la storia di Francia, così come per la biografia del... more
Un pensatore e attore politico isolato, una voce fuori dal coro: questa l'immagine di Benjamin Constant che emerge da questa monografia dedicata a un periodo breve, ma cruciale per la storia di Francia, così come per la biografia del liberale di Losanna.
I rivolgimenti istituzionali che si susseguono dalla prima Restaurazione (aprile 1814) alla seconda (luglio 1815), segnano l'instabilità di un Paese che tenta a fatica di terminare la Rivoluzione, senza riuscire a dirimere la contrapposizione tra la vecchia e la nuova Francia. Quanto a Constant, questa breve stagione è segnata, da una parte, dal primo ritorno a Parigi e dal contestuale appoggio alla monarchia borbonica, dopo essere stato repubblicano durante il Direttorio e fiero oppositore del regime napoleonico durante gli anni dell'Impero, dall’altra, dalla fallimentare collaborazione con Bonaparte durante i Cento Giorni, a causa della quale sarà costretto ad optare per l'esilio nell’ottobre del 1815.
Poco più di quindici mesi, dunque, ma straordinariamente intensi per il liberale svizzero, il quale sviluppa una linea politica del tutto personale, che lo distingue dagli altri protagonisti del periodo. Sempre impegnato a coniugare obiettivi teorici e finalità pratiche, nel tentativo di far trionfare i principi del suo liberalismo e allo stesso tempo di ricoprire un ruolo di primo piano nella vita politica parigina, Constant raramente riesce a far convergere le proprie idee e i propri progetti con quelli degli altri protagonisti del periodo.
Il volume ricostruisce in maniera puntuale le ragioni di questa solitaria parabola politica, con l’intento primario di chiarire nel contempo le motivazioni delle scelte controverse che l’hanno segnata.
I rivolgimenti istituzionali che si susseguono dalla prima Restaurazione (aprile 1814) alla seconda (luglio 1815), segnano l'instabilità di un Paese che tenta a fatica di terminare la Rivoluzione, senza riuscire a dirimere la contrapposizione tra la vecchia e la nuova Francia. Quanto a Constant, questa breve stagione è segnata, da una parte, dal primo ritorno a Parigi e dal contestuale appoggio alla monarchia borbonica, dopo essere stato repubblicano durante il Direttorio e fiero oppositore del regime napoleonico durante gli anni dell'Impero, dall’altra, dalla fallimentare collaborazione con Bonaparte durante i Cento Giorni, a causa della quale sarà costretto ad optare per l'esilio nell’ottobre del 1815.
Poco più di quindici mesi, dunque, ma straordinariamente intensi per il liberale svizzero, il quale sviluppa una linea politica del tutto personale, che lo distingue dagli altri protagonisti del periodo. Sempre impegnato a coniugare obiettivi teorici e finalità pratiche, nel tentativo di far trionfare i principi del suo liberalismo e allo stesso tempo di ricoprire un ruolo di primo piano nella vita politica parigina, Constant raramente riesce a far convergere le proprie idee e i propri progetti con quelli degli altri protagonisti del periodo.
Il volume ricostruisce in maniera puntuale le ragioni di questa solitaria parabola politica, con l’intento primario di chiarire nel contempo le motivazioni delle scelte controverse che l’hanno segnata.
Research Interests: Liberalism, Benjamin Constant, François-René de Chateaubriand, François Guizot, Restauration, and 12 moreNapoleon, Liberalismo, Democrazia, Napoleonic History, French Restoration, Charles Dunoyer, Liberalisme, Pensiero politico, Restaurazione, Storia Del Pensiero Politico, Charles Comte, and Ultraroyalistes
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper focuses on the various uses of Machiavelli’s figure and thought during the French Revolution, precisely from the Terror to the Directory. Although Jacobins declare themselves anti-machiavellian, in Robespierre’s speeches at the... more
This paper focuses on the various uses of Machiavelli’s figure and thought during the French Revolution, precisely from the Terror to the Directory. Although Jacobins declare themselves anti-machiavellian, in Robespierre’s speeches at the National Convention and at the Jacobin Club some argumentations are drawn from Machiavelli’s Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio. Robespierre finds in Machiavelli’s political thought not only a strong reference to found a new and well working Republic, but also a theoretical justification and inspiration for the political practice of the Terror. After the coup of 9 Thermidor and the fall of Robespierre, the members of the new regime, called the Thermidorians, propose a very different use of Machiavelli: opposing Jacobin and Rousseauian abstractionism, they consider the Florentine thinker as a champion of political realism and they use his name to justify a moderate approach to politics and a stronger executive power. But, among the apologists of the Thermidorian regime, we can find also the Machiavelli considered a symbol of a politics ruthless. Pierre-Louis Roederer, for example, uses the ‘black legend’ of Machiavelli to delegitimize political enemies and to legitimate Bonaparte’s rise to power. In short, through the analysis of these various uses of Machiavelli’s thought the paper try to reconstruct some political dynamics during this turbulent period of French History.
Research Interests:
This paper focuses on a particular political use of Machiavelli's thought and figure in one of the most turbulent periods of French History: the first months of Second Restoration, after Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo. In conflictive... more
This paper focuses on a particular political use of Machiavelli's thought and figure in one of the most turbulent periods of French History: the first months of Second Restoration, after Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo. In conflictive circumstances in which both opponents and apologists of the 1789 principles use Machiavelli's name to justify their own political stances, a little-known and counterrevolutionary abbot named Aimé Guillon publishes a work entitled Machiavel commenté par N[apole]on Buonaparte. Although it is immediately clear that it is a fake, the work is important as a mirror of this historical moment: Guillon does not just want to delegitimize Bonapartist enemies but, advising Louis XVIII to read and use Machiavelli's Prince, he also wants to claim a political position based on Bourbon legitimism and gallicanism.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The chapter focuses on the different political uses of discourses on Europe in French debates during the Restoration. In the first years, from the Congress of Vienna to the second Bourbon dynasty's second return to the throne, both the... more
The chapter focuses on the different political uses of discourses on Europe in French debates during the Restoration. In the first years, from the Congress of Vienna to the second Bourbon dynasty's second return to the throne, both the opponents and the defenders of the French Revolution used different depictions of Europe to justify their political stances. The moderate-royalists imagined the material reorganization of Europe on principles of legitimacy and religion; the Ultra-royalists painted Europe as governed by chaos, arguing that only Catholicism, aristocracy and the value of the family could restore peace and morality; the liberals talked about a set of free nations and representative governments; for Bonapartists, instead, Europe was a continent set along the path to freedom, which the Allied Powers (especially England) wanted to bring back to a new slavery. Around the various and antithetical discourses on Europe the battle for or against the French Revolution was fought. But a few years later, during the Greek independence war against the Ottoman Empire, these different depictions of Europe seemed to lose importance: in front of Muslim enemy, both the Christian religion and the right of nations to self-determination contributed to development of the idea of Europe's superiority over the rest of the world.
Research Interests:
This paper focuses on the various uses of Machiavelli’s figure and thought during the French Revolution, precisely from Directory to Consulate. In this period Machiavelli is not only a medium to delegitimize political enemies because... more
This paper focuses on the various uses of Machiavelli’s figure and thought during the French Revolution, precisely from Directory to Consulate. In this period Machiavelli is not only a medium to delegitimize political enemies because considered a symbol of a politics ruthless, but he is also a weapon used to try and save the Revolution. The apologists of 1789 principles, who consider Machiavelli a champion of political real- ism, use his name to oppose Jacobins and justify a strong executive power. In this con- text, an unknown author and playwright named Antoine Sérieys publishes a strange dialogue between Machiavelli and Saint-Just to legitimate the new bonapartist regime.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
«I've been defending the same principle for forty years, freedom in everything, in religion, philosophy, literature, industry and politics». Starting from this declaration of faith – given by Benjamin Constant in the preface of "Mélanges... more
«I've been defending the same principle for forty years, freedom in everything, in religion, philosophy, literature, industry and politics». Starting from this declaration of faith – given by Benjamin Constant in the preface of "Mélanges de littérature et de politique" – and based on Isaiah Berlin’s classification, I shall endeavour to show that Constant, despite the fact he may appear a hedgehog because guided his whole life long by one single principle, that of freedom, to all intents and purposes he is in fact a fox. I shall thus concentrate my attention on the many-sided nature of his work, because from the analysis of the different forms in which Constant’s thinking was expressed (Perfunctory texts, articles, theorical essays, diaries, novels) and from the different fields it regarded (politics, history, religion, literature), an idea of freedom comes to light, which in my opinion transcends the strictly political dimension which is usually considered when approaching his thinking. Constant, having overcome the inflexibility of the enlightenment and influenced by the rising aspirations of Romanticism, intends freedom not only as independence from the authorities and from power, but also as perfectibility, as religious sentiment, as a person's ability to develop his own inner ego and as pluralism of values. Constant's freedom contains nothing abstract, it is not a myth and neither is it a revelation: it is born from historical experience and symbolises a method of action through which different individuals contribute to the progress of the human race, thanks to their own ideas.
Research Interests:
This paper focuses on two important French translations of Machiavelli’s works, by Charles-Philippe-Toussaint Guiraudet (1799), and by Jean-Vincent Périès (1823-1826). Although the two translations have precise cultural targets (to... more
This paper focuses on two important French translations of Machiavelli’s works, by Charles-Philippe-Toussaint Guiraudet (1799), and by Jean-Vincent Périès (1823-1826). Although the two translations have precise cultural targets (to rehabilitate Machiavelli’s image and to overtake the republican interpretation), both translators have political and personal aims closely related to the political context they’re in. Guiraudet outlines the patriotic interpretation of the Prince for the first time and, considering Machiavelli as the theorist of the strong executive power, he wants to take position against the Jacobins and forewarn the coup d’État of 18 Brumaire. Périès defines Machiavelli as the theorist of the representative regime and, in the context of the Spanish war of 1823, he wants to associate ancient bonapartists’ political stances to Louis XVIII’s regime.
-------------------------------------
L’article envisage deux importantes traductions françaises des œuvres de Machiavel, celle de Charles-Philippe-Toussaint Guiraudet de 1799 et celle de Jean-Vincent Périès publiée entre 1823 et 1826. Bien que les deux traductions aient des objectifs « culturels » précis – réhabiliter l’image du Secrétaire florentin et « dépasser » la lecture républicaine –, les deux traducteurs ont des objectifs politiques et personnels strictement liés à la situation politique dans laquelle ils vivent. Guiraudet présente pour la première fois une lecture nationale du Prince et, en considérant Machiavel comme le théoricien du pouvoir exécutif fort, veut s’opposer aux jacobins et annonce par là-même le coup d’État du 18 brumaire. Périès identifie en Machiavel le théoricien du régime représentatif et, dans le contexte de la guerre d’Espagne de 1823, entend rallier les anciens bonapartistes au régime de Louis XVIII.
-------------------------------------
L’articolo prende in considerazione due importanti traduzioni francesi delle opere di Machiavelli, quella di Charles-Philippe-Toussaint Guiraudet del 1799 e quella di Jean-Vincent Périès del 1823-1826. Nonostante le due traduzioni si pongano precisi obiettivi culturali, cioè riabilitare la figura del Segretario fiorentino e superare la lettura repubblicana, entrambi i traduttori perseguono anche obiettivi politici e personali strettamente legati alla congiuntura politica in cui vivono. Guiraudet tratteggia per la prima volta la lettura nazionale del Principe e, considerando Machiavelli il teorizzatore di un potere esecutivo forte, intende opporsi ai giacobini e preannunciare il Colpo di Stato di Brumaio; Périès riconosce in Machiavelli il teorizzatore del governo rappresentativo e nel contesto della campagna di Spagna del 1823 vuole ancorare le istanze degli ex-bonapartisti al regime di Luigi XVIII.
-------------------------------------
L’article envisage deux importantes traductions françaises des œuvres de Machiavel, celle de Charles-Philippe-Toussaint Guiraudet de 1799 et celle de Jean-Vincent Périès publiée entre 1823 et 1826. Bien que les deux traductions aient des objectifs « culturels » précis – réhabiliter l’image du Secrétaire florentin et « dépasser » la lecture républicaine –, les deux traducteurs ont des objectifs politiques et personnels strictement liés à la situation politique dans laquelle ils vivent. Guiraudet présente pour la première fois une lecture nationale du Prince et, en considérant Machiavel comme le théoricien du pouvoir exécutif fort, veut s’opposer aux jacobins et annonce par là-même le coup d’État du 18 brumaire. Périès identifie en Machiavel le théoricien du régime représentatif et, dans le contexte de la guerre d’Espagne de 1823, entend rallier les anciens bonapartistes au régime de Louis XVIII.
-------------------------------------
L’articolo prende in considerazione due importanti traduzioni francesi delle opere di Machiavelli, quella di Charles-Philippe-Toussaint Guiraudet del 1799 e quella di Jean-Vincent Périès del 1823-1826. Nonostante le due traduzioni si pongano precisi obiettivi culturali, cioè riabilitare la figura del Segretario fiorentino e superare la lettura repubblicana, entrambi i traduttori perseguono anche obiettivi politici e personali strettamente legati alla congiuntura politica in cui vivono. Guiraudet tratteggia per la prima volta la lettura nazionale del Principe e, considerando Machiavelli il teorizzatore di un potere esecutivo forte, intende opporsi ai giacobini e preannunciare il Colpo di Stato di Brumaio; Périès riconosce in Machiavelli il teorizzatore del governo rappresentativo e nel contesto della campagna di Spagna del 1823 vuole ancorare le istanze degli ex-bonapartisti al regime di Luigi XVIII.
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Italian (European History), Liberalism, Fascism, Liberty, Italian fascism, and 12 moreFranco Venturi, Benjamin Constant, Freedom, Resistance, Liberalismo, Contemporary Italian History and Politics, Liberty and Equality, Guido Calogero, Partito D'Azione, Carlo Dionisotti, Pompeo Biondi, and Alessandro Visconti
This paper focuses on Giuseppe Ferrari's interpretation of Machiavelli.
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Sovereignty, Liberalism, Rousseau, Democracy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and 10 moreAlexis de Tocqueville, François Guizot, Liberalismo, Democrazia, Tocqueville, Tocqueville, Doctrinaires, method of the French Doctrinaires, Tocqueville, French liberalism, French doctrinaires, Guizot, power, and Sovranità
This paper focuses on the Raffaella Gherardi's interpretation of Marsili's political thought. Particular attention is given to the connection between Marsili's conception of politics and his scientific background.
Research Interests:
The paper focuses on the various uses of Machiavelli’s figure and thought in one of the most turbulent periods of French History: from the Bourbon dynasty’s first return to the throne in April 1814, to the dissolution of “Chambre... more
The paper focuses on the various uses of Machiavelli’s figure and thought in one of the most turbulent periods of French History: from the Bourbon dynasty’s first return to the throne in April 1814, to the dissolution of “Chambre Introuvable” in September 1816. Over a period of thirty months both opponents and apologists of 1789 principles use Machiavelli's name to justify their own political stances: for the Liberals the Secretary himself has no relation with Machiavellism; for the Ultraroyalistes he becomes symbol of a politics ruthless, like Bonaparte's authoritarianism or Jacobins’ Terror, but at the same time they use his figure to demand the elimination of their enemies and to praise the ancient French monarchy. In short, Machiavelli is a weapon used either to try and save the Revolution and to try and delete twenty-five years of history.
Research Interests:
This paper focuses on the different interpretations of Constant's political thought in recent studies: some authors emphasize its contiguity with the democratic tradition, whereas others underline the liberal elements of his theory.... more
This paper focuses on the different interpretations of Constant's political thought in recent studies: some authors emphasize its contiguity with the democratic tradition, whereas others underline the liberal elements of his theory. Particular attention is given to the recent Italian translations of Constant's works and to the literature dedicated to the connection between Constant's political doctrine and his religious background.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
«Il Pensiero politico», XLVI, n. 3, 2013.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Alcuni mesi fa, in occasione del Cinquecentenario della prima stesura del "Principe", mi sono cimentato nella divulgazione del pensiero di Machiavelli "riscrivendo" il suo trattato su Twitter con l'hashtag #Machiavelli500: in questa... more
Alcuni mesi fa, in occasione del Cinquecentenario della prima stesura del "Principe", mi sono cimentato nella divulgazione del pensiero di Machiavelli "riscrivendo" il suo trattato su Twitter con l'hashtag #Machiavelli500: in questa intervista pubblicata su TwLetteratura (http://www.twletteratura.org/giuseppe-sciara/), una riflessione sulle opportunità e sulle insidie di questo strumento, a partire dalla necessità di contestualizzare un’opera nella sua epoca.
Research Interests:
The expression of “reason of state” is currently used to denote recourse to force or, at any rate, to exceptional instruments in order to keep personal command, to guarantee state preservation or the maintenance of law and order within... more
The expression of “reason of state” is currently used to denote recourse to force or, at any rate, to exceptional instruments in order to keep personal command, to guarantee state preservation or the maintenance of law and order within society in extraordinary cases. However, reason of stategoes back to the language and the political culture of the late Renaissance period, bearing a wider and more complex meaning. When we focus on the Italian tradition, where it firstly appeared, reason of state was described as follow: “Stateis a stable rule over a people and Reason of State is the knowledge of the means by which such a dominion may be founded, preserved and extended. Yet, although in the widest sense the term includes all these, it is concerned most nearly with preservation (conservazione), and more nearly with extension than with foundation” (Botero 1589).
From Giovanni Botero’sDella Ragion di Stato (1589) right up to ScipioneChiaramonti (1635), reason of state refers to a variegated textual corpus that, besides the explicit reference to the exertion of force, sets up various codes of political conduct aimed at a broader conception of State preservation. This goal is not merely achieved through derogatory policies or extraordinary means, but it is chiefly pursued through ordinary government. In the context of the Counter-reformation, Italian reason of state linkedprincely rule with state administration and governance and ruler’s prudential reason was slowly backed up by a set of practical knowledges: city planning, statistics, political geography, demographics, accounting to name a few.
Thus, Italian reason of state tradition constitutes an autonomous and alternative path with respect to the group of theories, which, in certain European regions, gave rise to the experimentation of sovereignty. Nonetheless, in its very broad sense, it participated in the processes of the so-called modern political rationalization, in a way that is still to be fully investigated, and exercised its influence in various languages and European regions.
Ragion di Stato, Raison d’État, Razon de Estado, Staatsräson: from the end of the Sixteenth-century onwards this expression is in fact translated and adapted to particular regional situations. The differentlanguages and experiences ofEnglish royal (or parliamentary) absolute prerogative, of Germancameralism andpolizei,of French raison d’étatand police, the growing relevance of the “interests of state” in countries such as France, England, the Netherlands:these were allintertwined and concurred to shape the modern idea of the State.
The aim of the conference istwo-fold.
On the one side, it aims at analysing the different theories of reasonof state that were developed in EarlyModern and Modern Europe. We will thus focus on England, France, Germany and the Netherlands in order to highlight their respective specificities as well as their conceptual and historical proximities. We will then compare these experiences with the Italian tradition and contrast them with the contemporary theories of sovereignty in order to clarify their mutual influences and their political, juridical and philosophical backgrounds.
On the other side, the conferenceaims at investigating the relevance of different conceptions of “reason of state” for our contemporary democratic states and societies.In fact, any conception of reason of state seems to bear with itadistinction between moral or juridical normativity (the Right, the Law), the effectivity of ordinary political action, and the necessity to face political and social emergencies.However defined, reason of state is therefore “an art” for governing the State.The changing nature of the State in contemporary globalized democracies poses the question of investigating the changings in the reasons of (the) states.
From Giovanni Botero’sDella Ragion di Stato (1589) right up to ScipioneChiaramonti (1635), reason of state refers to a variegated textual corpus that, besides the explicit reference to the exertion of force, sets up various codes of political conduct aimed at a broader conception of State preservation. This goal is not merely achieved through derogatory policies or extraordinary means, but it is chiefly pursued through ordinary government. In the context of the Counter-reformation, Italian reason of state linkedprincely rule with state administration and governance and ruler’s prudential reason was slowly backed up by a set of practical knowledges: city planning, statistics, political geography, demographics, accounting to name a few.
Thus, Italian reason of state tradition constitutes an autonomous and alternative path with respect to the group of theories, which, in certain European regions, gave rise to the experimentation of sovereignty. Nonetheless, in its very broad sense, it participated in the processes of the so-called modern political rationalization, in a way that is still to be fully investigated, and exercised its influence in various languages and European regions.
Ragion di Stato, Raison d’État, Razon de Estado, Staatsräson: from the end of the Sixteenth-century onwards this expression is in fact translated and adapted to particular regional situations. The differentlanguages and experiences ofEnglish royal (or parliamentary) absolute prerogative, of Germancameralism andpolizei,of French raison d’étatand police, the growing relevance of the “interests of state” in countries such as France, England, the Netherlands:these were allintertwined and concurred to shape the modern idea of the State.
The aim of the conference istwo-fold.
On the one side, it aims at analysing the different theories of reasonof state that were developed in EarlyModern and Modern Europe. We will thus focus on England, France, Germany and the Netherlands in order to highlight their respective specificities as well as their conceptual and historical proximities. We will then compare these experiences with the Italian tradition and contrast them with the contemporary theories of sovereignty in order to clarify their mutual influences and their political, juridical and philosophical backgrounds.
On the other side, the conferenceaims at investigating the relevance of different conceptions of “reason of state” for our contemporary democratic states and societies.In fact, any conception of reason of state seems to bear with itadistinction between moral or juridical normativity (the Right, the Law), the effectivity of ordinary political action, and the necessity to face political and social emergencies.However defined, reason of state is therefore “an art” for governing the State.The changing nature of the State in contemporary globalized democracies poses the question of investigating the changings in the reasons of (the) states.