Search results

1

Maquiavelo, el príncipe frustrado

100%

Esparza Leibar A.

Studia Europaea Gnesnensia

|

2018

|

issue 17

287-306

ES

This article advances a hypothesis which differs from those usually formulated about “The Prince”. Here, Machiavelli is not simply a scholar versed in political philosophy. The theories that he expounds on in this particular piece of work would, in part, be the result of long-term efforts he undertook to gain power for himself and become a sovereign. In order to support this assertion, it is necessary to turn to his biography. His interventions as a high official (particularly during the latter years of the Florentine Republic) have been compared to the reflections he compiled in The Prince . This information points to the fact that Machiavelli followed a meticulous plan in order to carry out a coup d´état, taking shelter behind Soderini – agonfalonier for life – for whom he acted as main counsellor. Some of his contemporaries (and his political enemies in particular) already expressed their suspicions in that regard. The corresponding references have been included in the article.

2

House of Cards i Machiavelli - Frank Underwood jako przykład współczesnego księcia

100%

Rożewska A.

Polityka i Społeczeństwo

|

2015

|

issue 4(13)

56-68 (13)

EN

The intrigue ridden series, “House of Cards” presents the story of Frank Un-derwood, a “whip” responsible for discipline in the Democratic Party. To follow his ambitious, he appears as a great strategist and diplomat, and demonstrates some unique skills. Unfortunately his actions always get positive results, which has a nega-tive impact on the realism of the series. However all the manipulative techniques used by Underwood and references to “The Prince” by Machiavelli are very authen-tic. This paper discusses the above techniques and instruments implemented by Frank. The fact that the series is very popular and received a great response from the viewers is related to its theme and the way of presenting politics. Although there are mixed reviews when it comes to the realism shown in the “House of Cards”, the viewer seemed to be convinced of a great opportunity presented to look backstage of White House politics.

3

Aleksander Newski – święty mnich i bohater wschodniej Słowiańszczyzny

75%

Sulikowska-Bełczowska A.

Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej

|

2019

|

vol. Вѣнецъ хваленїѧ. Studia ofiarowane profesorowi Aleksandrowi Naumowowi na jubileusz 70-lecia

|

issue 10

213-230

EN

The article discusses the role of Alexander Nevsky – a Russian prince and a saint of Orthodox Church. Russian writing sources describe him primarily as a winner of the battles against the Swedes in 1240 (the battle of Neva) and the forces of the Livonian Order and Bishopric of Dorpat in 1242 (the Battle on the Ice) and prince who became a monk before his death in 1263. The cult of Alexander began shortly after his death however, its enormous development came only later. The popularity of saint prince increased during the times of Ivan Terrible – after the mid-16th century and in the age of Peter the Great – in the 18th century. The oldest preserved icons of Alexander come from the second half of 16th century and show him as a holy monk. In the 18th-20th centuries the art of official church is dominated by images of Alexander as a ruler and victorious warrior.

4

In Praise For Monstrosities. The Case of Niccolò Machiavelli

63%

Wróbel S.

|

2013

|

vol. 180

|

issue 4

455-474

EN

In the paper author refers to the passage from The Prince of Niccolò Machiavelli, in which the famous Florentine says that there are two kinds of combat: one with laws, the other with force. Author defend the claim that by writing this, Machiavelli opened up a new and still unused way of thinking about nature-culture relationship. A follower of this way of thinking withdraws from saying that nature is surpassed by culture, or that nature is nothing else but a subject of an on-going human speculation, and rebuts the sole hypothesis that what there is, is nothing but nature. Modern Western culture entrusted its key opposition to the nature-culture relationship. By and large, political philosophy is a story about surpassing the nature in order to establish a state under the rule of law. According to Machiavelli, the juxtaposition of nature and culture, the narrative on surpassing by politics the laws of nature, just as well as the narrative on us being stuck in it, are all utterly wrong. Accepting the ambiguity of the opposition between nature and culture and assuming that the social contract is indeed fictitious, author would like to question Machiavelli about his vision of subjectivity and politics in a world where “natural objects” appear to be socialized, and “cultural subjects” appear to be dissocial. In the way author puts the question: does Machiavelli recommend monstrosity by writing stories in praise of monstrosity as it may well seem?

5

Granice zasady „cel uświęca środki” w filozofii władzy Niccola Machiavellego

51%

Potapenko K.

Głos Prawa. Przegląd Prawniczy Allerhanda

|

2019

|

vol. 2

|

issue 2(4)

300-318

PL

W artykule analizowany jest problem współczesnego rozumienia makiawelizmu w kontekście rzeczywistych poglądów Machiavellego. Przedstawione zostały granice zasady „cel uświęca środki”, którymi są: interes publiczny, wybieranie mniejszego zła, uzasadnione stosowanie w czasie wojny środków niemoralnych. Znaczną część rozważań poświęcono analizie celu głównego dla Machiavellego, którym jest dobro ogółu i w tym kontekście możliwych do zastosowania przez władcę środków. Na podstawie prac Machiavellego zrekonstruowano obraz władcy, którego celem jest zjednoczenie Włoch. Ustalenia odniesiono do poglądów z epoki oraz realiów współczesnych, wskazując także na przykłady możliwej interpretacji makiawelizmu współcześnie.

EN

The article analyzes the problem of contemporary understanding of Machiavellianism in the context of Machiavelli’s real views. It presents the boundaries of the principle “the end justifies the means” which include the public interest, selecting the lesser evil, and the justified use of immoral means during the war. Much of the discussion is devoted to an analysis of the common good as a main goal for Machiavelli himself. Based on the work of Machiavelli, an image of the ruler aiming to unify Italy is reconstructed. The findings are then referred to the views from the era as well as to contemporary realities, also by indicating examples of possible interpretations of Machiavellianism today.

6

Honour and Fighting Social Advancement in the Early Modern Age

45%

Gassmann J.

Acta Periodica Duellatorum

|

2015

|

vol. 2015

|

issue 1

139-181

EN

The article considers the importance of military service in social advancement, here understood as filling the role of “prince” in feudal law and thus participating in the government of an estate, in the transition from the Late Middle Ages to the Renaissance or Early Modern Age. In the context of a city burgher or a petty noble or knight advancing into a government role, did honour require that the individual have experience in fighting – in war, military organisation and leadership? How did mercenaries figure? What role, if any, did Fechtmeister, Fechtbücher, Fechtschulen or Kriegsbücher play?

7

Współksiążęta czy konprincepsi? Kilka uwag o statusie prezydenta Francji i biskupa Urgell jako głowy państwa andorańskiego w kontekście formy ustrojowej Andory

38%

Wiszowaty M. M.

Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego

|

2014

|

issue 2 (18)

327-345

PL

Problematyka ustrojowa Andory nie stanowi wiodącego przedmiotu badawczego ani zagranicznej, ani tym bardziej polskiej doktryny konstytucyjnej. Opracowania na ten temat w polskiej literaturze naukowej, powstałe pod rządami obecnie obowiązującej konstytucji państwa andorskiego z 1993 r., tworzą skromną liczebnie listę kilku artykułów lub fragmentów rozleglejszych opracowań na ogólniejsze tematy. W rezultacie zdecydowana większość wymienionych opracowań dotyczących małych państw posiada głównie sprawozdawczy charakter. Pozwala to na pominięcie kwestii podstawowych i ogólnych dotyczących ustroju Andory i poruszenie wybranych zagadnień szczegółowych, które w dotychczasowych opracowaniach wspominano jedynie na marginesie czy w przypisach. Wśród nich: kwestia statusu ustrojowego specyficznej głowy państwa i w związku z tym właściwe określenie formy państwa andorańskiego. Andorscy copríncipes funkcjonują w języku polskim jako „współksiążęta”. W konsekwencji automatycznie Andorę określa się jako „księstwo”, a więc uchodzi ono powszechnie za państwo o ustroju monarchicznym, a wręcz monarchię konstytucyjną.Tę praktykę należy uznać co najmniej za dyskusyjną. Autor formułuje dwie hipotezy i poddaje je weryfikacji: po pierwsze – Andora jest pryncypatem, a nie księstwem, a więc mieszaną formą ustrojową łączącą elementy monarchiczne i republikańskie, w których przeważają te drugie, obok reliktowych śladów tych pierwszych. Głowa państwa w pryncypacie powinna być określana mianem „princepsa”, a w przypadku Andory dokładniej: koprincepsów, aby uniknąć mylącego porównania z księciem, jako monarchiczną, dziedziczną głową państwa. Po drugie – pomimo przyjęcia nowoczesnej konstytucji w ustroju Andory pozostały relikty feudalne wynikające z jej dawnego statusu kondominium. Widać to szczególnie w kształcie ustrojowym instytucji głowy państwa oraz pozostawieniu częściowej możliwości wpływania państw macierzystych koprincepsów na ich decyzje.

EN

The constitutional system of Andorra is not a popular subject of study of science either in Poland or abroad. In Poland, after 1993 (the year the adoption of the current constitution) were published only a few articles or fragments of larger studies on this topic. As a result, the vast majority of these studies have mainly reporting character. Many interesting issues have been mentioned only in footnotes. Among them: the question of the status of specific, Andorran head of state and (resulting) the correct indication of the form of Andorran state. Co-principes are translated into Polish as „co-princes”. It consequently, automatically determined Andorra as a „principality”, ie the state of monarchical system, and even a constitutional monarchy . This should be considered , at least as controversial. The author formulates two hypotheses and subjected them to verify. Firstly – Andorra is a principate (not a principality) – a mixed form of political system combines elements of monarchy and republic, outweigh the latter, in addition to the relics of the former. Head of State in principate should be referred to as „princeps”, and in the case of Andorra, specifically: co-princeps. In this way we will avoid misleading comparisons with „a prince”, as monarchical, hereditary head of state. Secondly – despite the adoption of a modern constitution, there are remaining relics of feudal times in the political system of Andorra, resulting from the former status of „condominium”. This is particularly evident in the form of the Andorran heads of state institution. It also gives a partial capacity to influence decisions of the co-principes by their home country’s authorities.

Refine search results

1 Acta Periodica Duellatorum

1 Głos Prawa. Przegląd Prawniczy Allerhanda

1 Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej

1 Polish Sociological Review

1 Polityka i Społeczeństwo

1 Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego

1 Studia Europaea Gnesnensia

2 2019

1 2018

2 2015

1 2014

1 2013

1 Esparza Leibar A.

1 Gassmann J.

1 Potapenko K.

1 Rożewska A.

1 Sulikowska-Bełczowska A.

1 Wiszowaty M. M.