지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper deals with the historical thinking of Machiavelli. Its right judgement depends on how to interpret Virtu which is the essential concept. Virtu is understood as power, especially masculine power. Virtu is a free power to overcome the powerful domination of Fortuna. Therefore, Machavelli was sure that raising Virtu is the way Florence suffering from foreign countries since 1494 can be free like ancient Rome Republic. Machivelli was a politician of power. Virtu that he asked his country Florence was not Virtue but power. He was a thinker of history rather than a historian. And to put it more precisely, a thinker of Politics rather than a thinker of history, but, most of all he was a patriot. His patriotism relies on physical power.
In this aspect, this paper contains a negative opinion about Machiavelli. However, it was not my intention to judge him morally since I am a person who has no total and professional knowledge about Machiavelli's idea. In this paper I accessed to his thought critically with caution against a kind of academic orientalism, in the situation where he is popular and his Virtu is understood as Virtue.
Basically the purpose of this paper is to understand Machiavelli's historical thinking. Virtu and Fortuna are his basic concepts of his historical idea which helps to understand circulation of history, lesson of history, and usefulness of history. However, these concepts were not only his. He shared contemporary humanists' historical perception. Comparing him with other historians is needed to evaluate his position in historiography. He is compared with Guicciardini, Machiavelli focused on circulation of history and virtu. He thought lessons were more important than historical facts and he intended to show social orientations.
At first I thought the title of this paper to be "Historian Machiavelli" because I thought though he was a historian who wrote Discourses on Livy, Florentine Histories, his aspects of historian has been ignored. However reading his books, I wondered that he could be considered as a historian. I thought he gave up factuality because of historical lessons. What can distinguish a historian from others? I think the basic duty of historians is trying to reconstitute the past facts exactly like not Machivelli but Guicciardini. While Guicciardini is close to a historian, Machivelli is thought to be relatively far from the way of a historian.
In this aspect, this paper contains a negative opinion about Machiavelli. However, it was not my intention to judge him morally since I am a person who has no total and professional knowledge about Machiavelli's idea. In this paper I accessed to his thought critically with caution against a kind of academic orientalism, in the situation where he is popular and his Virtu is understood as Virtue.
Basically the purpose of this paper is to understand Machiavelli's historical thinking. Virtu and Fortuna are his basic concepts of his historical idea which helps to understand circulation of history, lesson of history, and usefulness of history. However, these concepts were not only his. He shared contemporary humanists' historical perception. Comparing him with other historians is needed to evaluate his position in historiography. He is compared with Guicciardini, Machiavelli focused on circulation of history and virtu. He thought lessons were more important than historical facts and he intended to show social orientations.
At first I thought the title of this paper to be "Historian Machiavelli" because I thought though he was a historian who wrote Discourses on Livy, Florentine Histories, his aspects of historian has been ignored. However reading his books, I wondered that he could be considered as a historian. I thought he gave up factuality because of historical lessons. What can distinguish a historian from others? I think the basic duty of historians is trying to reconstitute the past facts exactly like not Machivelli but Guicciardini. While Guicciardini is close to a historian, Machivelli is thought to be relatively far from the way of a historian.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 비르투와 포르투나
Ⅲ. 비르투와 역사의 순환
Ⅳ. 역사의 교훈
Ⅴ. 맺음말
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
포스트모던 역사인식과 역사학습
역사교육
2000 .06
-
탈근대 지식인으로서 역사가
역사와 담론
2008 .12
-
역사적 사고의 한계와 역사화의 가능성
역사교육
2003 .09
-
클리오들의 투쟁 : 서양 근대사에서의 역사가와 이념
역사학보
2009 .03
-
제 일차 세계대전과 역사가들 : 독일과 미국 역사가들의 참전활동 비교
역사학보
2002 .12
-
역사가의 사고과정이 드러나는 서술의 특징과 교재개발 방향
역사교육
2000 .04
-
歷史家與歷史知識的大眾化
역사와실학
2010 .11
-
The Indian Ocean: Historians Writing History
The Asian review of world histories
2013 .01
-
마키아벨리는 『군주론』에서 무엇을 주장하는가?
철학논총
2020 .10
-
[총설] 패션과 아젠다 : 한국의 서양사학, 2011~2012
역사학보
2013 .09
-
고려시대 관련 역사소설의 대중성과 향후 전망
인문콘텐츠
2004 .06
-
『東史年表』의 간행과 그 의미
장서각
2003 .09
-
후기 산업사회의 역사학과 대중 : 중국학계의 大衆史學/ 公共史學 논의를 중심으로
역사학보
2019 .03
-
그림(이미지) 원사료 어떻게 볼 것인가? : 예술 작품에서 역사원사료로
역사와경계
2010 .09
-
『三國史記』의 事實 認識과 歷史硏究者의 姿勢
역사교육
2004 .12
-
역사교육과 역사학의 거리
역사교육
2016 .06
-
[미국] 한국 미국사 연구 : 누구를 위한 역사학인가?
역사학보
2011 .09
-
고등학교 과정에서 한국 근현대사 수업의 현황과 전개
역사와실학
2006 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
전통적 역사학과 새로운 역사학 : 변화하는 역사학의 어제와 오늘
김현식
,
김응종
역사학보
2000
.03
歷史理論ㆍ思想史
金應鍾
역사학보
1999
.09
자유의 정치학으로서 마키아벨리적 공화주의 : 포칵의 『마키아벨리언 모멘트』에 대한 일고찰
김경희
역사학보
2011
.06
아날학파와 역사의 공간화 : 페르낭 브로델(주경철 옮김), 『물질문명과 자본주의 Ⅰ-일상생활의 구조』2권, 까치, 1995. 자크 르 고프(최애리 옮김), 『연옥의 탄생』, 문학과지성사, 1995
김응종
황해문화
1995
.12
思想史ㆍ歷史理論
陸榮洙
역사학보
2001
.09
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-911-002859993