Certain English writers of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, whom scholars often associate with classical republicanism, were not, in fact, hostile to liberalism. Indeed, these thinkers contributed to a synthesis of liberalism and modern republicanism. As this book argues, Marchamont Nedham, James Harrington, Henry Neville, Algernon Sidney, and John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, the co-authors of a series of editorials entitled Cato's Letters, provide a synthesis that responds to the demands of both republicans and liberals by offering a politically engaged citizenry as well as the protection of individual rights. The book also reinterprets the writings of Machiavelli and Hobbes to show that each contributed in a fundamental way to the formation of this liberal republicanism.

Certain English writers of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, whom scholars often associate with classical republicanism, were not, in fact, hostile to liberalism. Indeed, these thinkers contributed to a synthesis of liberalism and modern republicanism. As this book argues, Marchamont Nedham, James Harrington, Henry Neville, Algernon Sidney, and John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, the co-authors of a series of editorials entitled Cato's Letters, provide a synthesis that responds to the demands of both republicans and liberals by offering a politically engaged citizenry as well as the protection of individual rights. The book also reinterprets the writings of Machiavelli and Hobbes to show that each contributed in a fundamental way to the formation of this liberal republicanism.

Montesquieu is rightly famous as a tireless critic of despotism, which he associates in his writings overtly with Asia and the Middle East and not with the apparently more moderate Western models of governance found throughout Europe. However, a careful reading of Montesquieu reveals that he recognizes a susceptibility to despotic practices in the West and that the threat emanates not from the East, but from certain despotic ideas that inform such Western institutions as the French monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church. Nowhere is Montesquieu's critique of the despotic ideas of Europe more powerful than in his enormously influential The Spirit of the Laws, and Vickie B. Sullivan guides readers through Montesquieu's sometimes veiled, yet sharply critical accounts of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Aristotle, and Plato, as well as various Christian thinkers. He finds deleterious consequences, for example, in brutal Machiavellianism, in Hobbes's justifications for the rule of one, in Plato's reasoning that denied slaves the right of natural defense, and in the Christian teachings that equated heresy with treason and informed the Inquisition. In this new reading of Montesquieu's masterwork, Sullivan corrects the misconception that it offers simple, objective observations, showing it instead to be a powerful critique of European politics that would become remarkably and regrettably prescient after Montesquieu's death when despotism wound its way through Europe.

Machiavelli's ambiguous treatment of religion has fuelled a contentious and long-standing debate among scholars. Whereas some insist that Machiavelli is a Christian, others maintain he is a pagan. Sullivan mediates between these divergent views by arguing that he is neither but that he utilizes elements of both understandings arrayed in a wholly new way. She develops her argument by distinguishing among the three Romes that can be understood as existing in Machiavelli's political thought: the first is the Rome of the Christian era, dominated by the pope; the second is the republican Rome of pagan times, which Machiavelli praises; and the third is an idealized Rome that is neither entirely pagan nor entirely Christian. In part 1, Sullivan examines Machiavelli's treatment of Christian Rome to find that in his view the Church and the beliefs of Christianity have fostered grave political problems. Indeed, he contends that Christianity exercises a type of tyrannical rule over human beings. His recognition motivates his seemingly enthusiastic turn to the pagan Rome of the "Discourses". Examining his treatment of pagan Rome in part 2, Sullivan finds that Machiavelli is critical of this apparent alternative to Christian Rome. In particular, Machiavelli demonstrates that republican Rome proved inept at handling its ambitious men who vied for power. Sullivan also shows how Machiavelli infuses his discussions of republican Rome with terms evocative of Christianity in a way that suggests Christian governance ultimately derived from pagan Rome. The ancient city is an insufficient model for the people of his times, and thus he proposes an idealized Rome that will transcend the problems both of Christian and of pagan Rome. The character of Machiavelli's new Rome provides the focus of Part 3. Sullivan argues here that Machiavelli's new Rome will embody certain elements of the two other Romes yet will overcome the failings of each. She shows Machiavelli's thought to be a highly original response to what he understood to be the crisis of his times. Sullivan draws primarily from the "Florentine Histories", "The Prince" and the "Discourses" to offer a unique study of Machiavelli's political thought. Her examination of Machiavelli's three Romes will interest scholars of political science and political philosophy.

Machiavelli's ambiguous treatment of religion has fueled a contentious and long-standing debate among scholars. Whereas some insist that Machiavelli is a Christian, others maintain he is a pagan. Sullivan mediates between these divergent views by arguing that he is neither but that he utilizes elements of both understandings arrayed in a wholly new way. In this illuminating study, Sullivan shows Machiavelli's thought to be a highly original response to what he understood to be the crisis of his times.