This paper closely examines two statements proposed by Feijoo: 1. Machiavelli sets his doctrine in history, therefore his works do not constitute a really original position; 2. Feijoo writes on Machiavelli, but says he never read The Prince entirely. He only read some fundamental quotes, cited by other authors.It is clear that all his references also appear in the voice “Machiavelli” of Pierre Bayle’s Dictionnaire. Moreover, Feijoo’s interpretation is very different from Pierre Bayle’s: in the latter’s view, the work of (...) the Florentine is admirable because Machiavelli breaks with ignorance and hypocrisy revealing the truth of history. According to Feijoo, the Florentine master did not discover anything original and his works merely present the worst examples of governance practices. (shrink)

At the beginning of the 20th century Machiavelli is an author celebrated by Ortega y Gasset: the philosopher of Madrid despises the nineteenth century, epilogue of an era, as much as he admires the Renaissance. Twenty years later - in España invertebrada - Ortega reads the pages of Il Principe as the brilliant commentary “from an Italian to the deeds of two Spaniards”, Fernando el Católico and César Borja. D ‘Ors’s position is very different. Although in 1920, in favor of (...) Machiavelli, he opposed “vulgar beliefs”, certainly ends up among the most radical critics. According to d ‘Ors, Machiavelli reaffirms in modernity the paganism of the Emperor Julian and anticipates - against Dante and his theory of the empire - the fate of a fragmented Europe, in which ideas and nations fight, without any reference to a universal authority. (shrink)