We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Machiavelli is said to be a Renaissance thinker, yet in a notable phrase he invented, 'the effectual truth,' he attacked the high-sounding humanism typical of the Renaissance, while mounting a conspiracy against the classical and Christian values of his time. In Machiavelli's Effectual Truth this overlooked phrase is studied and explained for the first time. The upshot of 'effectual truth' for any individual is to not depend on anyone or anything outside yourself to keep you free and secure. Mansfield argues that this phrase reveals Machiavelli's approach to modern science, with its focus on the efficient cause and concern for fact. He inquires into the effect Machiavelli expected from his own writings, who believed his philosophy would have an effect that future philosophers could not ignore. His plan, according to Mansfield, was to bring about a desired effect and thus to create his own future and ours.
This chapter analyses the complex social position of the duke of Brittany as presented in the legal arguments for Jeanne’s succession in 1341, a document which has been completely overlooked by modern historians. It argues that the debate centred around the ambiguity of the ducal rank: did the duke legally have more in common with the nobles of Brittany than with the kings of France? In this framework there were two communities (to use the modern terminology) or bodies politic (the medieval) to which the duke could conceivably belong and where their primary responsibilities lay. While this was a learned view constructed for immediate advantage, the case reflected wider contemporary difficulties with parsing the internal stratification of the nobility and the inherent tension within the ducal role as a subordinate sovereign. These challenges were exacerbated because standards of divided succession influenced contemporary interpretations of status, overlaying questions of shared lordship over the different hierarchical layers. The blurring of these lines challenges the historiographical prioritization of the competitive centralization of power through the strict demarcation of ruler and ruled in the later Middle Ages.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.