Read and translate the text.
Text 1.
Politics and Power
Ousted from his official position in the early sixteenth century, when a rival faction came to power, the Florentine diplomat Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) had time to contemplate the politics in which he had been so thoroughly enmeshed. “A prince [by which he meant any ruler], should therefore have no other aim or thought, nor take up any other thing for his study, but war and its organization and discipline,” he wrote. “When princes think more of luxury than of arms, they lose their state.” 1 Several decades later, the English scholar and historian Polydore Vergil (1470?–1555) agreed with Machiavelli that too great a concern with wealth was destructive for rulers. In his Anglia historia, written about 1540, Vergil described King Henry VII (ruled 1485–1509), the father of the current monarch, in largely glowing terms, as “distinguished, wise and prudent … brave and resolute.” He ended on a sour note, however: “All these virtues were obscured by avarice … [which] is surely a bad enough vice in a private individual, whom it forever torments; in a monarch indeed it may be considered the worst vice, since it is harmful to everyone, and distorts those qualities of trustfulness, justice, and integrity by which the state must be governed.”
Machiavelli and Vergil were both extremely perceptive observers of the politics of their era. Political power is always related to the ability to command resources from society, and in the fifteenth century the increasing cost of warfare favored rulers of large territories who could extract resources effectively and efficiently. Building on taxation systems and bureaucracies that had been gradually developing over several centuries, astute monarchs in Britain, France, and Spain further consolidated their power, developing tax policies that would support large armies when necessary instead of relying on nobles to supply them. They and their officials increased the size and scope of central institutions and government activities, and issued many more statutes and ordinances than monarchs had earlier. Through shrewd marital strategies, they created alliances with noble houses within their own territories and with ruling houses in other countries, which also strengthened their power. They backed explorers and pirates in their quest for riches from beyond the sea, and made use of new theories of rulership, which subsequent monarchs would extend even further. In the sixteenth century, monarchs restricted the independent power of the church, either by removing their territory from allegiance to the pope in the cases of England and Scotland, or by asserting royal power over the church in the cases of France and Spain. These western European monarchs thus created what have since been called “nation-states,” setting a pattern that was later followed by northern and eastern European monarchs as they created nation-states such as Denmark/Norway, Sweden, and Russia.
The growth of the nation-state, first in western Europe and then elsewhere, has long been viewed as the key political development of this era. In his study of the Renaissance, the nineteenth-century historian Jacob Burckhardt celebrated rulers and their officials who viewed the state as “a work of art … the outcome of reflection and calculation,” something to be created, shaped, and expanded, not simply inherited and governed. Like Machiavelli and Vergil, Burckhardt viewed the actions and ideas of rulers as the most important factors in the creation of nation-states, and paid particular attention to the way they handled warfare, finances, and alliances.
Burckhardt was writing in 1860, the point at which Germany and Italy were being transformed – again by rulers, officials, and generals – from divided political entities into nations. It seemed to him, and to many others, that nations were an inevitable final stage in political development. Events of the twentieth century appear to reinforce this idea. Revolts against European colonization in the period after World War II resulted in the establishment of new nations in Asia and Africa. The breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the late twentieth century resulted in the creation of smaller units, such as Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Croatia, but these are also understood to be nations. They all send representatives to the United Nations, a body whose title reinforces this conceptualization of world politics. Various ethnic groups around the world today are carrying out bitter military campaigns against their national governments, but their aim is also to establish new independent nations.
These historical and contemporary movements have made a world consisting of discrete nations seem almost natural, but they have also led scholars as well as activists and revolutionaries to consider the concept of a “nation” more closely – just what makes a “nation”? What makes it something that people are willing to die (or kill) for, when they would not be willing to die for their city or their favorite sports team or their family business, though they may have strong loyalties to all of these?
One of the most influential theoreticians on this question has been Benedict Anderson, who defines the nation as “an imagined political community.” By “imagined,” Anderson does not mean fake or artificial, but intellectually and culturally created or brought into being. His definition thus fits very well with Burckhardt’s description of the state as a “work of art … the outcome of reflection and calculation,” and both scholars see the creation of such political entities as beginning in the period covered in this chapter. They focus on very different processes and actors, however. While Burckhardt – and many political historians since – focus on rulers, Anderson investigates the ways that writers and bureaucrats used the new medium of print to transform certain vernacular languages into print languages. These print languages became a medium both of “national” unification and of drawing distinctions from others, used first in some parts of Europe, then by revolutionaries in the Americas, and then around the world. Printed essays, poetry, music, newspapers, and other works inspired loyalty to nations or to ideas of nations that were not yet political realities, and dying for one’s country came to assume what Anderson terms “moral grandeur.”
Though historians have sometimes focused only on one or the other, the creation of nation-states by rulers through warfare and taxes and by writers through songs and symbols was actually closely linked. Effective rulers used both warfare and the new medium of print to build up their power and to begin to transform what had been a dynastic realm into a “nation.” They quickly adopted the new print technology and the newly developing national languages to make sure their new laws and decrees were circulated and understood throughout their territories. They supported writers and artists who linked royal power with national strength and prosperity. They absorbed – through war or marriage or a combination of these – smaller dynastic realms on the edges of their holdings, gradually creating more distinct “national” boundaries, which were reinforced by differences in print languages on either side of these borders.
This process was not always successful, however, and did not happen everywhere, as the story of Hungary makes clear. In the middle of the fifteenth century, under the leadership of John Hunyadi (1387–1456), a Hungarian nobleman of Romanian descent, the Hungarians defeated the Ottoman Turks. Hunyadi’s son Matthias Corvinus (1443– 90) became king of Hungary in 1458. Like the monarchs in western Europe, Matthias Corvinus strengthened royal power, patronized the arts, and developed sound tax policies. Major works were translated into or written in Hungarian, which is in a completely different language family than most European languages. A period of disorder followed Corvinus’s death in 1490, however, and the nobles reasserted their power, which in turn led to a peasants’ revolt. Using a huge army and siege cannon, the Ottoman Empire defeated the Hungarians at the Battle of Mohacs in 1526, and Hungary was divided into the small principality of Transylvania in the east, dependent on the Ottomans, and western and northern territories ruled by the Austrian Habsburgs.
Hungary thus did not become a nation, or even a unified political unit. It was instead divided between two of the strongest powers in Europe – the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburgs – both of which were dynastic realms that never developed into nation-states, but still lasted as political entities until the early twentieth century. Various linguistic and ethnic groups within them – including the Hungarians – dreamed of creating nations, but these remained literally “imagined communities” until the nineteenth or twentieth century. Thus the growth of nation-states is a significant development during this period, but it is important to remember that most Europeans did not live in what we would understand as nations in 1600. In addition, though more Europeans could read and write in 1600 than in 1450, the vast majority could not, so they had little access to the developing national print languages; their sense of belonging to something beyond their village was provided by religion, not language or politics.
Vocabulary exercises
I. Give English equivalents of the following words and word combinations:
прийти к власти, ученый, роскошь, издавать указы, наследовать власть, сопер -ничающие группировки, пылкие выражения, угрюмая нота, расчетливый правитель, алчность, способность руководить, налоговая система, полагаться на дворянство, деятельность правительства, поиск богатств, теория правления, ограничивать власть, вассальная зависимость, осада, действующий монарх, утверждать власть над, оказывать поддержку, моральное величие, результат раздумий, политическая организация, прославлять правителя, подавляющее большинство, буквально, местный диалект, создать альянс, национальное государство, национальное объединение, наследовать, создать модель, подкреплять что-л., распад государства, вселять преданность.
II. Give Russian equivalents of the following words and word combinations:
rival faction, come to power, contemplate the politics, glowing terms, sour note, perceptive observers, command resources, increase cost of warfare, extract resources, astute monarch, consolidate power, issue ordinances, shrewd marital strategies, strengthen power, ruling houses, restrict power, assert power, set a pattern, handle alliances, political entity, reinforce an idea, carry out a campaign, discrete nations, consider closely, willing to do smth, influential theoretician, vernacular language, national unification, inspire loyalty, descent, vernacular language, patronize the arts, sound tax policy, siege cannon, small principality, dynastic realm, reinforce an idea, moral grandeur, inspire loyalty.
III. Arrange the following words in pairs of synonyms:
boundary, oust, contemplate, enmesh, reinforce, destructive, allegiance, prudent, eject, sour, distinguished, distort, effective, extend, rebellion, result, smart, efficient, back, care, overshadow, celebrate, shrewd, word for word, authoritative, outcome, expand, inevitable, harmful, revolt, assume, breakup, huge, avarice, establish, means, define, fake, reasonable, investigate, govern, adopt, prosperity, involve, ponder, absorb, disorder, significant, concern, sullen, famous, misrepresent, obscure, greediness, border, fidelity, glorify, support, disintegration, devour, enormous, wealth, explore, literally, assign, important, found, unavoidable, artificial, rule, accept, loyalty, strengthen, medium, influential, suppose
Comprehension exercises
I. Have a talk based on the text.
1. What caused Machiavelli to contemplate the politics?
2. What did Machiavelli consider to be the aim of a ruler?
3. What aspect did Vergil similarly agree with Machiavelli?
4. What virtues are considered the worst vice for a monarch? Why?
5. What is political power related to?
6. How did monarchs consolidate their power?
7. How did they create alliances and what for?
8. Why did they back explorers?
9. How did they restrict power of the church?
10. What European nation-states were created?
11. What was viewed as the key political development of this era?
12. What for did Burckhardt celebrate the rulers?
13. What did Burckhardt think about nations?
14. How was the idea of nations reinforced in the twentieth century?
15. What is the aim of ethnic groups carrying out military campaigns against their governments?
16. How did the world come to discrete nations?
17. What does the concept of nation contain?
18. How does Anderson define a nation?
19. In what way does his definition correlate with Burckhardt’s?
20. What does Anderson focus on in his theory of a nation?
21. What is the role of a language in national unification?
22. What is the difference between rulers and writers in creation of nation-states?
23. What means did the rulers use to transform a dynastic realm into a nation?
24. How did the rulers use the new print technology?
25. Why did they support writers and artists?
26. How did they absorb smaller dynastic realms and what was the reason for that?
27. How did Hungary appear to be divided between two powers?
28. Until what time did Hungary remain “imagined communities”?
29. What makes this period important in the development of Europe?
30. How did the vast majority feel their belonging to a national entity?
II. Complete the following sentences using the text:
1. When a rival faction came to power, the Florentine diplomat Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) had time to …
2. When princes think more of luxury than of arms, …
3. In a monarch indeed it may be considered the worst vice, since it is…
4. Political power is always related to the ability to…
5. Astute monarchs in Britain, France, and Spain further consolidated their power, developing…
6. Through shrewd marital strategies, they created …
7. In the sixteenth century, monarchs restricted the independent power of the church, either by …
8. Jacob Burckhardt celebrated rulers and their officials who viewed the state as…
9. Burckhardt viewed the actions and ideas of rulers as the most important factors in…
10. It seemed to him, and to many others, that nations were an inevitable final stage in…
11. Benedict Anderson defines the nation as …
12. His definition thus fits very well with Burckhardt’s description of the state as …
13. Anderson investigates the ways that writers and bureaucrats used the new medium of print …
14. These print languages became a medium both of …
15. Effective rulers used both warfare and the new medium of print to…
16. They quickly adopted the new print technology and the newly developing national languages to make sure …
17. They absorbed –…– smaller dynastic realms on the edges of their holdings, gradually creating …
18. The growth of nation-states is a significant development during this period, but it is important to remember that …
19. The vast majority could not read and write, so they had little access to …
20. Their sense of belonging to something beyond their village was provided by …
III. State the main idea of the text, identify the most important details, organize and outline ideas, putting them in a logical order, write down a summary.