XXII WORLD CONGRESS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE - IPSA MADRID, 8 TO 12, 2012.

Panel: Explorations in Political Thought and Theory.

METAPHORS AS AN EPISTEMIC RESOURCE IN THE PRINCE OF NICOLO

MACHIAVELLI.

Luis Felipe Barrera Narváez. Christian David Nuñez*.

1. INTRODUCTION. In the The Prince, it can be identified an extensive use of figures of speech, including the metaphor, which uses has been usually associated more to literary works than to scientific ones1. This can be interpreted as paradoxical if we do two simple questions: How is it possible that Machiavelli's work can be interpreted as a set of scientific statements, as Cassirer and Horkheimer interpreted it, when in fact his arguments are filled with figures of speech, particularly metaphors? Would it be possible to recognize in the metaphors presented on The Prince of Niccolo Machiavelli a reliable tool to transmit patterns for political action? To resolve the prior questions, in this essay we argue that the interpretations of authors like Cassirer, Horkheimer, and Samamé doesn´t take into account the employ of metaphors throughout Machiavelli’s line of argumentation. Therefore, it could be complemented by Marie Gaillé’s comments about the practical imagination in The Prince. In her study about the Florentine thinker, Gaillé makes a brief comment on how Machiavelli uses imagination to recreate historic experiences; as well as to bring a reconstruction of history, and to conceive action plans which are to be followed by the ruler. Gaillé declares, but doesn’t develop it, the notion of the imagination as a faculty which facilitates action in politics. Our interest is to recover Gaillé´s comments about imagination and to deep in them using Paul Ricœur’s metaphor theory. We suggest that the metaphor, as a figure of speech, which is highly employed in The Prince, is presented in it with different proposals. In this sense, we treat metaphors not simply as an ornament of speech, an aesthetic element, but as an element provided by language which is vital for reality understanding and it allows directions of human action. In The Prince we found several metaphors as the pictorial one in the dedicatory, the metaphor of fortune as river or as woman, the metaphor of the fox and the lion, etc. We profit from Ricoeurs theory, where metaphor uses imagination allowing "seeing an

                                                                                                               *  Luis   Felipe   Barrera   and   Christian   Nuñez   are     Political   Science   students   in   the   Pontificia  Universidad  Javeriana  in  Cali  Colombia.    

object through another”. For this reason, in this research we are going to recur to a hermeneutic approach in order to comprehend the role of metaphor in the line of argument of The Prince. Particularly, we want to address the manner in which Machiavelli uses metaphors to generate patterns for political practice. According to this, we are going to do a scrutiny of three metaphors present in The Prince, resorting to theoretical inputs of comments on Machiavelli made by Horkheimer, Cassirer and Samamé; and specifically with the support of Ricœur´s metaphor theory. Our thesis is that the role of metaphors in The Prince is to back, in a simplified way, the establishment of patterns of efficacious actions in politics. Concretely, this use of metaphor offers the possibility of considering a political problem or concept through another that does not belong to the political world, facilitating the comprehension of guidelines oriented to the achievement of successful results in political arena. 2. KEYS FOR GUIDANCE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA. 2. 1. HISTORY AS MAGISTRA VITAE. In order to trace the practical proneness of The Prince, it is necessary to focus on some authors that share this overview of Machiavelli´s work. The thinkers presented on this line of interpretation are L. Samamé, E. Cassirer and M. Horkheimer2. First, Samamé, who interprets Machiavelli’s use of history based on the conception of it as "Magistra vitae", is going to enable us to recognize a practical inclination in the Florentine inferences’ about past events. In this usage given to history by Machiavelli there is a link between the recovery of historical material and direct political experience. According to Samamé, history in Machiavelli takes the form of a "master for life"- Historia magistra vitae-, because its value lay in the practical utility of the knowledge of ancient men actions Machiavelli’s reliance in past events, especially in classical antiquity, to seek for a model or at least a track to guide present action (Samamé, 2010). In this sense, the Florentine uses history to construct guidelines for political actions with successful results. In a historical perspective, that intention wasn’t a novelty. The intellectual tradition of the Renaissance3, as Skinner asserts (quoted by Samamé, 2010), was based on "The two basic tenets of classical and hence of humanist historiography were that works of history should inculcate moral lessons, and that their materials should therefore be selected and organized in such a way as to highlight the proper lessons the maximum force". (Skinner, p.78, 1981). Then, History is a study of paramount importance in the humanist tradition, which is intended to guide political actions. Machiavelli´s concern with the political disputes in the Italy of his time, leads him to search for solid foundations to conduct political actions.

For all the above, Samamé´s interpretation about how Machiavelli addressed history found its reason in its applicability for efficacious actions in politics. Thus, historical knowledge is purely instrumental: its value abides in the possibility to provide us guidance for action (Samamé, 2010). Machiavelli’s emphasis in political history lays on his interests to fundament his political recommendations through references to exceptional historical facts which excelled for being extraordinary circumstances of disgrace or greatness. In Samame’s perspective, Machiavelli came to use history in the way so called by Nietzsche as "Monumental History". This is an episodic review of past events and not a successive perspective of them. This conception of history is only interested in the past as a reservoir of those characters and events that can be taken as useful paradigms. In this sense, Machiavelli reinforces his arguments referencing to heroic actions made by great men of the classic ages, like Romulus, Lycurgus, Moses, Alexander the Great, among others. In short, Machiavelli’s interest is to take from history those lessons which allow him to infer patterns of skillful actions.

According to Samamé, the conception of history in Machiavelli’s oeuvre is characterized by its utility for politics. This interpretation assumes a particular notion of human nature. In this sense, to continue with our inquiry, we are going to make a brief overview of Ernst Cassirer and Max Horkheimer’s interpretations about The Prince. Moreover, in our next step we are going to analyze how these authors conceive Machiavellian treatment of human passions and humors as elements that allow toinfer general rules in order to develop a scientific understanding of politics. Thus, our intention is to mention their claims about the epistemological dimension in Machiavelli’s work and how this interpretation allows the reduction of the complexity of reality.  2.2 THE SCIENCE OF POLITICS. To understand the idea of human nature, which underpins the conception of history in Machiavelli, it must be recognized that the Florentine is already part of the history of political ideas. Therefore, one must distinguish between which is the concept of history that Machiavelli forged (history as Magistra vitae), and what is the type of approach to Machiavelli’s work in the history of political ideas. A clarification of the last aspect would give the possibility to approximate to the Florentine’s thought in a more accurate manner. In this regard, Ernst Cassirer sustains that The Prince should be understood in its historical context this means that a historicist approach is useless, because it would impose the historical criteria of our era to a remote one in the past. In this sense, the criterion of history in the twentieth century is characterized by the individualization of facts and distrust in generalizing judgments. However, this was not the condition of the Renaissance’s conception, because as Cassirer interprets (1996), the Renaissance humanists believed in the possibility of achieving absolute beauty or excellence in any art.

For Cassirer4, Machiavelli was more concerned about the unvarying elements in history and less in the changes in it. This statement is based on several quotes from Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy. For example, when Machiavelli (2004) comments: “Prudent men usually say (and not by chance or without merit) that whoever wants to see what is to be, considers what has been; for all the things of the world in every time have had the very resemblance as those of ancient times; This arises because they are done by men who have been, and will always have, the same passions, and of necessity they must result in the same effects” (p.212). In this sense, Machiavelli combines his line of argumentation with examples of ancient Rome and those of his time suggesting that some historical events are analogical. Following Cassirer’s interpretation, is possible to assert that Machiavelli takes particular cases from history and infer its logic to elaborate general statements which allow the emergence of a science of politics 5 . Therefore, according to Cassirer (1996), The Prince is a book that insists on the proposal of patterns for political actions which remain constant over time. They indicate what is effective and what is not, what a ruler must and mustn’t do. Then for Cassirer (1996), Machiavelli is a political technician. Without his scientific viewpoint, which systematizes historic events and experiences, knowledge about politics would be unstable and ephemeral; with limitations of communicative diffusion, and with restrictions to be informative of reader´s practical needs. Cassirer's reading has several aspects in common with Horkheimer’s. According to the second, in the Renaissance we can find the foundations of contemporary natural science that is based on the detection of regularities in nature through experience and its systematic organization expressed via nomothetic statements. For Horkheimer, through such systematization it is possible to identify the predictive value of natural sciences enabling a domination of man over nature. As a result of this conviction scientific knowledge discovers the regularity between diverse phenomena and has to be corroborated several times through experimentation. Consequently, using that information prediction is possible. Despite this, a society does not only exercise dominion over nature but also men dominate each other. The methods that lead to domination and the rules that allow such control are politics. For Frankfurt’s school founder, Machiavelli was the first to recognize this premise on the threshold of modernity, besides being the first thinker to apply the scientific method to politics. (Horkheimer, 1995). Horkheimer's interpretation of Machiavelli allows to recognize that if the regularities6 in the history of mankind have always existed, there will be a desire of some men to dominate and a desire of other not to be oppressed. In other words, given a certain set of conditions X, is likely that what follows is an event Y. In this way, for Horkheimer, this regularity is what allows the emergence of a science of

politics, because it is due to regularities of human nature that it is possible to create general statements that are discovered through history. Passions and men’s instincts are what determine the course of human actions along history. From these human regularities and the inferences made by the "political scientist", it is possible to elaborate predictions that would guide political action. 3. PRACTICAL IMAGINATION As explained before with Samame´s interpretation of Machiavelli´s conception of history as magistra vitae, we understand the way the Florentine dealt with history to extract patterns of political conduct from past events. Along these lines, both Samame and Gaille agree in Machiavelli´s use history to give them strength to his arguments. Nonetheless, Gaille offers an innovative element describing the procedure that Machiavelli follows when focused on experience. This groundbreaking angle inserts in this study the concept of imagination that allows the development of our thesis. In this manner, Cassirer and Horkheimer , Samamé along with Gaille identify the practical character of The Prince. The difference in this intersecting point is that Gaille recurs to imagination when others resort to the uniformities in human nature to soil their views of Machiavelli´s thought. The path taken by Gaille would support our inquiry by proving a connection between the affirmed practical inclinations of Machiavelli´s work with Ricœur´s theory of metaphor. Therefore to Gaille, Machiavelli´s knowledge about the political field develops on history and experience. This is clearly stated in The Prince´s dedicatory when Machiavelli claims to give Lorenzo “the knowledge of the actions of great men, acquired by long experience in contemporary affairs, and a continual study of antiquity” (Machiavelli, 1998). However, Machiavelli´s treatment of history as episodic exposed by Samamé, when compared with Nietzsche´s monumental history, is the method to associate the teachings of the past with the wisdom of his own experience. Accordingly to Machiavelli, History is the heroic performance of the ancient’s. Experiences, on the other hand, are actions from more recent times, most likely to have occurred in the lifetime of the writer. Thus, Machiavelli´s method to extract political deductions is made by interrelating both history and experience. Gaille´s interpretation of Machiavelli´s uses of history and experience comprise two fundamental points. Primarily, history and experience are interconnected; Machiavelli used them both to rear his political recommendations whilst expound them using examples. According to Gaille, what it´s important to highlight in this point, is the Florentine's usage of example in the same spot where he explains and demonstrate his ideas. Machiavelli’s thesis are reared, equally with examples drawn from the ancients as with observations extracted from his own experience. Secondly, Machiavelli resorts to imagination in order to approach history and experience. For this reason, when Machiavelli relates an event, he uses his imagination to depict the features of an event in order to sustain his line of

argumentation. In this manner, Machiavelli offers more a way to analyze an episode in history, or a political actor in his experience and less an objective approach to a political problem as were the interpretations of Cassirer and Horkheimer. Furthermore, as Gaille (2011) endorses, by using historical examples to endorse his argumentation the Florentine´s suggest that he had the conviction that the imagination have to intervene in reality to make a more resourceful reality than reality itself. Machiavelli´s call on imagination to “reconstruct reality” in order to support his suggestions. This particular position explains the Machiavellian bet to take out from history or experience foundations to underpin his standpoint requiring the use of imagination to infer and to communicate his patterns of political action. Machiavelli’s use of imagination, according to Gaille (2011), allows him to move throughout history and recuperate experiences of political actors considered noteworthy, with the intention to give a counsel in an applicable direction. Machiavelli´s suggestion of imaginary approaches, allow men to consider possible events to respond to different circumstances. Accordingly, Gaille (2011) supports her thesis by proving the example used in book XIV of The Prince, where Machiavelli praises Philopoemon. Because he read ancient authors and most importantly for attending to their direction in the understanding “that in times of peace he was always thinking of methods of warfare”7. Machiavelli claimed that Philopoemon had the habit to walk the countryside with his friends, imagining possible war scenarios, thus developing the skill to forecast routes for action to use them in real life, thus allow him to act securely at such hard times. Consequently, to Gaille the use of imagination as a practical orientation is observed in Machiavelli´s argumentation in two aspects. First, in the knowledge of other´s experience and; secondly, by the imaginary forethought of future actions. Given these characteristics of the imaginative capacity Machiavelli counsels the prince to be prepared to act in any set of conditions. 4. IMAGINATION IN GAILLE AND RICOEUR. Up to now, we have argued that the humanistic context of Machiavelli’s time influenced him in directing his knowledge toward practice. Thereafter, we reviewed the concept of Magistra vitae, a notion of history exposed by Samamé’s interpretations of the use Machiavelli gives to history in order to understand how it became meaningful in Machiavellian discourse to the extent that it was useful for political praxis. Next, we reviewed Cassirer and Horkheimer’s interpretations of Machiavelli's particular conception of human nature based on its regularities, from which he built the foundations of a science of politics. The predictive value of this science would enable an effective guide for political action. In the sense of mentioned positions, the contribution of Marie Gaillé have acknowledge that there is a different alternative to declare that there is a stipulation in Machiavelli’s work to transmit an action-oriented knowledge of the political sphere.

As discussed, Gaillé identify the imagination´s role in Machiavelli´s approach to history. It is used to reaffirm present actions and its helpfulness to consider future scenarios. Accordingly, Gaillé continues the line of thought that conceives The Prince as a text that attempts to provide practically oriented political guidelines8. Although, Gaille’s introduction of imagination in the debate on how Machiavellian work produced action-oriented formulas doesn’t depth in this argument. The greatest evidence that she does not develop an elaborated comment on Machiavelli’s imagination is the absence of definition or characterization of the concept. Gaillé’s comments leaves open the problem of Machiavelli´s uses of imagination. In her interpretation is expressed that imagination has the purpose of presenting experience through its description, which allows to recover past experiences and those near to Machiavelli’s life and to restructure them through an imaginative process. Allowing Machiavelli to give a stronger impression of reality than reality itself. This argumentative intention can be found on Machiavellian examples of men worthy of emulation. Machiavelli not only used to suggest examples of “real” statesmen, as Alexander the Great or Pope Alexander VI, but also recommend mythological figures like Achilles, Chiron or Moses to strengthen his concept imitating virtuous men of old times. However, this descriptive process of imagination is possible to complement it with Paul Ricœur’s notion of imagination worked in his theory of metaphor. In this sense, Gaillé’s support of the descriptive function attributed to imagination in Machiavelli’s arguments can be complemented with Ricœur’s imaginative experience that its develop by the use of figurative language, in which interpretation and description are involved simultaneously. In this manner Ricœur affirms that it is only through the suspension of the current reality that it is possible a description and a new interpretation of it. Then imagination allows the reader "to be transported" to the place that is being described and simultaneously allows an interpretation of what is described, so there can be a reformulation of routes of action. In this sense, Machiavelli's imagination allows describing historical and contemporary experiences but, as Ricoeur and Gaille developed it, imagination allows associations between descriptions and permits their assimilation in order to manufacture innovative ways to approach a historical or a present event. Therefore imagination enables relationships between past events to allow an extraction of their meanings, in order to expand the sense by which a person could act in immediate reality. Hence, Machiavelli's work there is a constant dialogue between history and experience to wield of the meaning from past events to increase the capacity of the author to recommend political action. Based on the foregoing, Machiavelli’s notion of imagination treated by Gaillé share some claims with Ricœur’s the interpretative notion of imagination. However, Ricœur’s notion of imagination, will allow us to strengthen the boundaries of the

imaginative function within the Machiavellian argument. In order to introduce the function of imagination, Ricœur draws from Kantian theorization about imagination. The last proposed that it is a faculty that mediates between the perceptions of the world and the concepts of intellect. Thus, its role is to hand over perceptions of the senses and convert them into concepts, so the intellect interprets them. Hence imagination has the possibility to impart a heuristic force through discourse. This means, that through it there is an opportunity to create models that permit an expansion of the uses of word or ideas through language. Consequently, assuming with Ricœur that imagination is the medium that enables the expansion of practical horizons because it sums imagination’s interpretative, descriptive and forecast capabilities, which are a prerequisite for the design and comprehension of metaphors. Therefore, we must explain the scope of the concept of imagination and how it mediates between the creation and interpretation of metaphors. If through imagination the possibility to compare two things that pertain to separate categories is opened, allowing a parallel between different situations, in order to express an abstract idea. Hereafter, it is possible to introduce our research proposal, because with the above we can identify how Machiavellian´s metaphors permit the transmission and comprehension of the author’s advice to guide the prince into political action 5. THE RULE OF METAPHOR. Therefore, if to instruct its readers for political action is a particular intention of Machiavelli. (Following the interpretations of Samamé, Cassirer and Horkheimer through which we had passed through in this study). It is crucial to recognize that The Prince aims to connect its narrative structure with the world, with the intent of simplifying it using the imaginative faculty to organize lessons from historical events, in order to expand the reader´s understanding of reality. It’s due to Machiavelli’s practical’s intention that he recurrently uses examples from ancient and contemporary experiences to emphasize on the meaning of some events and to undermine others, in order to put together his examples with his line of argumentation, allowing the author to rewrite human actions. Taking up the narrative structure of history to project his formulas of action, with articulation, abbreviation and simplicity to facilitate the comprehension of his main thesis. In this point, Gaille’s comments on Machiavelli’s imagination make sense and connect with Ricœur´s. Since "the first manner in which man tries to understand and master the heterogeneity of the practical field is to procure a fictional representation of it" (p.205). Thus, it is through imagination that human beings come solve the practical problems of the world. These "fictional representations" Machiavelli makes of his experience through imagination, allow him to devise a framework of guidance for political action.  Notwithstanding, the purpose of this article is not merely to find the role that imagination has in Machiavellian argumentation. Imagination concerns us chiefly because, according with Ricœur´s theory, it is a requisite for the creation and

comprehension of metaphor. It is from here, from the recognition of imagination as an instrument to comprehension and creation that we can verify if the metaphors found in The Prince increase the understanding of Machiavelli´s formulas for political action. Ricœur´s argument would assist in comprehend if metaphors contribute to increase the comprehension of the political sphere by means of action oriented formulas presented in The Prince and if they provide an explication to simplify the complexity of political questions. Therefore, to resolve the former questions it is necessary to explain how through imagination it is possible to bring together two objects or concepts that are remote. Imagination makes possible the creation of analogies between things; in other words, it is by an unusual likeness, which arises from seen one object through the terms of another, that this closeness is produced. Thus, if read, that a man is a wolf, suddenly, there is construction of similarity between the concept of man with some features wolf. Certainly, the concept of man never changed, what was altered is the interpretation of it. It is this sudden experience, when using imagination that abolish the distance between stranger fields of knowledge and allows illogical “organized” comparisons between things. Imagination’s mediation organizes, delete, or emphasize certain meanings that support the assimilation required between situations or concepts. This idea of imagination is critical to concentrate on how the metaphor describes an abstract concept and facilitates its understanding. According to Ricoeur when he quotes Kant, imagination provides a bridge between the perception and the Intellect this is done because is the imagination the one that allows the construction of categories for organizing objects and it implements the allocation of concepts which pertain to each object. Then, It is through perception, that imagination is provide with inputs to combine and synthesize the diverse of the world, giving parameters for the categorization of objects in concepts that are understandable to the Intellect. It is through this ability to a priori synthesizes, that the imagination, (which Kant called, productive imagination), makes possible to understand the phenomena occurring in the world, permitting its reproduction according to rules, which are a priori, that is, not derived of experience, as they are a requirement for experience. Without this ability of imagination, concepts and objects would not merge into an experience. (Kant, 1989) Consequently, it is through imagination that “a set of rules is lay, by which objects are assigned to a particular concept”. (Betancur, 2006), p.145). Thus, imagination is subjected to the intellect, because "if we define the intellect as the faculty of rules, then judgment is the ability to subsume under general rules (...) to distinguish whether or not something falls under a given rule "(Kant, 1989, p.133). Thus, imagination enables the creation of general concepts under which things are governed controlled by the intellect. But these concepts can only be formed on the basis of certain assumptions that denote regularity in any judgment. It is through this ability to create a priori judgments that objects are assigned as to belonging to a certain category, or class. In this sense, what makes possible to apply a category to the phenomena, according to Kant, is the schematic function of the imagination,

which produces general models for the inputs given by the perception, providing a structure through which they categories and sensible intuitions interact together (Kant, 1989). Thereby, this schematic function brings closer the objects of perception and the concepts of understanding. A schema is realized in a half thought half vision process. Because the agent who is having an experience is also thinking on the object about this is having the experience. In this sense, imagination provides schemas, which lets on one hand, "to see the objects assigned by the meaning of words, in other words, to "put before the eyes" some object in our mind. On the other, a “thinking”, because it is by it that we can change the way that we interpret a concept. So, when some human qualities are approximated with that of animals, we have the experience of seeing a man with animal features, but it is by thinking that it is possible to make sense of this experience and using it depending on its context. Hence, it is through this possibility of establishing renovated images created to sustain emerging meanings, which arise from the rapprochement of categories or concepts that are remote, it is By a regulated violation of semantic and syntactic rules that the imaginative process enables a writer to expand the meaning of words. This underpins the renewing interpretations of an usual idea and inserts it new meanings. In this sense, what is seen in a different way it’s interpreted differently (Wittgenstein, 1988). Consequently, seeing something through the characteristics of something else is a particular kind of experience that is situated between “seeing” and “thinking”. Allowing us to see an object that does not change through the features of other (Betancur, 2006). It is this experience that forces a reader to assimilate incomparable comparisons, in order to bring understand a new meaning. Therefore, when interpreting an incongruous statement, a viewer/reader needs to use the schematic function of imagination to articulate a new visual experience. This means, to associate a new concept with a new image. (Betancur, 2006). In this sense, Ricœur specifies that when one reads or uses language is presented by a stream of images, which are circumscribed to the meaning of the words being used. This happens in a different way when an illogical language is used, since the images that words provide are not associated with their particular meaning. In this regard, the reader is stimulated to interpret the experience of viewing an object in an unusual manner. Therefore, the imagination does not only perform a descriptive function, but also a spontaneous one, because its purpose is not only to give an objective account of what is seen, but also to implement an experience during a description. (Betancur, 2006). Thus, it is through the imaginative process where interpretation plays an important role when permitting to have the experience of seeing one thing in terms of another. It permits that the concepts belonging to different categories suddenly become related. It’s through imagination that an incongruent comparison compels a reader to resemble a man with a wolf; in this moment is where language does not

seem to have any reference to reality. It is in this point where there is a suspension of the original meaning of words or situations to allow the emergence of an indirect reference. In other words, in an unusual comparison there is more implied than what is described. Thus the imaginative language exerts a suspension on what these concepts usually refer, to create an assimilation that is molded from the upset of the literal meanings of these concepts. In this sense, imagination do not only offer a simplified way to see things with a property belonging to another, nor only, just to understand the meaning of images which are controlled by the cognitive process, but to the suspension of the usual reference of concepts and the new projection of second-order possibilities through which situations can be understand. (Ricœur, 1978). Accordingly, if the imagination is understood as the procedure of organizing the meanings of the concepts, then it is the link which permits to have the experience of seeing new associations, given in the suspension of ordinary reference to the world, Ricoeur inform, that it can be concluded from the role of imagination that it allows a "the free play of possibilities in a state of noninvolvement with respect to the world of perception or of action. It is in this state of noninvolvement that we try out new ideas, new values, new ways of being in the world " (Ricœur, 1991, p.174). What is essential from this point of view, it is not taken possession of certain power but through imaginative variations that allow me to apply this power. (Ricœur, 1991). As was expose with Gaillé, the description of the experience is filtered through the resources of the imagination in Machiavelli, because the Florentine uses it to give more strength to his arguments and to allow a reconstruction of past experiences, in order to give a new description of reality when he is providing a contemplation of it. Elucidated the role of imagination as the procedure that allows to bring together two concepts that are, in principle, remote to each other. This function also has the purpose to understand the meaning of the images that are an output and are controlled by the experience of reading or thinking, and finally it is imagination in the imagination, that by obliterate the reference of ordinary discourse to the world that can be opened an indirect reference to reality which help to increase the capacity designed for action. The theory of metaphor presents the possibility of linking the imaginative faculty with the uses of language; they both have a role in the recreate of the reference to reality. In this sense, Ricœur defines metaphor as "a deviant usage of predicates in the framework of the sentence as a whole (...) underscores predicative impertinence, as the appropriate mean to produce a shock between semantic fields. To respond to the challenge of the semantic shock, we thus produce a new predicative pertinence (Ricœur, 1991, p.172). When sentence predicates or ideas are used in different ways that are normally used by a community of speakers; a shock of their literal meanings leads to the materialization of new meanings. It is from obliterating literal descriptions that this shock invites the reader to use her imagination to bring together two strange ideas. Thus, this is the way in which the metaphor regulates the grouping of strange predicates at the moment of restructuring their semantic fields; because it thwarts

their usual semantic boundaries to help the appearance of similarities. In this way, a resolution of the shock it is achieved by allowing the return of semantic consistency. "Both Metaphor and imagination involves the restructuring of semantic fields." (Ricœur, 1991, p.202). For instance, if we use the metaphor: "Man is a wolf to man" literally this sentence is meaningless, because it is a deviance of the normal use of these ideas, so the concept of man does not correspond in its representation to the concept of wolf in the sense that it´s usually applied by a community of speakers. Thus, there is a requirement (as readers) to look for the possible ways of how the subject is modified (through imagination) by the predicate searching the group of significations the concept “man” can have, and to choose those that can be compatible with the concept of wolf. In this sense, metaphor gives shape to discourse when it creates new images for new meanings. This is because the result of the metaphor is not a copy of man nor wolf, but an organization of their meanings so it can be innovatively inserted in the use of language. This new image caused by their merge in meanings is their symbol or the descriptive icon through which new features of the concept "man" expands and let us use it in its renovated comprehension. In this sense, this symbol refers to these concepts secondarily through their primary meaning, i.e., “man” now has features of wolf. This descriptive icon is assigned in a specific context to the usual image that is aroused by the meaning of man, being this new image the one that gives us a rule or a direction to understand the sense in which there has been a re-description of the concept of "man". This direction is the icon that the metaphor creates (Ricœur, 2003). Subsequently, according to Ricoeur, the metaphorical operation is made through the construction of analogies between predicates which are facilitated by the schematic function done in the imagination. Therefore, It is schemata’s task to provide new images to emerging significances. This image is an organization, which implies a suppression or emphasis of certain significants of a subject a well as of a predicate allowing similarities between the two resulting in a new congruence which is the metaphor. Proceeding with our example, a "man" has for its resemblance, lets say, of a living creature in an environment that demands effective responses to survive an analogy with the some characteristics applied to a wolf, among others that can be. The way how the concept of "man" made a schema of the concept of "wolf" blurs their semantic border to enable an assignment of an image to the emerging meaning which has become its icon. In this sense, a metaphor expresses the conditions under which a situation or an idea can be understood by means of another. Making connections between a sentence read and other life experiences, in the same sense that from one field of knowledge to another. It is due to the establishment of analogies between ideas, facts or feelings in their the iconic image. In the metaphor´s case this image has a verbal side, which is the point where the restructuring of semantic fields takes place, and lead to a materialization of a renewed signification. The icon is the creation of new semantic significance born from the ruins of semantic areas in

conflict. It´s through the fact that metaphor describes an image that it has advantageous to perform unusual comparisons. (Betancur, 2006) By allowing the performance of extraordinary assimilations metaphor gives readers a new way of understanding a concept or a feeling to which an author or a situation is referring to. This means, that metaphors have an out to the world intention, in this sense, to get out from the sphere of language to relate to things. This is given by the suspension of the processes that occur in the world done by the imagination that give way to a second-order reference, of a symbolic nature, which refers to the transfer of the usual semantic content of an expression to a fictional character reference that is allowed by the semantic icon. This icon fabricates the “no-place” of reality from which it refers indirectly to reality. It is from this function that the metaphor wield in relation to language through the imaginative process is that Ricoeur emphasizes the power of fiction to change reality. Accordingly, this quality to create fictitious constructions of ideas that combined with the descriptive quality of language towards reality helps to create innovative courses of action as a method for enriching practice. What is essential from this point of view the requirement of an imaginative variation of the actions to facilitate an application of thought in reality (Ricoeur, 1991). The metaphor is founded on the imaginative possibility of creating from fiction ways of relating to reality; being underpinned by the structure of language metaphor assist to the expansion of the meanings of words or the creation of new language expressions which are the result of the extension of the meaning that concepts uses to epitomize reality. Consequently, metaphor is a language element that is essential to understand the world around us. In this sense, it is due to the suspension of reality that the metaphor unfolds its ability to open new dimensions of it. Metaphor is an imaginative construction directed towards reality in the sense that it is absent from the usual usage of language (Ricœur, 1978). It is imagination that provides a setting where can be compared and measured reasons as varied as desires and ethical and professional standards, generating new connections between different fields to facilitate action. (Ricœur, 1991).    As a result, Ricoeur´s theory of metaphor permits new possibilities to approach the interpretations of Machiavelli´s metaphors in The Prince. Which we argue that are used as means to make simplify arguments that communicate some knowledge about a way of doing politics. It is through the use of innovative attributions (metaphors), that the Florentine restructure the potential of the historical examples and uses them to elucidate a strong thesis that he is developing. In this sense, when using metaphors in The Prince, the author provide a new way to understand a political problem, allowing the reader to incorporate the innovations produced to his life experience, i.e. the meaning that each metaphor is carrying works to increase the wealth of knowledge of the reader, which can be used as a tool aimed to practice.

6. METAPHORS IN THE PRINCE. The previous section provided a synthesis of Ricœur´s theory of metaphor, in which we observed the fundamental role of imagination to allow the creation and comprehension of metaphors. We recognized that it is through imagination that it is possible to overcome inconsistency in a literal description and immediately afterwards, evoke a new consistent meaning on a metaphorical statement which enables the understanding of concepts and might reorient action. The next step is to go directly to the The Prince in order to perform an analysis of three Maquiavellian metaphors through Paul Ricoeur`s theory, and subsequently be able to corroborate the role of metaphorical process in the work of the Florentine thinker. The text’s metaphors chosen for the analysis are: the pictorial metaphor exposed in the dedicatory of The Prince, the bow and arrow metaphor, and the fox and lion metaphor. Each of them addresses a particular problem in the Machiavellian argumentation. The Pictorial metaphor lies in an epistemological level, trying to validate the writer's point of view in order to account for his observations to the prince. The bow and arrow metaphor refers to the role of history as Magistra vitae and to the convenience of imitation in politics; and finally, the fox and lion metaphor, which speaks of those characteristics that a prince must take from the beasts to govern virtuously. Each metaphor considers a key topic presented in The Prince, so we can find in them an argumentative role in their interaction with the argumentation context that surrounds them. The Maquiavellian metaphors are tools that consent the reference to objects that are outside the political arena and relate them to specific concepts of the political world, enabling the reformation of abstract concepts to make them accessible in a concise manner which would facilitate their application in courses of political action. In this sense, It is possible to affirm that the metaphor is not simply an aesthetic ornament of discourse, but a vital input to increase and transmit guidelines for action on political reality. From an analysis of the characteristics of these three metaphors, we can verify or reject our thesis, namely, that metaphors plays an important role in the Machiavellian arguments in The Prince to allows the author to suggest courses for political action. 6.1 THE PICTORIAL METAPHOR. The first is the one that Gaillé (2011) calls the pictorial metaphor. It is at the opening of The Prince in the dedicatory of the book to Lorenzo de Medici. At first, it appears that the benefit of this metaphor is basically a writer’s strategy to embellish his discourse. Nonetheless, Machiavelli clarifies (1998) that his language in not going to be "adorned nor bloated with long periods or with pompous and solemn words, or any other superfluous affectation or ornament with which many usually, describe and embellish their works. For my part, I have wanted that nothing distinguishes it or that the uniqueness of the subject and the importance of the topic make it enjoyable” (p.34).

Hence, Machiavelli declares that he does not favor those argumentative strategies of the humanist tradition of his time. Where they were common among rhetoric teachers which sought to achieve the refinement of speech to the point of wanting to accomplish a perfect style (Skinner, 1985). Departing from this trend, Machiavelli states the valuable "singularity" and "importance of the issue" which endorses him to be heard by a prince such as Lorenzo. In this sense, Machiavelli seeks to legitimize himself before his interlocutor. As a citizen and a disgraced public official who pretends to be returned to public tenure. Machiavelli ought to obtain the prince favor in order to make him understand that his counsel is worthwhile for its subject matter and don’t occur out of the arrogance of an individual that intends to teach a ruler how to perform his duties. In this context, the pictorial metaphor place a setting for Machiavelli’s (1998) explanation of the fact that he is a "tiny" man compared to the one with whom he dares to suggest lines for action. According to this, the metaphor declares “for as those who paint a landscape are at the lowest point of the plain to study the nature of the mountains and of the high places, and to study the plains they go up to the highest point of the mountains, in the same way, to know well people’s nature, it’s necessary to be a prince and to know well the princes’ nature its necessary to be part of the people "(p.34). In this metaphor the prince’s perspective and the people’s are placed in tension by its unusual comparison and assimilation. This is because prince and populace belong to different spheres of the social hierarchy; these are continuously conflicting among them because of their different perspectives of the political phenomena. The proposal of this metaphor is to introduce the possibility of constructing a communication bridge between these two spheres. Thus, these diverging perspectives are a consequence of their incompatible social status. Therefore, the shock that the metaphor produces is the result of the rapprochement of two different social classes. The literal description indicates that the ruler is above all social organization, far away from people’s "reality" always isolated from interactions proper of the general population. Therefore, the prince is always at a distance that prevents him from fully knowing the nature of the people he governs. It is as if the ruler could not descend from his lofty status to one closer to his people. In the opposite way, the supposition of inability populace have to know the princes’ nature; which in their low status are not in capacity to understand state’s affairs; therefore, their condition is thought to be more passive than active as to propose a correct point of view about the decisions government’s. As a consequence of the above, what allows to overcome the inconsistency of the literal interpretations is the schematic function of imagination that imagination. Because it makes possible to restructure the semantic fields the concept of ruler and the concept of populace. To permit these dissimilar viewpoints a hypothetical situation in which these two are able to communicate. In this sense, imagination leads a reader to conceive the ruler’s point of view as if it were the one of an artist

who clearly pictures from a mountain’s top the particularities of the "plains". On the other hand, the point of view of the people is related through imagination with the observation that an artist have while looking from "the lowest point of the plain" the grandeur of the mountains. The relation of similarity that is established between the ruler’s viewpoint and the people’s, is mediated by the imaginative establishment of the perspective of an artist The high viewpoint of the ruler is associated with his social status and his geographical location, on the other hand, the low viewpoint is associated with the perception the populace have of this high position which implies that their low social status and their low geographical position, allocate them apart from the mountains. The point of uniformity of this metaphorical statement is provided by the mediation that the artist can assume because he can stand in both the ruler´s and the people´s viewpoint. Implying that they both have a valid perspective on what they see. Therefore, when recognized that the artist have both the ruler and the people point of view, is when the metaphor tries to bring back the literal interpretation to exceeds the logical contradiction. It’s here when the metaphor makes sense and recovers the congruency in meaning. In the case of the ruler, the "matter" that must be observed for him is his people, which are viewed from a prominent position that lets him observe almost all the "political horizon". However, the ruler does not see himself. On the other hand, the people's perspective can see how rulers conduct themselves and thus identify their successes or failures. The artist mediation suggests that the clear and complete view of the landscape must be captured on the canvas in order to account both viewpoints depending on where he is standing. This integral feature of the artist is Machiavelli’s suggestion to bring a new comprehension of the perspective on the political field. In this sense, with this metaphor Machiavelli demands to be validated as an interlocutor by suggesting that politics require at least two viewpoints. One of the prince (to whom he speaks) and one of the people (from where he speaks). Since Machiavelli addresses a ruler his particular argumentative intention is to tell the reader to accept his point of view; since the understanding of State’s affairs would be incomplete without the people's perspective. This is as if an artist would segregate himself to recreate only the high grounds of a painting he would be losing the opportunity to recreate the mountains. It is precisely from this suggestion that it is worked out the principles from which the affairs of government can be dealt with. Hence the reader of The Prince must listen carefully to Machiavelli’s advice since he sees something the ruler cannot. This in turn, allows the concern for an expanded point of view in politics that is enriched by the metaphor’s innovative manner to expound the necessity to have several perspectives in the running the State. This metaphor allows us to understand that by enhancing the ruler’s and the people’s point of view through the perspective of the painter, the political intervention of the person in power is determined by the way the ruler "knows" the

reality of the matter he rules, in order to widen the information from which he will have to take decisions on his domains. That is why the pictorial metaphor and its invitation to allow multiple perspectives invite to adopt an epistemological attitude that clarifies the outlook for political intervention. 6.2 THE METAPHOR OF THE FOX AND THE LION. The fox and lion metaphor is to be found in Chapter XVIII of The Prince. The chapter begins by stating that experience has brought down the humanism principles that claimed princes´ virtuous behavior as a mean to conduct political affairs. Machiavelli’s end is to demonstrate the advantage a princes’ get when he bends his moral behavior according to circumstances. The experience, according to Machiavelli, indicates that “Princes who have set little store by their word, but have known how to overreach men by their cunning, have accomplished great things, and in the end got the better of those who trusted to honest dealing” (Machiavelli, 1998, p. 104). At this point, argumentation is stopped to state that there are two ways of acting on the political arena, through law and force. The first is proper of men and the second of beasts. When introducing the notion of force Machiavelli turns to figurative language to relate to his line of argumentation. In this sense, he resorts to the myth of the centaur Chiron who by the status of half beast, half man had the ability to teach princes’ (as it did with Achilles) “to use both natures and that one without the other has no stability" (p.104) The interpretation of this metaphor through Ricœur’s theory leads to look for the expression where the literal semantic fields are illogical and forces a reader to interpret unusual connections between the subject and the predicate of the sentence. That’s how “prince” and “beast” semantics fields clash with each other. In this sense, the metaphorical utterance literally indicates that sometimes a prince is forced to behave like a beast but only on the borders of necessity due to requirements of state not by a futile desire. That’s how impertinent evoke by reader to understand some human actions as similar to animal behavior. Among the existing animals, the prince must withdraw human characteristics attributed to foxes and the lions, since they are proper to carry out government activities. The metaphorical statement indicates that "the prince, must act like a lion and a fox, because a lion cannot defend himself from the traps and a fox cannot defend itself from wolfs." Thus, this metaphor is used to solve the clash between the two concepts which does not belong to the same category, taking from the argumentative line of the text its specifications to direct its interpretation. Therefore, the prince as endowed with political necessity should choose situations where it is suitable to use when need indicates the weapons of a lion or a fox. From the lion he will draw the strength and autonomy that will allow him to be safe. From the fox he will learn to be "even more secure" since as well as the great strength of the lion, he would also have the cleverness to avoid traps.

Thus, the new description of the concept of prince stands as a compendium of animal qualities applied to a human being. This incongruent compilation surpasses the usual interpretation of the concepts involved. This process helps the concept of prince to be expanded both in significance and scope for its use in practical applications. Since, the image created for this emerging meaning implies that a prince should not remain static in his morals in a changing world. Therefore, a human quality usually awarded to a fox and a lion, such as cunning and force, respectively, possibilities a prince to have renovated tools to execute the task of government. Since, this metaphor refers specifically to force; it is a model to explain the possibilities of how force can be used either in a clever or brute manner ina determinate context. Therefore, what this metaphor pretends to summarize through the concepts of fox and lion, is a sound Machiavelli’s argument in his reflections about political virtue. Thus, the fox and lion metaphor it is possible to understand that Machiavelli’s political virtue keeps two qualities mentioned before, the effective use of force and cunning. Machiavelli’s cunning is located as a complement of brute force in order to achieve political virtue. In this sense, he departs from the Christian concept of virtue, as this would not allow moral principles to carry out necessary actions to achieve the salvation or consolidation of a principality. For Machiavelli’s political virtue, is of cardinal importance to couple the fast and gimmicky procedure proper of the fox as the condition that will allow a prince, to uncover conspiracies, to cleverly deceive enemies of the State, and to maintaining a benevolent appearance before his people. In order to learn how to act, a prince requires the cunning of the fox, and to ensure his actions he must possess the lion’s strength. The strength of the lion as used by Machiavelli might refer to the primacy of military force as the foundation of political power. In the fox and lion metaphor Machiavelli calls a prince to action, since he indicates the prince´s right way to behave in order to solve certain circumstances. That’s how, this Machiavellian metaphor regain a sense out of the obliteration of the literal description, tin order to strengthen the requirements for cunning and force to adapt to challenges and nurture political virtue. Thus, this metaphor allows to better understanding a pattern of action which in turn renews the way a ruler interacts with his political surrounding, its key players and issues. The fox and lion metaphor give further details about the idea that a prince must enforce his decisions and evaluate the different situations where he must act. 6.3 THE BOW AND ARROW METAPHOR It is located in Chapter VI of The Prince, where Machiavelli talks specifically about how a prince should always look for famous men models to imitate their achievements, seeking to reach as high as they have done. The topic of the chapter is an explanation to acquire new principalities by personal weapons and

courage, and how these newly acquired territories should be governed. In this chapter, Samame’s conception of history as Magistra vitae is expressed in Machiavelli's interest is to support his line of argumentation. This is apparent in a metaphor that is at the beginning of the chapter and serves as a prelude to the metaphor we are to analyze:

“Men for the most part follow in the footsteps and imitate the actions of others, and yet are unable to adhere exactly to those paths which others have taken, or attain to the virtues of those whom they would resemble, the wise man should always follow the roads that have been trodden by the great, and imitate those who have most excelled” (p. 48).

Machiavelli expresses his presumption of regularity that exists in the actions of men, as we reviewed with several of his interpreters such as Samamé, Cassirer and Horkheimer. Despite this, the Florentine clarifies, men who act in politics cannot continue following strictly the way that was marked by ancient men nor reach those men who stand as models of their actions. Therefore, the Machiavelli urges men who want to excel in their actions to imitate only the "model of some men, especially those who surpass others so that if they cannot match them, at least their actions have some similarity with theirs "(p.48). With this Machiavelli illustrates that such examples are not attainable for being extraordinary, but because they are suitable to establish parameters for political action. That’s how Machiavelli fits the Nietzschean "monumental history" discussed by Samamé. Because given the regularities of human nature, past events are useful to guide present actions. It is from history that it is possible to withdraw knowledge to be able to trace the past actions of men in order to understand their accomplishments, and to imitate especially superior ones and if they are not equalized, as it is most probable, at least "touch" part of their legacy. It is in this context that the metaphor proclaims that:

“Acting in this like the skillful archer, who seeing that the object he would hit is distant, and knowing the range of his bow, takes aim much above the destined mark; not designing that his arrow should strike so high, but that flying high it may alight at the point intended.” (p.48).

The semantic conflict generated between the literal meanings of the concept of prince and properties that are lend by archery with regard to the achievement of one’s far away objectives, having present one´s own strength and other´s teachings. This unusual comparison creates a predicative conflict in the whole sentence. It is here where there is an assimilation of different semantic features of these two ideas that arise from the comparison. It is these similar characteristics which allow their "corresponding". Therefore, it is by resorting to imagination is that a transfer between different fields of human activities takes place and brings from the military sphere, and especially from the art of the bow and arrow, some of its properties to the scope of politics.

From the literal properties of each discipline, we might infer that the prince does not have much to do with an archer, except with the necessity to be thought by doing so he can be able to improve his art every time he practices with his bow or with the significance of historic events. In this case, it is the analogy created by this action the archer performs in order to better himself; that the prince can compare himself with an archer, since both are looking to get better at their line of work. Thus the prince have to study the exemplary cases that history can provide him in order to extract their importance and amplify his own field of thought in the comprehension of the political sphere which would allow him to act in a more secure manner. In this sense, this metaphor suggests a guideline to prepare for action insofar as it refers to history as a professor for life, or rather, as a professor in politics. The metaphor suggests, appealing to concepts and objects that are not part of the political practice, with the deviant usage of predicates, the concepts of prince and archer are leveled gives way to the creation of a descriptive icon, which would regulate and organize the concepts to give a direction in which a possible assimilation can take place , in order to bring back congruence. It is through this icon, created for this added meaning to the concept of prince that a fiction comes out to allow the prince more possibilities for implementation in his own for political action. This is how the concept of prince is expanded symbolically to collect some of the meanings of an archer´s practice in order to improve himself when shooting correctly to some objective. 7. CONCLUSIONS. Finally, to solve the thesis posed in this research, we first declared through Luciana Samamé’s approach that the notion of history as Magistra vitae at hand in the work of the Florentine involves a conception of history as knowledge oriented to suggest guidelines for political action. Machiavelli uses historic examples in his argumentation to secure a ruler’s actions in politics. However, in order for history to be useful in guiding the present, it was essential to develop the contributions of Max Horkheimer and Ernst Cassirer as these authors suggested an interpretation that links The Prince conceptualization and action in politics. For these authors Machiavelli proposed a "science of politics" which was based on historical regularities of human nature, which permitted to infer general statements and calculations to facilitate political actions from a solid conceptual foundation. According to Horkheimer and Cassirer’s readings of Machiavelli, the regularities in human nature allowed us to use past experiences as a guide for present action. Thus, this concept makes possible to link an event of any age to a different moment in history because men’s passions and desires are always constant. Afterward, Mary Gaillé’s comments on the concept of practical imagination expressed by Machiavelli and its explanation with the task imagination according to Paul Ricœur. With this connection explained, we proceeded to give details of the role of imagination to provide the metaphors with a counseling character. Besides,

to demonstrate our assertion that metaphors facilitate the understanding of political action oriented formulas in The Prince, we used Paul Ricœur's theory to analyze three metaphors offered in the Prince to validate our research problem. The objective of this article is to identify metaphor’s function in the The Prince argumentation at the moment to approach some political issues. Through metaphor discourse communicates a set of practical guidelines and each metaphor by an imaginative application involves a renewed understanding of old same problems. Machiavelli’s metaphors permit to understand a political concept though the features of a concept pertaining to another field of knowledge, as is these cases the artistic perspective, the qualities of beasts or an archer’s performance. These concepts alien to the political world allow suggestions that expand the boundaries that usually work in the political arena. The metaphor manufacture of analogies produced by the need to express an idea makes a reorganization of the known, introducing new interpretations through which one can understand a certain concept or idea in the terms of other. This way, metaphors generate similarities between a theoretical construction and reality. For example, metaphors such as the "invisible hand" of the market in economy or the "social contract in politics", allow performing unusual comparations between lines of knowledge and possibilities connections that make easy to understand and to explain the theoretical organization of reality. Therefore, by proposing the option of considering a theoretical field through another, the metaphor reinterprets the meaning of a political concept and increases the foundations from which it is possible to applying it back to politics. However, the practical inclinations of The Prince metaphors are given in an argumentative context, this context allow the author to explain an abstract idea through familiar terms using a metaphor. Consequently, it is through metaphors in The Prince that knowledge that Machiavelli whishes to communicate is formalized. This is because once a comparison between different fields of knowledge is done; future readers maintain this assimilation over time being capable of re-interpretation. The metaphorical utterance projects a kind of idea, that the literal or descriptive language cannot explain being a process through which something more is implied than what is described. That is, that once read the metaphor increases the ability of a reader to imagine certain situation because it depicts an indirect reference to reality that expands the field of knowledge on this concept, from which an agent is to respond to new situations that arise in reality. Therefore, once an unusual relationship is imagined or read becomes a rule of interpretation, so the surplus of meaning that the work wishes to transmit increases the possibilities of action in the reader's life. This feature The Prince of containing figures of speech that are used mostly when ordinary language does not allow the description of complex problems. This is why, it is necessary to resort to creating a meaning beyond the literal description and this is achieved only through the

regulated violation of language rules, in order to imply anything beyond what is intended to describe. Machiavelli’s pictorial metaphor pretends to legitimize him as interlocutor of Lorenzo de Medici and validate his point of view before the prince as necessary to “understand” the nature of the people under his rule. The fox and lion metaphor allows the reader to implement beast´s qualities to the political behavior of a prince. The bow and the arrow metaphor expresses the concept of history as magistra vitae, in the sense that it signals practical orientations that a man should follow in order to achieve a prominent performance in the political arena. Thus, the interpretation of a metaphor can be aimed to the recreation of reality in an indirect way through the suspension of ordinary address of reality. This exercise is conducted by the imagination providing a new understanding of an aspect of reality. What the metaphor offers is a new way to see a problem; the paradox of this metaphorical function is that imagination can forge a fiction and this fiction can re-describe the practical fields of human experience. In Machiavelli’s case, the metaphors function is to expand and communicate with pedagogical clarity the political action formulas that are set forth in The Prince.

NOTES.                                                                                                                1 As Hector A. Palma (2005) says from its commitment to a claim of the metaphor in sciences, " is 2 It should be noted that these authors, particularly Ernst Cassirer and Max Horkheimer, expose these observations on Machiavelli, to go on and criticize him. Both reject the scientific application of the writings of the Florentine, although they assent the positivist reading as the most suitable for the author's intention. They seek to clarify Machiavelli’s work and then attack it. In this investigation we do not accept either that Machiavelli’s analysis as a political scientist who defends these interpreters, they are only used to recognize a line of interpretation of Machiavellian thinking that reaffirms the practicality of his doctrine. 3 Machiavelli's humanist education comes from his childhood. According to Mauricio Viroli, "The Machiavelli could not afford to trust their children to great preceptors that would make of them learned humanists. However, they gave Nicolas and Totto a good education that included knowledge of Latin, grammar and abacus, and almost certainly, judging from the books they had at home, also of rhetoric, or the art speaking and writing eloquently, to convince, persuade and move the listener or reader. " Viroli, M. (2000). It is also recognized that Machiavelli had regular contact with the intellectual elite of Florence. Nicholas's father, Bernardo, is represented in a1483 text written by Bortolomeo Scala, as a staunch defender of the republic and the rule of law. Scala was chancellor of the Florentine Republic Del Aguila , (2006). It is also known for the book of records that was jealously taken cared of by Bernardo Machiavelli, Nicholas’ father, that this document allows to observe that when Nicholas was young at Machiavelli’s home there were works of Cicero that were studied with passion by the humanists as Philippics, About the formation of the speaker, of the duties. Tito Livy's history was also among Machiavelli family’s books. De Grazia. (1994). 4 Machiavelli, according to Marie Gaille’s reading, rather than definitive political points of view, is interested in transmitting knowledge that is create by a political phenomena in order to approach them from different perspectives since the nature of this knowledge is always under construction. 5 Indeed, Cassirer is very sharp with his claims about the power of logical deduction. Cassirer includes the Prince to be almost like a "recipe- book" to exercise political power, ignoring the unpredictability of human action and the influence of what Machiavelli called "fortune" in the plans and actions of men. All this despite the fact that Cassirer coments the issue of fortune, and again passes on to Machiavelli a trust in the rationalism to warn that it may contain the unpredictability of fortune.  7 According to Machiavelli, when Philopoemen was walking in the countryside with his friends, he often stopped and discussed with them: "If the enemies were on that hill and we were here with our army, which of the two would have the advantage? How would it be possible, preserving the order, go against them? If we were to withdraw, how should we do it ? "And, moving forward, he exposed to them all the cases that could present to an army, then he listened to his friends’ opinions, expressing his, holding it with reasons, as well, thanks to these continuing cogitations, when he led his armies he could never have an accident that wouldn’t had no remedy" Machiavelli, (quoted by Gaillé, 2011). 8 Although not knowledge as if was believed by Cassirer and Horkheimer.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 BIBLIOGRAPHY. Abad, J. (2008) Las cenizas de Maquiavelo. Granada España. Editorial Comares. Aristóteles. (2000). Retórica. Madrid, España: Editorial Alianza. Betancur, M. (2006). La metáfora y el ver como, Manizales, Editorial Universidad de Caldas. Cassirer, E. (1996). El mito del Estado. México D.F. México: Fondo de cultura económica. De Grazia, S. (1994). Maquiavelo en el Infierno. Bogotá, Colombia. Norma. Gaillé, M. (2011). Maquiavelo Y La Tradición Filosófica. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Nueva Visión. Horkheimer, M. (1995). Historia, metafísica y escepticismo. Barcelona, España: Altaya. Maquiavelo, N. (1998). El Príncipe. Madrid. España. Alianza Editorial. Machiavelli, N. (2001). The Prince, EE.UU, New York: P.F. Collier & Son. Maquiavelo, N. (2004). Discursos sobre las décadas de Tito Livio. pp. 159. Buenos Aires,

Argentina: Editorial Losada. Machiavelli, N. (1883). Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius, London: Kegan Paul, Trench

and Co. Pochat, G. (2008). Historia de la estética y la teoría del arte. Madrid, España: Akal. 217-226. Ricœur, P. (1991). Del texto a la acción: Ensayos de hermenéutica II, Buenos Aires, Fondo de

cultura económica. Ricœur, P. (1978). The Metaphorical Process as Cognition, Imagination, and Feeling, Critical

Inquiry, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 143-159. Recuperado de http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342982 . Ricœur, P. (2003) The Rule of Metaphor: The creation of meaning in language, Toronto, Routledge

& Kegan Paul. Samamé, L. (2010). Una aproximación a la concepción maquiaveliana de historia. Ideas y valores. Revista colombiana de filosofía. 143. 123-135. Skinner, Q. (1985). Los Fundamentos Del Pensamiento Político Moderno. México D.F. México:

Fondo De Cultura Económica. Skinner, Q. (2008). Maquiavelo. Madrid. México: Alianza. Viroli, M. (2000) La sonrisa de Maquiavelo. Madrid, España. Tusquets Editores. Weber, M. La ciencia como vocación, la política como vocación. (2007). España, Madrid: Espasa.