[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 32 KB, 331x475, machiavelli.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3048491 No.3048491[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

The Prince, not a satire.

>> No.3048495

so edgy

>> No.3048503

I think the purpose of the book is to make the general public of Florence more aware of the practices and strategies of the rulers at that time.

>> No.3048504

>>3048495
>this is what liberal ideologues actually believe

He wrote the book advising a enlightened sort of rulership because it was the best he could make of the circumstances.

Get
fucking
over
it

>> No.3048510

Any historyfag can see that Livy was going for satirical and didactic at the same time. No history-obsessed dude like Machiavelli can resist sperging out and drawing models of ideal behaviour and societies from his knowledge of the past. Historians are the biggest armchair moralizers and political theorizers ever.

The satire comes from his portrayal of the "ideal" state of tyranny as inherently brutal. You can be an effective tyrant, but it's not generally pleasant, for you or others.

>> No.3048515

Woops, Machiavelli, not Livy.

>> No.3048535

>not a satire
Yes it was.
This isn't a debate.
It was.

>> No.3048560

>>3048535
Nope.

>> No.3048572

>>3048535
It has some satirical elements but it isn't primarily a satire. And of course its open to debate, attempting to preclude discussion on a forum just marks you as a faggot.

>> No.3048577

>Tells ruler to do something
>Immediately spends the next 400000000 pages explaining how terrible that thing is but how you should do it anyway
>not a satire

>> No.3048583

>>3048577
Have you read it? Most of the topics are written entirely seriously. Only those focusing on Borgia are initially self-contradictory

>> No.3048588

>>3048577
confirmed for not having read shit

>> No.3048591

So much wikipedia syndrome on /lit/; makes me wonder if you fags have ever read anything at all.

>satire

lol

>> No.3048602

>>3048577
Also note the original manuscript was a gift to the Medicis - who were essentially Machiavelli's only patrons. Why would he attempt to write a book insulting them? And if the Medicis (who were clever enough not only to rise to power in renaissance Italy - but to actually maintain it), thought it was an attack on monarchies why did they not only allow its publication but financed it as well?

>> No.3048606

>>3048591
Of course - pseudo intellectuals are too lazy and uncomprehending to actually read the text, wikipedia articles are just so much better!

>> No.3048614

http://www.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/Ren/flor-mach-mattingly.htm

>> No.3048615

>>3048606
>>3048591
well how much machiavellia have yall read?

>> No.3048619

>>3048614
>http://www.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/Ren/flor-mach-mattingly.htm
>>Only in a satire can one understand the choice of Cesare Borgia as the model prince.

Read the full article. You'll notice 80% of his examples of satire is Borgia as I said. You fucking dumbass.

>> No.3048624

>>3048615
The Prince
Discourses
Art of War

>> No.3048629

>>3048615
I've read The Prince and The Art of War multiple times/multiple translations. I've read two or three translations of his work on Castruccio Castracani (the life of/letters on), as well as probably half of his book on Livy.

>> No.3048631

This wasn't a satire. It advised people on how he believed the government should be run.

If you want satire, go read "A Modest Proposal".

>> No.3048635
File: 199 KB, 361x361, 1349026689169.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3048635

>>3048614
>basing your argument on one butthurt academic
I SHIGGYWIGGYWOOBAA

>> No.3048684

So, where does this misconception come from then?

1. Political/Religious/Moral ideological projection of people who cannot or do not wish to believe in these ideas or that someone would believe them?

2. A lack of understanding of the historical context which Machiavelli lived and wrote in?

3. A lack of general reading comprehension skills?

4. Other and/or all of the above?

(earnestly curious, please respond)

>> No.3048690

>>3048684
4:

So, a lot of 1 and 2 (with perhaps a smattering of 3 as the first two would taint a reading)

>> No.3048691

>>3048690
it has to more with
5) the wittiest invention close reading of the text can produce

It's funny because normally 80% /lit/ would agree with OP

>> No.3048698

>>3048691
I would've thought it was the usual revisionist bullshit; being contrary just to garner attention (like /lit/ hipster in general).

But, I think that such a claim has been leveled against The Prince a while back. (doesn't mean it's any less wrong)

>> No.3048702

>>3048619

There was nothing satirical about his love of Cesare.
Machievelli legit thought Cesare's use of militia was the ideal form of war because of his hate of the condottieri.
Of course Cesare's militia never did shit because he wasn't dumb enough to entrust his military victories to them.

>> No.3048705

>>3048690
thank you

Also: Is the perception, sometimes written about (such as in the article i posted above, yes, i'm owning up to that one for full disclosure), that The Prince clashes with or contradicts Machiavelli's other writings entirely wrong? Is there some disagreement, but such that can and/or should be explained away by known changes in the author's opinions? Is it possible that he wrote an entirely straight-forward and utilitarian political guide but did not personally believe in its morality? Or, somewhat less wildly speculating, that he believed in their effectiveness but did not personally wish for a world ruled in such a manner?

>> No.3048711

>>3048691
this is a good answer too and i didn't really think of the weird academic compulsions towards such writing

i have to admit though, i honestly believe that sometimes really far-out or wacko interpretations of classic texts are the most fun to read

>> No.3048742

>>3048705
>Is it possible that he wrote an entirely straight-forward and utilitarian political guide but did not personally believe in its morality? Or, somewhat less wildly speculating
Speculating on the morality of some long dead florentine is rather speculating.

However, it's sure that he truly believed that a Prince (which he might've hoped to have fostered through his work) was needed for a strong Florence, and a strong Italy - this motivation is clear; how he intended to get there might've changed when his circumstances changed.

He lived quite a busy life, old Mac, and was not wholly appreciated by the Medici when they returned to power.

>> No.3048747

>>3048742
>this motivation is clear
By "this motivation" I mean, firstly, the goal of the security of the Florentine state, and secondly for a unified (or, more united) Italy, secure against the constant internecine warfare and the ever present external threats.

An "Italian" before his time.

>> No.3048749

>>3048503
>I think the purpose of the book is to make the general public of Florence more aware of the practices and strategies of the rulers at that time.

Bingo. "Satire" is more on the correct track than "serious political advice," it's really more of an open letter in disguise.

>>3048602
>And if the Medicis (who were clever enough not only to rise to power in renaissance Italy - but to actually maintain it), thought it was an attack on monarchies why did they not only allow its publication but financed it as well?

Why indeed? And if it was prudent and valuable advice for a ruler, why make it known to the whole world?

>> No.3048763

>>3048742
>He lived quite a busy life, old Mac, and was not wholly appreciated by the Medici when they returned to power

Much as the Roundheads were not wholly appreciated by the Stuarts when they returned to power.

>> No.3048773

>>3048749
>>3048503
Exactly.
Why would his intended audience be the ruling classes and yet he would publish the book for all to read? Wouldn't any ruler worth his salt already know the things he wrote? Do people think he wrote the book to encourage people to go into politics or something? srsly.

>> No.3048837

>>3048684
>misconception come from then?
Jean Jacque Rousseau and all his french faggotry

>> No.3048854

The Prince is a complicated book, and if you want to say it was a satire, I'm okay with that; I disagree with you, mostly, but it's a defensible position. What I don't like is people who say "It's a satire, this isn't a debate, it's status as a satire is a matter of historical fact." Because no, fuck you. The Prince has been interpreted in a huge number of different ways. And you don't get to erase that.

My take on it: The Prince is certainly a political document, in a wide variety of different ways. And there may be elements of it which are satirical, or at least pointedly directed against tyranny, whether through satire, or whether through giving intentionally bad advice (see Mary Dietz). But I think that a lot of it is also sincere - for instance, his exhortation to the rulers of Italy seems to me like it's not satirical. More than that, I think his analysis of politics - the realistic picture of politics that he presents and his insights into the nature of political power - are sincere. He may prefer republican government to tyranny, but I think that, for Machiavelli, there are certain truths of politics which are true under a republic and under a tyranny, and most of the enduring value of The Prince comes from the way he sets out those truths.

The place this misconception comes from is a combination of Rousseau, and the fact that people dislike Machiavelli, for whatever reason, and this is an easy way to "tweak" those who have read Machiavelli and pretend that one has a deeper understanding of the text than one in fact has. History, cracked.com style ("8 Historical Figures You're Totally Wrong About" or whatever).

I like Rousseau a whole lot, and I the way that he reads his ancient sources is a fucking interesting conversation. But you can't take his reading of The Prince as your sole point of reference for your entire interpretation of the text. It's fucking stupid to do so.

>> No.3048897

>>3048837
>french faggotry

Why is it that when looking for the source of any scholarly misconception, it all points back to french faggotry?

>> No.3048929

There's nothing offensive within the Prince. All he did was describe how leaders before him used their power to gain and retain their authority. Sometimes it's effective, sometimes it's not. Sometimes a cruel act is necessary, otherwise it's not. Everything method is avaliable for application. There's no point in acting 'noble', when what really matters is appearance.


Hell, he puts forth some John Lock doctrines. Rule must require (implicit) consent of the governed. Property (and women) are sacred.

>> No.3048983

Jeez is anyone aware that Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a letter to the new rulers of Florence; the Medicis, pretty much as a resume for future work. He wanted to be a political player again. Why on earth would that be satire.

>> No.3048991

>>3048983
And are you aware that Machiavelli's prior political career and his other writings generally indicate that he was a confirmed republican, opposed to the tyranny of the Medici? The circumstances of the composition and publication of the Prince can be traced, although they are puzzling; Machiavelli's intent in publishing it is 'a question above antiquarism, not to be resolved by man, nor easily perhaps by spirits.' It's something of a strange puzzle no matter how you look at it.

>> No.3049004
File: 17 KB, 212x320, FEBzv.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3049004

>>3048991
He can't have been that opposed to the tyranny of the Medicis if he wanted to join them, rather, his own desire to be a player outruled anything else. They did afterall torture him before kicking him out.

>> No.3049010

>>3049004
That's one interpretation.

>> No.3049033

>>3049010
In another interpretation he's writing it to the Medicis for what, a passive aggressive dig at them?

>> No.3049045

>>3049033
That's another interpretation, yes. Which is not entirely ridiculous. Then there's the interpretation that Machiavelli was attempting to purposefully give the Medici bad advice to further his own Republican ends (see Dietz, "Machiavelli's Paradox", 1987). And there are others.

The point is that the events of Machiavelli's political history and the writing and publication of the Prince are strange any way you look at them - in particular, the complete and total failure of The Prince to achieve any success in reaching its supposed aim. It's impossible to know what Machiavelli was thinking, unless you can converse with the shades, or something. So it's probably best not to say, definitively, "this is what Machiavelli was thinking, this was his purpose, it is fact."