/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6918012]

>We have seen above how necessary it is for a prince to have his foundations well laid, otherwise it follows of necessity he will go to ruin. The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws.

How could anyone have taken this seriously? It's obviously satire.

[Anonymous No.6918020]

>>6918012
Rulers have big egos. But yes, Machiavelli was a republican. And not a hack.

[Anonymous No.6918037]

>>6918012
>>6918020

I have an edition which has some annotations by Napoleon Bonaparte. These are some personal considerations that Napoleon did while reading Machiavelli's book.

Do you think that Napoleon knew that it was a satire and just didn't care or wasn't smart enough to realize that and thought it was serious/

[Anonymous No.6918063]

>>6918037
What was Napoleon's dumbest interpretation? Like, you couldn't believe the greatest field commander of all time could possibly have written this.

[Anonymous No.6918095]

>>6918012
Go home Guicciardini, no one gives a fuck about you and your works

[Anonymous No.6918115]

>>6918063
First of all, Napoleon was a STEMfag. Most of the political and judicial decisions were taken by his cabinet he just approved or disapproved them.

With that in mind, perhaps he wasn't a good enough reader to notice that Machiavelli was joking. Or, on the contrary, he knew Machiavelli was joking but didn't care ("yeah, so what that this is satire? Its still useful).

I'm not sure which.

Either way, concerning what you asked, most of his stuff is just "Yes, I plan to do so" or "I won't commit these mistakes, my reign will be of prosperity and justice for all".

If I remember correctly, the quote on the OP has an annotation like "France has a mighty military force, I will make sure that it will remain the most impressive force on Europe. With military might I shall enforce a rule of reason thought the continent"

I'll look for the book and if I find it I can say exactly what he wrote.

[Anonymous No.6918135]

>>6918012
what do you imply being wrong in that statement? state won't get far if it doesn't have the monopoly on violence

[Anonymous No.6918180]

>>6918012
I'm so sorry for your crippling autism, but I'll ask you anyway: why is that passage from The Prince satire?

[Anonymous No.6918264]

>>6918135


It isn't wrong, its precise and thats why its a satire. In his work Machiavelli presents the effective truth while disregarding abstract ideals ("Divine Right to Rule"). This form of presentation contradicts the Catholic scholastic doctrines of those times, especially Ethics.

So how about you stop trying to humiliate your peers and try to contribute to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.6918299]

>>6918012
whether it is a satire or not is irrelevant

the machiavellian question to ask is: 'does it work?'

the answer is yes

[Anonymous No.6918709]

>>6918264
>It's satire because I say so
Okay then buddy.

[Anonymous No.6918732]

>>6918709
Its a satire because Diderot, Rosseau and most Scholars say so. And I didn't say "it's a satire because I say so" I presented a broad idea as to why it is considered a satire.

Stop being such a cunt.

[Anonymous No.6918770]

>>6918012
Jesus Christ you fucking autists, The Prince isn't *satire*. That it contains concealed criticisms and qualifications about its subject doesn't make it fucking satire.

[Anonymous No.6918791]

>>6918012
>implying the prince isn't just 100 pages of slobbering over Borgia knob

[Anonymous No.6918809]

>if -A then -B
>A
>then B
This is a denying the antecedent fallacy. Are people really defending shitty argumentation just because it's a famous author?

[Anonymous No.6918818]

>>6918809

I'm sorry but empirical observations doesn't have to follow logic to be true

[Anonymous No.6918828]

>>6918818
It's not an empirical observation, it's pretty clearly a deduction, and an objectively incorrect deduction, regardless of the truth or not of the conclusion. Your sentence is retarded.

[Anonymous No.6918834]

>>6918180
When academic can't handle something they call it satire or sarcastic.

[Anonymous No.6918841]

>>6918791
>Implying that's bad
Cesare and his dad were so close to turning the Papacy into a hereditary monarchy it wasn't even funny.

[Anonymous No.6918941]

>>6918732
>I presented a broad idea as to why it is considered a satire.
No you didn't, cunt.

[Anonymous No.6918950]

>>6918941
Oh, the "cunt" is meant as satire btw ;^)

[Anonymous No.6918955]

>libtards today unironically believe The Prince was satire

[Anonymous No.6919016]

>>6918955
if you ever need a good cringe try asking an average liberal arts student their interpretation of anything by Chaucer

[Anonymous No.6919068]

>>6918834
the postmodern academy in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.6919073]

>>6919016
>implying the avg lib arts student has read chaucer

[Anonymous No.6919341]

>>6918012
>It's a 'Let's pretend Machiavelli is anything but completely right about everything' thread
>It's j-just satire guys

[Anonymous No.6919347]

>>6919073
>Implying the average lib arts student can read

[Anonymous No.6919486]

>>6918264
Something isn't "satire" if it contradicts contemporary thought on the matter. That's not what satire means.

[Anonymous No.6919591]

>>6919486

Whether or not the word "satire" is the best choice, there is more general agreement that despite seeming to be written for someone wanting to be a monarch, and not the leader of a republic, the Prince can be read as deliberately emphasizing the benefits of free republics as opposed to monarchies.

Differences of opinion amongst commentators revolve around whether this sub-text was intended to be understood, let alone understood as deliberately satirical or comic.

One such commentator, Mary Dietz, writes that Machiavelli's agenda was not to be satirical, as Rousseau had argued, but instead was "offering carefully crafted advice (such as arming the people) designed to undo the ruler if taken seriously and followed."

[Anonymous No.6919612]

>>6919591
Interesting, I didn't think of it that way. I'm not sure how it could seem satirical or comical, but I understand how he can be seen and interpreted as advocating republics over monarchies.

[Anonymous No.6919641]

>>6919612
its from the Wiki page.

When I said it was satire because it contradicted that times way of thinking I didn't mean that it was satire because of that. I expressed my ideas poorly.

I meant that by cutting all the bullshit and going straight to the point, Machiavelli could be interpreted as satirical.

Its a difference between a book educating princes that said "by doing this you will be doing Gods will and it will the best for your populace" and what Machiavelli said "do this to make your population like you, if they don't like you at least they will fear you".

I think that it is something along the lines of modern comedy. Stating truths in such an open matter that it becomes funny (even though it never stops being true).

[Anonymous No.6919709]

I never thought it would be so hard for someone to understand why its a satire.

A satire doesn't mean that it isn't true. It means that Machiavelli chose to portray the truth in a way that exposes it to ridicule.

It's like this: "you want everyone to love you?". Kill everyone who doesn't love you.

You can't say that that guide won't work. Its the truth, but its the truth presented in a manner that ridicules your desire to be loved by everyone.

Machiavelli does something similar in the Prince. He presents a guide that works but would make anyone who isn't completely devoid of empathy to think "hey, this is fucked up".

That was his purpose. Not to convince the princes to join the republican cause, but to show everyone else that read his work how fucked up the monarchy was.

But he couldn't outright say it now could he? He had to be discrete.

[Anonymous No.6919718]

And about "libertards hurrr durr", fucking Rousseau agrees that its a Satire.

I'm talking about fucking Jean-Jacques Rousseau ("Social Contract"):

"Machiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Caesar Borgia, clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays."

Anyone that does not agree that this work isn't satire is because they haven't read the rest of Machiavelli's work.

[Anonymous No.6919729]

And about "libertards hurrr durr", fucking Rousseau agrees that its a Satire.

I'm talking about fucking Jean-Jacques Rousseau ("Social Contract"):

"Machiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Caesar Borgia, clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays."

Anyone that does not agree that this work issatire is because they haven't read the rest of Machiavelli's work.

[Anonymous No.6919741]

>wikipedia scholars think it's satire
Surprise.

[Anonymous No.6919756]

>>6919486
>>6918770
>>6918834
>>6918841
>>6918955
>>6919341


If it does in a manner to reduce that line of thought into ridicule it is considered satire.

Its like someone publishing a book that works as a guide to write best selling novels for teen age girls as a form of critique to the way those authors Even if that book works as a guide it will subtly work as a mean to expose the issue: YA authors use a copy and paste technique and isn't real literature.

What's beyond /lit/s ability to comprehend is the fact that despite it being satire it is a good guide.

[Anonymous No.6919770]

>The Prince is satire
Easiest way to know if someone is a pleb who looks at history with a 21st century mindset.
It's not satire, he was just telling it as it was, if you followed it you would be a successful Prince, good person or not.

[Anonymous No.6919819]

Plenty of fools ITT I see. You got to be if you're unable to grasp that the Prince is satire. My favorite part is the ending of Chapter 25

>I conclude therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because Fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.

>If you want a woman, or the Godess Fortune herself, beat the fuck out of her, she'll love you.

Of course, dimwitted and sexually-repressed conservatives who haunt this place can't see the satire here, it's well-written exposition of what some MRA actually believe these days, they're unable to see they're a joke themselves. You'd know this if your only female relation wasn't your mother that you loath so much.

>>6919741
Rousseau and Diderot are more of a scholar than you will ever be.

[Anonymous No.6919837]

>>6919819

>he doesn't realize that Machiavelli just put funny phrases as he wrote

>he can't realize that Rousseau was blind to his maximum axiom that human can be educated and perfected

>he calls other plebs

Poe's law is a bitch

[Anonymous No.6919841]

>>6919819
Eh, should've left out the "conservatives and MRAs" part and just left it at a poor understanding of "Fortune favors the bold". 2/10, has potential.

Back to leftypol you go.

[Anonymous No.6919876]

>>6919837
>>he doesn't realize that Machiavelli just put funny phrases as he wrote
Cop out
>>6919837
>>he can't realize that Rousseau was blind to his maximum axiom that human can be educated and perfected
Doesn't mean anything
Intellectual light-weight, begone
>>6919841
I wouldn't call bold beating a woman and ill using her. But maybe you do in your little fantasy world. Good luck working on that.

[Anonymous No.6919889]

>>6919876

>he can't get into basic perspectivism

[Anonymous No.6919930]

>>6919889
An author write a book for a reason, or several. Machiavelli wrote the Prince as satire, to mock a political establishment he was unable to change.

Here's another great excerpt, the beginning of Chapter 11

>It only remains now to speak of ecclesiastical principalities, touching which all difficulties are prior to getting possession, because they are acquired either by capacity or good fortune, and they can be held without either; for they are sustained by the ancient ordinances of religion, which are so all-powerful, and of such a character that the principalities may be held no matter how their princes behave and live. These princes alone have states and do not defend them, they have subjects and do not rule them; and the sates, although unguarded, are not taken from them, and the subjects, although not ruled, do not care, and they have neither the desire nor the ability to alienate themselves. Such principalities only are secure and happy. But being upheld by these powers, to which the human mind cannot reach, I shall speak no more of them, becaus, being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the act of a presumptuous and rash man to discuss them.

Nevertheless, he goes on and continue his chapter about them, and the Catholic Church get BTFO by Machy boy. If you can't grasp the tongue-in-cheek humor there, I pity you, you must live a sad sad life.

[Anonymous No.6920190]

>>6919819
>this poor comprehension ad incredible lack of perspective.
>boohoo sounds evil and sexist, must be a joke
No wonder you have to rely on desperate shitposting tactics to save face, wikifag. Rousseau and Diderot didn't want to accept the reality that Machiavelli did not care if his ruler had to get his hands dirty but how shit actually works, what works and what is to be done. He sucked off Cesare for a reason and it wasn't 'ironically' but because in him was the potential to be the great ruler Machiavelli wanted who could create a united Italian state in the chaos of a period where there was much in-fighting and peninsula was at the mercy of nation-states.

"Muh satire" is their bias speaking, as is your bleeding heart faggotry.

[Anonymous No.6920214]

>>6919729
The "detestable" Cesare Borgia was a successful leader who inspired fierce loyalty and was celebrated as a saviour in many of the cities he conquered. Maybe you should read the history of Cesare instead of Rousseau's worthless opinion on the matter. Or Machiavelli's own words, not in The Prince, but in a letter to his Florentine masters when he was a diplomat dealing with Cesare:

"This Lord is very splendid and magnificent and so fierce in battle that there's no great enterprise that he won't take lightly; in the pursuit of glory and reputation he never rests, and recognizes neither weariness nor danger; he has arrived at a new position before anyone understands that he has left the old one. He is well liked by his soldiers, and he has enrolled the best men in Italy. These qualities make him both victorious and dangerous for the future; added to which, he is always lucky."

[Anonymous No.6920233]

>>6920214
Or this excerpt from a personal letter to a friend while he was still putting the finishing touches on The Prince:

"…I enter the ancient courts of ancient men, where, received by them with affection, I feed on that food which only is mine and which I was born for, where I am not ashamed to speak with them and to ask them the reason for their actions; and they in their kindness answer me; and for four hours of time I do not feel boredom, I forget every trouble, I do not dread poverty, I am not frightened by death; entirely I give myself over to them.

And because Dante says it does not produce knowledge when we hear but do not remember, I have noted everything in their conversation which has profited me, and have composed a little work On Princedoms, where I go as deeply as I can into considerations on this subject, debating what a princedom is, of what kinds they are, how they are gained, how they are kept, why they are lost. If ever you can find any of my fantasies pleasing, this one should not displease you; and by a prince, and especially by a new prince, it ought to be welcomed. Hence I am dedicating it to His Magnificence Giuliuano.
[...]
I have talked with Filippo about this little work of mine that I have spoken of, whether it is good to give it or not to give it; and if it is good to give it, whether it would be good to take it myself, or whether I should send it there. Not giving it would make me fear that at the least Giuliano will not read it and that this rascal Ardinghelli will get himself honor from this latest work of mine. [...] through this thing, if it were read, they would see that for the fifteen years while I have been studying the art of the state, I have not slept or been playing, and well may anybody be glad to get the services of one who at the expense of others has become full of experience. Of my honesty there should be no doubt, because having always preserved my honesty, I shall hardly now learn how to break it; he who has been honest and good for forty-three years, as I have, cannot change his nature; as a witness to my honesty and goodness I have my poverty."

[Anonymous No.6920271]

>>6920190
>>6920190
>Rousseau and Diderot didn't want to accept the reality that Machiavelli did not care if his ruler had to get his hands dirty but how shit actually works,

Machiavelli was a republican. He was mocking monarch's ruthless power-munging. He didn't seek rulers to rule him, he wanted the people to take charge. Sounds like you have not even minimal knowledge of the author.

>>6920190
>He sucked off Cesare for a reason
Cesare was dead at this point, and widely hated by everyone. Machiavelli was smearing monarchs by taking as an example the worst of them. He wanted an united Italy yes, but a republican one. Again, it sounds like you don't know shit about the subject.

Go get an education, you badly need it.

>>6920214
>>6920233
This was relevant only as long as he was the Pope's son. When the old man bought the farm, everything went to shit, everyone dropped him, except a single loyal follower. Dilettantes love you when you are powerful and rich, and abandon you when Fortune change side.

[Anonymous No.6920298]

>>6920271
>Machiavelli was a republican.
>He wanted an united Italy yes, but a republican one.
Neither of these change anything. He may have wanted a republic but knew what was necessary at the moment, a strong united state.
>Machiavelli was smearing monarchs by taking as an example the worst of them.
>Cesare
>monarch
Gonna need some proof of his hate for Cesare instead of these sick burns, mister scholar.

[Anonymous No.6920399]

>All these arguments ITT
I've read The Prince twice and have almost always interpreted as a book that exposed the necessary actions a ruler must take to have a strong state minus all of the bullshit. I've heard it was a satire but it reads more like a secret document. As if, I -- a mere commoner -- was never meant to learn the secret that gave Prince's their power. But, I've just started reading seriously again, so I'm rather ignorant and my reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

[Anonymous No.6920415]

>>6920271
Not really tho

It's really not inconceivable for him to be writing a series of maxims for political action & what is necessary for a strong state, even if he felt that a republic was a superior form of government.

>>6920399
I strongly disagree with that interpretation as well.

[Anonymous No.6920434]

You're right. Everything is just so obvious after the fact, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.6920446]

If the truth is funny to you, then damn you have low standards.

[Anonymous No.6920526]

>>6920271
The letter of praise was written to the masters of Florence. It was not for the eyes of Cesare or the Pope, and Machiavelli had no reason to give him high praise if he didn't feel it was warranted. And The Prince and the letter concerning that work were written long after Cesare's fall.

As for everyone abandoning him after his father died, that's not remotely true. The old lord of Rimini tried to retake it after Rodrigo Borgia's death, but the inhabitants resisted him, preferring Cesare's rule. Cesena also remained loyal, as did Fano, Fermo and Forli, all of which fought off old rulers attempting to retake their towns. Florence, invited to join Borgia's enemies, refused them and offered Cesare their services. The French remained his allies, intimidating Venice when the latter wanted to aid Borgia's enemies. The new Pope was also friendly to Cesare, confirming him in his position as Captain-General of the Church. And even when that Pope had died, Cesare had enough cardinals under his control to keep anyone he didn't want to be elected Pope from the tiara.

Things only really went to shit when he made the mistake of trusting Giuliano della Rovere and found himself betrayed. And even then he didn't have only "a single loyal follower." There were his officers in Forli who refused to give up the city until they had guarantees for Cesare's safety. There was the captain who, even after joining Venice when his master was gone from Italy, continued to wear the Borgia livery for the rest of his life and forced his troops to do the same. There were the people who helped him escape from his Spanish prison. There was his brother-in-law, the King of Navarre, who received him after his escape and made him Captain-General. There was the populace of Romagna, now in the hands of the della Rovere Pope, which broke out into armed rebellion when they heard that their beloved Cesare was free once again (the historian Zurita, commenting upon this event: "The duke was such that his very presence was enough to set all Italy agog; and he was greatly beloved, not only by men of war, but also by many people of Tuscany and of the States of the Church.").

Even Ferdinand, the very king who imprisoned him, recognized his talents to such a point that he briefly planned on freeing him, giving him an army and sending him to Naples to fight for the Spanish crown (though this plan fell through).

[Anonymous No.6920785]

The Prince was a purely pragmatic look at politics. Machiavelli being a republican doesn't change shit; the entire point was to portray people as they were, not how monarchs or democrats thought they should be.

[Anonymous No.6920912]

>>6918841
What? The only way that would have been possible is if they had two-thirds a nepotistic Cardinalate college.

[Anonymous No.6921116]

>>6920912
They almost did. Alexander VI made sure to raise a large number of loyal Spanish ecclesiastics to the purple. At the point of Alexander's death these cardinals weren't numerous enough to win the tiara for a given candidate on their own, but they could deny it to anyone they didn't want to have it. Julius II only managed to win because he made a deal with Cesare, who instructed the Spanish cardinals to vote for him.

[Anonymous No.6921118]

>>6918012
He doesn't know that laws are built on a monopoly of violence rather than an abstract concept of rights and wrongs.

Point at him and laugh.

[Anonymous No.6921125]

>>6919819
>I cannot into metaphors

Autist-posting much

[Anonymous No.6921127]

>>6918828
>muh argument from fallacy

[Anonymous No.6921140]

>>6919709
That's just a result of what happens when you read it, but it doesn't mean that was his purpose.

[Anonymous No.6921175]

>>6921116
That is to say, unto the point they could be bribed. Della Rovere was hugely influential, and not just on Cesare.

[Anonymous No.6921247]

>>6919641
>Its a difference between a book educating princes that said "by doing this you will be doing Gods will and it will the best for your populace" and what Machiavelli said "do this to make your population like you, if they don't like you at least they will fear you".
>I think that it is something along the lines of modern comedy. Stating truths in such an open matter that it becomes funny (even though it never stops being true).
The autism is real.

[Anonymous No.6921253]

Which present scholars assert that the Prince is a satire? Above all in Angloamerican world.

Nobody asserts that thesis in Continental Europe, especially in Spain and Italy.

>>6918012

The relationship between "good constitution" and "good armed citizens" isn't only in the Prince.
(For Example Discoruses I, 4; I, 5 and I, 6, III, 53; the preamble of Art of War; preamble of Cagione dell'Ordinanza).
It is the basis of Machiavelli's political thinking.

[Anonymous No.6921265]

This entire thread reeks of OP samefagging his opinion

[Anonymous No.6922126]

>>6918037
how expensive was that?

[Anonymous No.6922242]

>>6921265
Because he's a fucking retard who seeks validation for his shit stupidity.

[Anonymous No.6922261]

>>6922126
its a normal book, anon. Not the actual one that Napoleon owned and wrote over.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1291641.El_Principe_The_Prince

[Anonymous No.6922284]

>>6919756
Oh my, who would ever do such a thing?!

[Anonymous No.6922938]

>>6922261
oh that's amazing I didn't know there was a market for things like that

thanks bro

[Anonymous No.6922964]

>>6921265
>>6922242
OP here. Can't handle the bantz?

>67 replies, 33 unique posters

[Anonymous No.6922982]

>>6919756
Using that logic, a ruler(a Prince) would be considered a failure if he ruled well as a result of the book.

[Anonymous No.6923194]

>>6922964
>34 samefag posts

[Anonymous No.6923275]

>>6922982
Because his enemies will know his political model.
Classical jesuit antimachiavellism.

[Anonymous No.6923715]

>>6922964
Epic shitposting

[Anonymous No.6923785]

>>6923275
Why would that matter when the Prince is in control of his lands, his people, and his army? It's not like it's a Military Tactics: 101 book, it's how to become the most efficient ruler.
If a Prince were to follow the book as close to a T as possible, and an enemy would want to try and break him in some way, what is there in the book he could draw from to destroy the Prince?

[Anonymous No.6924313]

>>6921127
Saying "regardless of the truth or not of the conclusion" is the opposite of an argument from fallacy you idiot.