Machiavellian!

[elfs]

I'm about halfway through my latest book and it's a true classic: Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince. I don't get what big deal is. On the one hand, I can understand that he seems to be particularly vicious because he talks, repeatedly, of the need of a usurper or conquerer to "exterminate" the families of opposing princes and any nobles who would challenge a prince unloved by the people, but let's face it: in the 15th century, that's what princes did.

He does lay out in more or less precise terms that it is better to be feared than loved-- but by the nobles. By the people, it is better to be loved than feared, for a prince beloved of the people can easily keep the nobles in line.

I like Machiavelli because he names names: he discusses the Borgias, the Medicis, and Savonarola, all of whom were either his contemporaries or were recent enough in memory that he could interview men who know any of the above. I think Machiavelli is known mostly because he wrote at a time that became famous in history, the Medici period, of which much else has been written, and what he said was blazing in both its truth and its necessity. The Prince is a good book for anyone interested in politics. Now that I've read it, I will say that every time a villain quotes from it, I'll just have to laugh: its use is effective only to those who've never read it.

Comments

[mouser.livejournal.com]

It's because it's the first time anyone came out and SAID it. In print even!

"The emperor has no clothes" said the small boy. (http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html) (Okay - he didn't ACTUALLY say that...)

[firewheelvortex.livejournal.com]

There's a deeper irony. Nicolla Macheovelli was a strong supporer of the overthrown republic - venice or some other such city-state, I misremember.

"The Prince" is actually the sharpest of all satires - couched in such a way that no Prince could actually stretch his neck without looking foolish, assuming they had the wit to realize they had been insulted.

[voidrandom.livejournal.com]

It's not as dramatic, but you may want to look at his "Discourses on Livy" which is to republics/democracies what "The Prince" is to principalities. It's arguably more serious than "The Prince", particularly if one is in the camp that believes "The Prince" is satire. (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~Johnstoi/introser/machiavelli.htm)

[gromm.livejournal.com]

Perhaps the outrage was because he named names. And because the details were, well, Machiavellian, it was easy enough for important people to redirect ire towards him, distracting people from the fact that he just implicated them in murder and pillage.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/]

I was once told that the vicious behavior we associate with the word, "machiavelian," was actually a desription of how not to rule.

So, yeah. Satire.



Seems the PNAC crowd missed that point...

[elfs.livejournal.com]

The problem with that analysis is that nobody in Machiavelli's time actually thought that there was wrong with anything he wrote. Many took The Prince at face value, appreciated it as a book on rulership, and courted his opinion. Princes threw money at him to keep him from advising other princes, so in his time the book must have had quite an impact.

Having read a number of 15th and 16th century histories, I'm not surprised by this. Mass murder by princes was commonplace, and the cruelty that Machiavelli describes was almost routine. About the only tongue-in-cheek aspect to The Prince that I can discern is when he's talking about the Church, and the way some of its provinces are "blessed by god and unassailable by man," but he doesn't name any-- a telling moment with Machiavelli.

[firewheelvortex.livejournal.com]

They didn't need Machiovelli - they had Jesuits for that. :P