The Prince test...

Fabio

Anyone else doing this?

And how is study going for it?

Orizio

I've been going through books in the library (half are in feckin' Italian), obviously read through the book itself and listening to Harris right now on the Tubridy Show.

TBH I was pleasantly suprised reading though The Prince. Not only is it easy and fairly straightforward but its nowhere near as devilish and evil as I was expecting. Much of it is common sense and understandable when you look at the chaotic and unstable politics of Machiavelli's time.

The problem with the essay is that virtu doesn't mean virtue, as in he isn't exactly talking about traditional virtues like generousity etc nor is it meant in an ethical sense. How exactly to define virtu I don't know because he uses the term in so many different ways, however I would roughly say to be virtuous in M's mind is to do whatever was the best for both the state and the Prince. So for example military prowess is the clearest act of virtu that M espouses because its in military strength that both the state and the Prince are securely safeguarded.

Some links might be useful...

Text of The Prince

Analysis of The Prince(Stanford)

Analysis of...(WSU)

nesf

I'm assuming he's referring to this: http://www.prince2.com/what-is-prince2.asp

Orizio

Yes looks like I was wrong.How embarrassing.

That in class test next Thursday for send year History students on Machiavelli's The Prince is clearly irrelevent here.

Carolus Magnus

I was pleasantly surprised when this cropped up for the class test, as I'd read The Prince back when I was in secondary school. Likewise, I'd have to say that first impressions then were that it was difficult to see how the book was regarded as so evil and explosive in its own time. Then again, it emerged in the context of the wider humanist movement. Easy to see then why it was so shocking. All of that shock value is depleted today however, nonetheless.

Orizio's on the ball there. Machiavelli's concept of virtue is well, it's not necessarily opposed to, or rejects Christian values in and of themselves. The argument that is proposed is that a pious prince in an ideal world should follow God's commandments, but he can then hardly be expected to succeed in the world if everyone else refuses to pay heed to them as well. So it's a pragmatic book in that sense. It argues for necessary evils in order to circumnavigate the unavoidable realities and thereby achieve what has been predicated as something virtuous in and of itself - a state that is stable, well-governed and has integrity. The virtuous man, is the man who has the courage to perform these acts with sobriety, knowing that they will achieve something extremely good. Machiavelli's beliefs could even be described as being utilitarian, in that there is such a thing as 'greater' good.

For Machiavelli, the greatest evil in the world was the occupation of Italy by the foreign powers, and the very last chapter (23/24 I think) is the exhortation to free Italy from the 'barbarians'. Any prince who masters the arts of war and consolidates his state so as to be able to take charge of Italy's affairs, instead of some foreign governors, would be regarded as the most virtuous of all princes. You could certainly argue that Machiavelli was not without strident principles and beliefs. Namely government of Italy by Italians. As he maintained a belief that only the Italians could govern Italy the best. That's what he got too from reading the classical authors, as 'barbarian' is quite an anachronism to be using in the 16th century.

Important also to realise that the Prince wasn't intended to be too profound a work either when Machiavelli wrote it. The accompanying letter to the Medici that you'll get with some translations of the Prince sort of makes that clear. He was indulging in some good old fashioned arse-licking couched in nice language. And I'm pretty sure at some point that Machiavelli staged his own climb downs from what was written in the book, remarking that a totally aberrant prince would be a shameful thing and that excessive cruelty would (or at least should) cost the prince his rule.

Interesting to note is how he advises princes never to go to war with an ecclesiastic or the church, as that only ever ends in disaster as the Church to some extent is eternal and cannot be defeated. Rather like trying to empty the ocean. He certainly knew where the line was. The most 'shocking' thing about what he said, was his pronouncement that it was better to be feared than to be loved (but he is at pains at the same time to point out that it is not a bad thing, merely a more precarious thing, to be loved or to try and become loved), that generosity was a waste of resources (who'd disagree?) and furthermore that it was not in the least shameful to be a fox (that is, deceitful and clever) rather than a lion (where one wears everything on one's sleeve and favours a fair and open fight.) Instead he called for a balance. A fox to know the traps, and a lion to scare off the wolves is how the line goes if I remember.

A time for everything I suppose is his message. And all being fair in war.

Orizio

Certainly The Prince is best looked at as a work of strict pragmatism and not some kind of advocation of evil. Thats a mistake a lot of people make i.e. comparing it to mindless works like Mein Kampf.