The Prince
discussion
Why was this book written?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Andrea
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Jan 12, 2014 05:04PM
I've read this book for 3 different classes, all the professors had different intrepretations.
reply
|
flag
^^^^^^^Sur-r-r-r-re. There's only one way to analyze a book like this, because some dimwit on an internet site just said so.
The manuscript is something like a job application for the time. Machiavelli was trying to "suck up" to the head honcho of one of the Italian city states for a position. If you read a copy of the book with notes, a section for context in which the book is written is usually supplied.
To torture us. End of story
It might be a satire as well. After all, it's dedicated to the head of the medici family, after the man had Machiavelli tortured and exiled...
You might not believe it, but Bernardo Machiavelli--his father, whom history mostly never mentions anymore--was also a very cogent literati and man-of-intrigue as well. Its not as if Niccolo sprang from the ground; the acorn didn't fall far from this tree.
I remembered reading an apologia for him somewhere (also heard one on CNN by Begala.) I found one as a footnote on page 224 of the anthology Kenneth Burke: On Symbols and Society. Burke calls it an "apology". Since it's silly to run down a book, even that one, just for a footnote, here it is:
"I should not want to use the word 'Machiavellian' however, without offering a kind of apology to M. It seems to me that M's Prince has more to be said in extenuation than is usually said of it. M's strategy as I see it, was something like this: He accepted the values of the Renaissance as a (I) fact. That is: whether you like it or not, they were there and operating, and if it was useless to try persuading the ambitious ruler to accept other values, such as those of the Church. These men believed in the cult of material power, and had the power to implement their beliefs. With so much as "the given" could anything in the way of benefits for the people be salvaged? Machiavelli evolved a typical "Machiavellian" argument in favor of popular benefits, on the basis of the prince's own scheme of values. That is: the ruler, to attain the maximum strength, requires the backing of the populace. That this backing be as effective as possible, the populace should be made as strong as possible. And that the populace be as strong as possible, they should be well treated. Their gratitude would further repay itself in the form of increased loyalty.
It was Machiavelli's hope that, for this roundabout project, he would be rewarded with a well-paying office in the prince's administrative bureaucracy."
At the time one gets the impression that Burke's viewed his view as contrarian. Now I think it's rather standard. Though Burke may have been engaged in some strategy of his own.
Robert Harriman also devotes a chapter to him. I re-read it and am still thinking about it. He gives it a rather different take from Burke.
From what I rememeber from and old cause and effect research paper I wrote, He mainly wrote it to obtain a job. For his real political views see Discourse on the Ten Books of Livy
this book is written by Machiavelli on no moral basis, its all about fraud and just pursuing your benefit with out caring about any moral sense
Machiavelli (if I rremember correctly) wrote this for Lorenzo de' Medici on how to govern principalities. That is why the book was written.
Andee wrote: "I've read this book for 3 different classes, all the professors had different intrepretations."OK well, since they're all Perfessers, it's permissible to ask "What does "Why" mean?"
I mean, on the smurface of it, Elentarri and Juris are right. However, if by asking "Why", one or more of the Learned Perfessers meant "Why did Machiavelli write **THIS** book (Instead of some good Porn or something which would have been better at getting him a Patron (which is what they called an Employer, back then))?", then, I suppose you'd have to go finger out why Machiavelli thought Lorenzo de' Medici *needed* such a book... (I think I saw some dicsucsion of that in one "Preface" or another... but I'm sure a Learned Perfesser would be greatly amused by a Lengthy Dissertation on the subject NTL...).
Meanwhile, Michael wrote: "2 are morons"
How do you know that all THREE aren't morons?
And,
Feliks wrote: "^^^^^^^
Sur-r-r-r-re. There's only one way to analyze a book like this, because some dimwit on an internet site just said so."
Look Feliks, I still want to know why you defenestrated Savinkov, and I'm not letting up until you (a) Cop to it and (b) Justify it. (Optionally I will settle for an unequivocal admission on your part that YOU'RE a moron, in exchange for which I'll agree to stop stalking you.)
And anybody who wants to whine about Machiavelli can just be damned glad they didn't also get subjected to Gentillet's "Contra-Machiavel" in college. Or you'd have taken even MORE drugs than you're already making excuses for NOW.
(I, for one, LIKE Machiavelli, because he advised the Ruler to keep his subjects Armed, which means he supported Term Limits.)
well, No one can blame Machiavelli for writing this book , as it written in special age in Italy , maybe it was the right way to control the country , But in general , there are many reasonable points of view in the book , on The other hand , there are many points are not . but when u Knew that Hitler ,Mussolini , and Stalin red this book every night , we will know how much this book was important .
Machiavelli wrote the book to tell princes of that age not to be retards.Some of them were evil and wanted to do evil stuff, some of them were too soft letting adversaries and sycophants play around with them.
Machiavelli argued *all strategies* to their logical conclusion, so these little pampered princes could realise the risk and moderate their behaviour to everybody's benefit (peace and prosperity).
And before evereybody get all scandalised over which dictators have read the book in recent history, remember that this was the age of inherited power and mean little Joffrey-type princes, and this book has probably averted quite a lot of Game of Thrones-magnitude disasters through history.
The Meek will only inherit the Earth if the strongest Cunning kill each other off. Then I'd keep your eyes on the strongest Meek. :}
Made another poster today:
I think Machiavelli missed a big part of the history and picked up what fits his goal focusing on the Italian mistakes and giving advices about how to avoid them in "future" in case he becomes a prince Himself. I think the book is over-estimated.
The book was, I think, written to explain power in its many guises. Of course it wasn't written as a hobby or for fun because we know it was directed at an actual political figure of that time. So it seems to me to be obvious that Machiavelli was trying to get the attention of a wealthy patron, the point being made in the foreword, I believe, that the writer was trying to make the best gift he could think of to a person that had it all. In any case, Machiavelli tried to describe the manifold rules of being the optimum Prince to the best of his abilities, and without ruffling too much feathers as he did so.
Book actually is hidden slur from Machiavelli to rulers of age, he smartly showed their ugly face in guise of art to good kingship. What else the prince was expecting from a man who hate the family due to thier bad governance to write for him?
Well, this book was a real breakthrough as for 1500's. It showed absolutely new vision of how the politics should be developing in the Reneissance and how the secular state should be ruled. Actually, it was one of the most interesting topics I was working on as a writer for https://customwriting.com service. Students get so many interesting assignments these days! But again, Machiavelli showed the path for the nation state that emerged only in 1648. It was impossible under "the rule of God" and demanded a new approach and uniting power.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
