Antonomasia’s Reviews > Books that Matter: The Prince > Status Update

Towards end quite a lot on his influence on Italian politics in C19th-20th. Other C20th scholars referred to at end: Ernst Cassirer, Leo Strauss (as particular influence on Machiavelli studies in USA), Garrett Mattingly.
Now doubling back to re-listen to bits in the middle that were playing when I was half asleep/busy.
15: M very aware of need to be in tune w own times & being subject to mix of fortune & free will

Some of the later lectures in this, esp 17-19 are really excellent & more like postgrad than usual Great Courses fare - turns out because there are 2 reworkings of talks he gave at specialist seminars. Esp on infl of Lucretius. Continues to put quite a lot of himself into the talks which makes it more like taking a term long module where you get to know the tutor (tho some may not like it).

Feared/loved dichotomy misses the abusive relationship/stockholm syndrome/trauma bond dynamic now known to be characteristic of dictatorships. To what extent cld that even be recog at time when everyone lived in repressive regimes, when religion was fundamentally punitive (in dogma as well as structure) & many, maybe most, personal rels wld have fit contemp definitions of controlling. What did fear & love mean then?

Landon may slightly overstate Ms influence as part of his Great Man stuff. Says Pocock says Wars of Religion cld have been averted if advice to separate Ch & state had been followed earlier. Chk how much about M.
M's idea of human nature similar to Chr fallen man [check if is case in other work not just Prince] - but God isn't to save them any longer, but The Prince.

Contention that The Prince is cause of C20 dictatorships makes some sense re W Eur (but doesn't address medieval and classical despotism - it's not like countries were getting more liberal before The Prince). But whilst e.g. Stalin, Mao read it, their countries had long trad of authoritarian rule, & also esp latter, own political theory. They changed property rights which M says 1 thing not to do.

Most interesting insight in these so far: The Prince as a work of dystopian literature - a forerunner of 1984 & BNW! Tying in with this, that M used same words as predecessors but changed their meaning/significance, what was bad is good.
Lots of Great Man stuff here about how NM chgd direction of W pol thought & turned classical advice (e.g. Seneca, De clementi) on its head.

His (wholesome middle-US) shock is 180 from his (cynical British) PhD supervisor): "For the twentieth century, the answer probably lies in the sheer modernity of expression. For a generation accustomed to the cynicism of dictators and presidents an excellent modern translation of The Prince reads as natural and obvious. While we might not wish to espouse Machiavelli's ideas overtly, we are not shocked by them either"

Following quote from p.64, Mackenney, Sixteenth Century Europe: Expansion and Conflict (1993)

Lecturer continues to sound truly horrified in a very wholesome American way by antics of the Borgias. A lot of this section is on what the individuals mentioned as examples in The Prince actually did. He is good at making things clear, and a lot of stuff seems more systematic than it did when I was at university.

I am getting frustrated with so much lay historical content that keeps explaining basic concepts and mindsets general to a time & place. But wld also like lectures with basic-ish factual content about its specific subject as means less note taking & as refresher of old uni courses etc. Though I suppose WL doesn't always do that - e.g. he doesn't explain how dire ppl would have found excommunication.