Machiavelli's The Prince

[marjoramblues]

Why should we bother reading this today?

Nigel Warburton poses this question in Ch1 of 'Reading political philosophy - Machiavelli to Mill'. The latter I purchased because I thought I should know more about such issues, not because I am an enthusiastic reader of politics. It remained at barge-pole length until this 'reach', inspired by some PN contributors.

So, with no great confidence in my abilities to engage with 'The Prince', I was hoping that if I started this thread and worked my way through Ch1 - then some might wish to join in and possibly clarify my thoughts/understanding?

There are 4 readings and various activities/discussions which might help. The readings are:
1. 'The Adviser to Princes' by Quentin Skinner
2. 'Machiavelli's Political Philosophy in The Prince' by Maureen Ramsey
3. 'The Originality of Machiavelli' by Isaiah Berlin
4. 'Dirty Hands' by C.A.J. Cody

At the end of the chapter, I should apparently have a better appreciation of the continuing relevance to political philosophy of some of the central issues raised by Machiavelli, particularly that of 'dirty hands' in politics; and a good critical understanding of Machiavelli's position on virtu, cruelty, human nature, honesty and deceit, and fortune.

[I hope this is the best place for such a discussion - if not, then mods feel free to move it...]

[marjoramblues]

I don't have a physical copy of 'The Prince' but found this ebook:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm

Hoping it will be fine...

[marjoramblues]

OK, have read pp1-6 of Ch1 - the intro and historical circumstances surrounding Machiavelli when he wrote The Prince.

Most will be able to find this out using wiki, so I won't go into details. Enough to say I'm impressed with this person whose name is still synonymous with evil doings.

What impressed me ?
1. After 15yrs as an important statesman in the republic of Florence, his fortune changed when it became an oligarchy ruled by the Medici. Viewed as a conspirator, he was imprisoned and tortured; he survived this without admitting guilt. Warburton explains the method of the 'strappado' - torture by sudden drop from his suspension by a rope tied to his wrists, hands behind back. So, physically and mentally strong.

2. Released and banned from Florence and politics, he could have accepted an easier way of life in the countryside. But no, he is persistent in his desire to return - in addition to the Prince, he wrote The Discourses, The Art of War, Mandragola,and the History of Florence.

3. The letter to his friend Francesco Vettori in which he talks about conversing with the ancient greats. For Machiavelli, they were as relevant to his present, as ways of understanding humanity and political power. In the evenings he would take off his muddy clothes and enter the ancient courts: '...here I am not ashamed to speak with them, and to ask them about the reasons for their actions...for four hours I feel no affliction...and because Dante says that there can be no knowledge without retaining what one has learned, I have noted what I have gained...and have composed a little work De principatibus...discussing what is a principality, of what kinds they are, how they are acquired, how they are held, why they are lost' (p3).

Warburton warns that reading the Prince can be confusing, despite its clarity of prose - the philosophical content is implied rather than made explicit. We need to interpret the significance of M's examples and maxims. However, there are useful subheadings.

The first activity is to read the Prince from start to finish without worrying about the detail. Just need to get an overall feel for the book, M's way of thinking and to 'catch' any point he is making.

Later...

[marjoramblues]

Not sure that reading a philo ebook is for me, so the Prince may have to wait until I can get a hold of a solidly satisfactory or satisfactorily solid version. Any recommendations would be welcome - but thinking I should go with the 1984 edition, ed P. Bondanella, OUP as referenced. What do you think ?

I really want to gain my own first impressions of The Prince. However, I have just noticed that the Guardian have a rather fascinating on-line series under 'Comment is free' called 'How to believe' and guess who's currently featuring ?
The Prince, part 8: a lingering love of justice. After a quick perusal of the comments, I was taken with one criticism: 'What Machiavelli doesn't get into...is the morality of the common man and how he should respond to the Prince...people are treated as a single personality...' AND '...modern political leaders are not Princes. They are the agents of the Prince, and have to cosy up to the Prince to find out what he wants them to say and do' (Bochi, 16th May 2012).

Also, Glyn Hughes has down-sized the Prince so that you can read it in about 50 minutes - again on-line -see 'Squashed Philosophers'.

That's all for now.

[Thundril]

I picked up a copy of The Prince an couple of years ago, and have just dug it out on your prompting. Will read through it and join your conversation when my memory has been refreshed.

[marjoramblues]

I picked up a copy of The Prince an couple of years ago, and have just dug it out on your prompting. Will read through it and join your conversation when my memory has been refreshed.

Thanks, Thundril, I look forward to our joining.

[marjoramblues]

Have ordered a copy of The Prince - hopefully it will arrive soon...

In the meantime, I've skimmed over Part 2 (Guardian 'Comments' series ) of Machiavelli's Prince: Humanism and the lessons of history. Apparently, the Prince follows humanism when it 'commends virtuous rulers like Marcus Aurelius, but subverts it by praising tyrants for their cruelty.'

I don't know much about humanism - thought it was a new kid on the block, a soft branch of atheism ?
So, if anyone has any great insight into humanism - how it might differ from that of bygone years - and if they think that Machiavelli might have been a humanist, then I'd love to hear more...

Also, is the Prince for real ? I've read something about it being of the 'mirror for princes' genre - ? a self-help book for would-be tyrants. However, some suggest that it is a satirical work. Perhaps both. Who knows for sure - only Machiavelli ?

One 'Comments' poster - looking a lot like Hume - recommends Quentin Skinner's Very Short Introduction - which I believe is replicated, or summarized, in a 'Philosophy Bites' podcast.

So there ya' go. Any thoughts welcome.

[chaz wyman]

Seems an odd choice to buy a hardcopy, when you can get a copy that you can use a search function with


http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1232


http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?op ... &title=775

[marjoramblues]

Yes, Chaz, and it seems to get stanger and stranger by the day - to buy a real book. I look at others on my shelves, sitting there, yellowing.

Thanks for the links, especially the libertyfund one which offers another translation and also the Discourses. The latter apparently balances things out by discussing republicanism as the best form of government. Perhaps this needs to be read in tandem, what do you think ? It certainly seems to give rise to the idea that Machiavelli is inconsistent - who is he really siding with, and why ? The original spin doctor.

For now, I want to follow the Prince, using Warburton's (W) systematic guidance as per Ch1 of 'Reading Political Philosophy' (RPP). So, me and my 3 Princes, and whoever else wants to join in...

If we wanted to 'search' for a concept, then W mentions the pivotal 'virtu' (I don't know how to add the accent to the 'u' ).
Machiavelli means this as 'prowess' ( strength and ability ) rather than 'virtue' in the Christian moral sense of compassion and honesty. M sets up a comparison between 2 princes ( or should I say tyrants ?) Cesare Borgia, from recent history, and Agathocles, from ancient history. ( in chapters VII and VII, pp 20-31)

The activity (p7) - is to consider the differences in M's approval ratings for each; he weighs up the level and type of cruelty involved. One of the questions: What is the difference between cruelty well-used and cruelty badly-used according to Machiavelli ?

I like the way W uses questions, followed by a 'discussion', really an 'answer' of about 2 sentences. The idea is to try and answer the Q's first for yourself - be active in thinking, rather than passive.

At some point, I will have to attack the Quentin Skinner Reading 'The Adviser to Princes' (pp24-32),which 'explains the classical and contemporary influences...' - and will perhaps help us see how the book would have been 'understood' at the time.

[chaz wyman]

Yes, Chaz, and it seems to get stanger and stranger by the day - to buy a real book. I look at others on my shelves, sitting there, yellowing.

Thanks for the links, especially the libertyfund one which offers another translation and also the Discourses.

I just bought a Kindle this week, so I am guilt as hell.

The latter apparently balances things out by discussing republicanism as the best form of government. Perhaps this needs to be read in tandem, what do you think ? It certainly seems to give rise to the idea that Machiavelli is inconsistent - who is he really siding with, and why ? The original spin doctor.

I'd agree that 'republicanism' is the best only in one fact - that it does without a monarchy. The rest of the stuff is a disgrace. I do not think you should have to join up to get citizen rights - which is a defining attribute of a republic.

For now, I want to follow the Prince, using Warburton's (W) systematic guidance as per Ch1 of 'Reading Political Philosophy' (RPP). So, me and my 3 Princes, and whoever else wants to join in...

If we wanted to 'search' for a concept, then W mentions the pivotal 'virtu' (I don't know how to add the accent to the 'u' ).
Machiavelli means this as 'prowess' ( strength and ability ) rather than 'virtue' in the Christian moral sense of compassion and honesty. M sets up a comparison between 2 princes ( or should I say tyrants ?) Cesare Borgia, from recent history, and Agathocles, from ancient history. ( in chapters VII and VII, pp 20-31)

The activity (p7) - is to consider the differences in M's approval ratings for each; he weighs up the level and type of cruelty involved. One of the questions: What is the difference between cruelty well-used and cruelty badly-used according to Machiavelli ?

I like the way W uses questions, followed by a 'discussion', really an 'answer' of about 2 sentences. The idea is to try and answer the Q's first for yourself - be active in thinking, rather than passive.

At some point, I will have to attack the Quentin Skinner Reading 'The Adviser to Princes' (pp24-32),which 'explains the classical and contemporary influences...' - and will perhaps help us see how the book would have been 'understood' at the time.

[Wootah]

I am too ignorant to verify this :

http://www.cracked.com/article_18787_6- ... wrong.html

Search that link for Machiavelli.

[marjoramblues]

To Chaz: I have a Kindle but haven't quite taken to it, yet...

Re your 'I'd agree that 'republicanism' is the best only in one fact - that it does without a monarchy. The rest of the stuff is a disgrace. I do not think you should have to join up to get citizen rights - which is a defining attribute of a republic' -

This didn't really answer the question re whether it might be an idea to read the Prince and The Discourses in tandem. Nor did it address Machiavelli's position; this is the one I'm interested to explore.

However, I do appreciate you raising the issue of what exactly is meant by 'republicanism' - how is it defined in The Prince...

[marjoramblues]

Wootah : I am too ignorant to verify this :
http://www.cracked.com/article_18787_6- ... wrong.html
Search that link for Machiavelli.

Hello Wootah.

What do you mean by being too ignorant ?
About links to 'stuff' - I don't always have the time or patience to click - especially if there is no accompanying dialogue, or even a few words to describe the content.

So, what led you to that site, and why did you think it interesting ?
BTW - I did click on but got nowhere fast...

[ Edit: my copy of the link hasn't worked, but the original did ]

[Wootah]

What I mean is I haven't read the prince or know his history - I am ignorant of the details.

However I know what we all know - Machiavelli is some dude who wrote something awful but true about politics. And that link is actually implying that he wrote it out of sarcasm.

[chaz wyman]

What I mean is I haven't read the prince or know his history - I am ignorant of the details.

However I know what we all know - Machiavelli is some dude who wrote something awful but true about politics. And that link is actually implying that he wrote it out of sarcasm.

It is likely that wrote it with some irony, where the idea of sarcasm comes from is puzzling.


There is nothing about his words that necessarily tells us what he thinks about the real politiique of his time; whether or not he approved; whether or not he thought things could be better, or different. His work is a practical handbook for those that, finding themselves in that situation, are well advised to heed. He is not promoting a political theory, but telling it like it is.