Machiavelli's The Prince

[chaz wyman]

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...

Obviously the concept changes over time. We should not look to the modern republican party to uncover its early-modern definition, though we would do well to be warned that underlying today's republican party there still exists the notion of the early republic ready to re-emerge and disenfranchise those that have not 'contributed' enough in their eyes.
You might be aware, for example, of the author of Starship Trooper, Robert Heinlein, in which the original qualification for citizenship is restored in the future. His viewpoint is not uncommon.

[marjoramblues]

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.

Well, neither have I read the Prince or know the history behind it - that's what I'm trying to understand. And also why I wondered what led you to that particular site, and not any others; were you looking for something to uphold your belief that M is a nasty, sarcastic dude ? You see, I don't know that 'we all know' very much about Machiavelli, and his writings.

Right now, my 'feeling' not based on anything much, only what I've read so far, is that it would be mighty stoopid of M to offer up anything sarcastic, or even slightly ironic to any Medici Prince. I reckon both parties were more than a little astute and so - I think that the Prince was more of a vanity project by M, more about his need to impress and step back into the world of politics. Not sure...need to read more...

[marjoramblues]

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

Chaz: Obviously the concept changes over time. We should not look to the modern republican party to uncover its early-modern definition, though we would do well to be warned that underlying today's republican party there still exists the notion of the early republic ready to re-emerge and disenfranchise those that have not 'contributed' enough in their eyes.
You might be aware, for example, of the author of Starship Trooper, Robert Heinlein, in which the original qualification for citizenship is restored in the future. His viewpoint is not uncommon.

M: The Glossary at the end of Ch1 defines republicanism as:
the view that the best form of government is one in which the people have a decisive say in running the state, or at least in who runs the state ( RPP, p21)

No, I'm not aware of Heinlein or the original qualification for citizenship; however, thanks for making me aware of this issue. I will be on the look-out...

[chaz wyman]

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

Chaz: Obviously the concept changes over time. We should not look to the modern republican party to uncover its early-modern definition, though we would do well to be warned that underlying today's republican party there still exists the notion of the early republic ready to re-emerge and disenfranchise those that have not 'contributed' enough in their eyes.
You might be aware, for example, of the author of Starship Trooper, Robert Heinlein, in which the original qualification for citizenship is restored in the future. His viewpoint is not uncommon.

M: The Glossary at the end of Ch1 defines republicanism as:
the view that the best form of government is one in which the people have a decisive say in running the state, or at least in who runs the state ( RPP, p21)

Seems a poor definition. That would equally apply to democracy. It only begs the question why have the word Republic at all?

No, I'm not aware of Heinlein or the original qualification for citizenship; however, thanks for making me aware of this issue. I will be on the look-out...

[marjoramblues]

The definition is a basic one, I agree. I will have to read around this much more than I thought I would have to.
A time-travel machine would come in very handy - to revisit the Italian scene, stroll with Machiavelli in his garden...

[chaz wyman]

The definition is a basic one, I agree. I will have to read around this much more than I thought I would have to.
A time-travel machine would come in very handy - to revisit the Italian scene, stroll with Machiavelli in his garden...

The place to start os Rome at a time when the people took over and deposed King Tarquin. Maintaining the republic was the challenge of succeeding generations until that time when Caesar and his successor Augustus ended it for all time.

There is also the monumental work The Republic by Plato which has influenced the notion.

The Early modern version is more likely to say something about active citizenship - a citizenship reserved for those who can demonstrate either wealth or a duty to the government. Restricted access to citizenship distinguishes it from democracy.

Above all this there is the definitive:: a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president".

[marjoramblues]

Thank for the suggestions, Chaz.
I've just picked up some helpful entries in the on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) related to:
republicanism > classical republicanism > civic republicanism > civic humanism.

Also - have read the Intro to Bondanella's translation of the Prince - xxxix pages long.
Skimmed over the first XV Chapters with explanatory notes - looking forward to reading the remainder. What's not to like about Chs entitled ' Of Generosity and Miserliness' - 'How a Prince should keep his word' -'Of Fortune's power in human affairs and how she can be resisted' ....

But for now, I'm having a little break from posting. I hope others feel like joining in...whenever...
Could develop into a sexy debate - what's with resisting Lady Fortuna ?