Yuratuhl wrote:
It's not satire. I also doubt Dagery has read it.
I have, actually. In fact, I've got an eBook of it that's almost always in reach, so to speak. Not exactly my cup of tea, though, as I've never been particularly interested in the theory of politics. After all, circumstances change, so what good is theoretical knowledge if it can't be universally applied?
So please, monsieur, don't automatically assume that your opponent is ignorant following a disagreement as minor as this. Differing views --- particularly when concerned with a work that's nearly 500 years old --- shouldn't call for the accusation that either side is less learned than the other.
Aestu wrote:
Dagery wrote:
I'd just like to note that Il Principe was written with the intent of satirizing the sometimes tyrannical Medici rule of the time, and thus shouldn't be taken as seriously as some of the other listed works. Machiavelli, after all, favored a republic, but was only (legally) allowed to write what favored the common Italian despot.
That sounds to me like one of those "new" revisionist interpretations which are really just some hack's way of getting attention by flying in the face of the obvious, and it's why contemporary historical writing is mostly trash.
Machiavelli obviously believed in effective government that served the needs of the people, which is the point of a republic, but he didn't believe in populist government, amongst other reasons because he had a realistic understanding of human nature as it concerned his time and place.
The Prince is very obviously not a satire - a critique is not the same as a satire. Enough of it is controversial yet diplomatic that it is obvious that Machiavelli is speaking frankly yet warily. He certainly didn't make his thesis in bad faith just so he could prevaricate on the particulars.
But is the aim of satire not to critique?
After deposing Machiavelli of his position as the commander of the Florentine militia, the Medici family had him locked up and tortured. A man cornered and tortured by a despotic, well-connected family is
not likely to willfully praise that family's actions. This we can agree on, no? But he needed to regain his social standing, and in order to do that he had to lick the boot that had been crushing his windpipe a short while before. And so he wrote
The Prince, which was held in high regard by the Medici as apparently championing their re-acquisition of power, and both sides won --- Machiavelli his life and the Medici further political advantage.
It's clear that Machiavelli was disdainful towards monarchical Medici rule and instead supported the concept of a republic, however far from populist it may have been in theory. So how could one possibly argue that he was supportive of those who nearly killed him? My original point was that Machiavelli wrote it as an intentional antithesis to what was actually desired by Florentine republicans at the time in an effort to simultaneously criticize and save face with the Medici.
