This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This entire article discusses Machiavelli with an acceptance of "The Prince" as his most important work and most influential work. However, the work was not the most important to Machiavelli himself, and in it he says nothing about what is actually "good" (this word is avoided completely, last I checked), only what is necessary and favorable to keep a principality working. The Prince itself was never meant to be published (it was published 4 years after he died); rather, he created and distributed it to some higher-ups in Florence while he was exiled as a sort of plea to be able to return.
Machiavelli should be remembered more for his "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Levy", where he states things such as "The Masses are Wiser and More Constant Than a Prince" (Capitalised because it's a chapter title), and that the ideal republic is actually a combination of an aristocracy, a democracy, and a principality; this is likely where Adams gained his admiration for the Italian. In this work, by the way, he also said that principalities are actually all temporary and cannot last permanently due to the fickle nature of individual man - countries require some form of democracy in order to create a lasting, stable nation, in Machiavelli's mind. And, given that this was completed in 1518, long before the advent of Montesquieu, Rousseau, Locke, or Hobbes, and only one year after Luther's "Theses", is very significant.
Thus, it is in my strong opinion that this article is confused and unfair in its judgment of Machiavelli as either "evil" or purely a "political realist". If one erases everything else he wrote and did to the Prince and perhaps the "Art of War", then perhaps that is true, but otherwise it cannot be. Tancrisism ( talk) 07:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is in need of a few minor layout changes. as i am unfamiliar with the coding, perhaps someone would like to apply these. Zarzhu ( talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, why "is" he a philosopher? I'm pretty sure he's dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.207.13 ( talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Changed to "was" (by somebody else). Re: layout change. Perhaps In popular culture heading is in order? Move some stuff there to simplify. E.g.: the 'Modern Video Gaming' entry seems rather stub-ish, and/or inconsequential. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 ( talk) 21:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
And the painting in the middle of the page with Cesare Borgia and Machiavelli is NOT a painting of Cesare Borgia and Machiavelli. It's another group of men entirely. Honestly, do you think a man who is a duke, warlord, and son of a pope is going to allow himself to be painted off in the wings while an office worker of common birth takes center stage?
209.134.68.83 ( talk) 05:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Monlette
on Showtime that appear to make him gay, I never heard this before. what is your view on this please?
== == ( monkish)
He was not gay. He was married with many children, and many mistresses on the side. He was, however, teased about being gay by his coworkers. This was just horseplay. The sort of thing that still goes on in office environments.
209.134.68.83 ( talk) 05:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Monlette
Hmmm... He may have been, but there is no evidence at this time to suggest this. Tubacca555 ( talk) 21:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Do we need the article to say "The Prince's contribution to the history of political thought is the fundamental break between political Realism and political Idealism." twice within a couple lines? MephYazata ( talk) 01:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
From the two lines I think the best one to leave in is the second instance. The first line "The Prince's contribution to the history of political thought is the fundamental break between political Realism and political Idealism. Niccolò Machiavelli’s best-known book" could be changed to "The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli’s best-known book, ...". This leaves the second sentence of the paragraph mostly intact and in the point about realism and idealism is not lost, simply a few lines later. MephYazata ( talk) 01:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The Prince's contribution to the history of political thought is the fundamental break between political Realism and political Idealism. Niccolò Machiavelli’s best-known book exposits and describes the arts with which a ruling prince can maintain control of his realm. It concentrates on the "new prince", under the presumption that a hereditary prince has an easier task in ruling, since the people are accustomed to him. To retain power, the hereditary prince must carefully maintain the socio-political institutions to which the people are accustomed; whereas a new prince has the more difficult task in ruling, since he must first stabilize his new-found power in order to build an enduring political structure. That requires the prince being a public figure above reproach, whilst privately acting amorally to achieve State goals. The examples are those princes who most successfully obtain and maintain power, drawn from his observations as a Florentine diplomat, and his ancient history readings; thus, the Latin phrases and Classic examples.
The Prince does not dismiss morality, instead, it politically defines “Morality”—as in the criteria for acceptable cruel action—it must be decisive: swift, effective, and short-lived. Machiavelli is aware of the irony of good results coming from evil actions; notwithstanding some mitigating themes, the Catholic Church proscribed The Prince, registering it to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, moreover, the Humanists also viewed the book negatively, among them, Erasmus of Rotterdam. As a treatise, its primary intellectual contribution to the history of political thought is the fundamental break between political Realism and political Idealism—thus, The Prince is a manual to acquiring and keeping political power. In contrast with Plato and Aristotle, a Classical ideal society is not the aim of the prince’s will to power. As a political scientist, Machiavelli emphasises necessary, methodical exercise of brute force punishment-and-reward (patronage, clientelism, et cetera) to preserve the status quo.
The question of Machiavelli's amoralism is often framed in terms of the question whether the end justifies the means. We might better ask, I think, whether there are certain ends (such as the establishment or preservation of a political community) so good that they justify the use of any means whatever. The most instructive passage I find on this occurs in Machiavelli's discussion of Romulus's murder of Remus, where his consequentialism falls somewhere in between the extreme individualism of the egoist and the extreme universalism of the utilitarian:
A prudent founder of a republic, one whose intention is to govern for the common good, and not in his own interest, not for his heirs, but for the sake of the fatherland, should try to have the authority all to himself; nor will a wise mind ever reproach anyone for some extraordinary action performed in order to found a kingdom or institute a republic. It is, indeed, fitting that while the action accuses him, the result excuses him; and when the result is good, as it was with Romulus, it will always excuse him; for one should reproach a man who is violent in order to destroy, not one who is violent in order to mend things. (The Discourses I.ix in Machiavelli 1979: 200—1)
In this passage Machiavelli does concede that in some sense an act like that of Romulus is reprehensible; the fact that it leads to a good result does not justify the action, it excuses it. .... [And] It is not just any good result which will "excuse" an action of this character. It takes a very significant result, affecting a large number of people, not merely the agent and those who are close to him. As [Peter] Bondanella and [Mark] Musa point out, the result in this case was "the establishment of the most durable and powerful republican government in human history" (Machiavelli 1979: 22, editors' introduction). It may be that "patriotism, as Machiavelli understood it, is collective selfishness,"35 but Machiavelli's "patriotic consequentialism," as I am inclined to call it, falls short of saying that what-ever you can do, you may do. What it does hold is that a ruler is to be praised, not blamed, even though he does things which might other-wise be highly reprehensible, provided he acts with a prudent regard for the well-being of the community he is ruling. Edwin Curley, "Kissinger, Spinoza, and Genghis Khan" in the Cambridge Companion to Spinoza. Mballen ( talk) 05:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone help and translate the names of Machiavelli's works into English for this navigation box? It's a bit of an ugly nav box at the moment... Francium12 ( talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing 2pac from the "influenced" list. I don't think I should have to explain why, as it seems pretty obvious that he doesn't belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.109.49 ( talk) 02:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
tupac could be considered a philosopher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.154.5 ( talk) 03:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Quite obviously a reference to Assassin's Creed II.-- CombustionMan1 ( talk) 07:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I recently read an article explaining the theory that 'The Prince' may have been intended as satire. Just wondered if anybody had any more information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davu.leon ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
When a scholarly article in a major academic journal focuses on how Machiavelli is used today by a prominent intellectual, that is worthy of attention in this article. The article reports that Ledeen was working to promote unity in the conservative coalition of Republicans (George Bush reelection in 2004), neoconservatives (around Cheney), and the religious right, and Ledeen argued that following Machiavelli guidelines would get the coalition to work. Nothing was secret--Ledeen was a regular columnist at National Review explaining the goals. It is POV to erase this section. Rjensen ( talk) 15:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it is correct to use either the ousting of or the ouster of... Modernist ( talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: There are 2 different photos of Macchiavelli in Wiki: one (better quality) is already linked to this article ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Macchiavelli01.jpg), and another one is I suspect from Italian article, and it's blurred. I guess it would be good to link the non-blurred photo also to the Italian article or to all the places that are currently connected to the blurred photo ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Firenze-Statua_di_macchiavelli.jpg). Hope that my comment is useful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.244.23 ( talk) 21:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The above words appear right at the top. I have sympathy for them, but really I wonder if this is how NM himself would say it. And also I wonder if there is really a source for such a description? -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The above words appear in the "Life" section followed by an extended quote. But there is no citation given for an secondary commentator source which actually identifies these words as "the unifying theme" and I am confident Machiavelli himself never says anything so clear? If we are picking our own unifying themes, here on Wikipedia, then maybe we should discuss it a bit to make sure we get it right. Anyone have any other proposals? Ideally, does anyone have a secondary source which gives us a unifying theme? I suspect that to do Machiavelli credit it is going to have to be more than one theme. BTW, I've been working on The Prince and there is some discussion of what you could call unifying themes there also now, but with more sourcing. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, concerning making concrete proposals, if you are happy with your own ideas I see no reason not to be bold and just put your version in. If others do not like it we can say so of course. What you describe above certainly does not sound like it would worsen the article. If you think it will be more controversial then you could also just put a draft here on the talk page? Sorry I have not had time to do so myself right now.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Have been flicking through various commentaries. The wordings of the Prefaces look similar but that they mean the same thing is apparently something only Strauss and those who to some extent follow him accept as being critically important. It is especially difficult to accept his assertion that Machiavelli is claiming that the books are both about everything. It requires quite a few assumptions which are not in the text. It is in any case not un-controversial. A relatively recent book which tries to be sympathetic to many different commentators is Markus Fischer "Well-ordered License". It makes various cases of its own but also reviews the literature and makes the point that there is very little agreement on the common theme of the Prince and the Discourses. Some fairly well known commentators even seem to disagree that there is a consistency.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Update. Have replaced the quote with something more secondary but hope to do better. I am thinking that this remark should be replaced by a section especially concerning Machiavelli's common themes, influences, and innovations. I can see that the " Niccolò Machiavelli#Contributions to political philosophy section might eventually have been aimed at something like this but to me it seems to be in an un-finished state and so in order to only do edits which improve the article I'll try to develop a new section and then slowly merge in good material from that older one.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Update. Have start with the above and am starting to see that it will make sense to change that last section but not remove it. I think it can eventually be more focused upon the aftermathe of Machiavelli, while discussion about his common themes can be moved up to the section I have now created above the "Works" section. I can see this last section needs a fair bit of improvement.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I added a {{ dubious}} tag to the statement in the Machiavellianism section that it is generally agreed that Machiavelli favored a democratic or republican form of government. While some scholars have said this, I do not think we can say that it was generally agreed. The statement suggests that Machiavelli would approve of governments that are republican and disapprove of those that are not, which is very different from the judgment that republics are nice when you can have them but non-republican forms have their use and can be justified just the same. There is not generally agreement on this point. RJC Talk Contribs 13:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that the sources are in agreement that "Old Nick" as a name for the Devil refers to Machiavelli. Markus Fischer is a political scientist, and so not the best source for etymology. I don't have access to the OED from home, but this site says that it denies that a convincing explanation can be had, although it notes the theory about Machiavelli. The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes the theory, but doesn't state it with certainty or in its own name: "it has been even said that "Old Nick"" comes from Machiavelli. This site also says that no convincing explanation has been given, although again mentioning the Machiavelli theory. Oddly enough, I haven't found any good source that derived it from the German practice of calling the Devil "Nickel," short for "Nicolaus;" this wouldn't really tie it to Machiavelli, since they also call the Devil "Hans," "Kunz" and other nicknames ( Grimms Deutsches Wörterbuch, Nickel 1c). In any event, I don't think the sources reliable for etymology are in agreement that Machiavelli gave us a name for the Devil. RJC Talk Contribs 16:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
People should nuance this section more. THe part that says the end justifies the means mentions a debate/discussion about whether Machiavelli meant precisely that. Only Strauss is given (from 1958!), please give some more recent authors on this subject. Personally, I think Machiavelli only meant that a ruler should adapt to the situation, never losing his goals out of sight. So a ruler should/could be amoral, not necessarily immoral. The phrase the end justifies the means implies immorality nowadays, especially in this wikipedia section. 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 08:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the section only mentions Strauss. I reckon you have read a lot into authors on this subject, couldn't you provide some of the articles that support or not Strauss (what is the English for not supporting?)? Putting in some opinions of others (whether they support Strauss or not) may take away the impression in that section that the writer of this section has read only one vision and is not supported by others. Or not? I believe you when you say it is not necessary, but to me earlier today it seemed like the opinion of one person and as a consequence of the person who wrote the section. 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 18:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
the article lists Moses, Romulus, Cyrus the Great, and Theseus as prophets. only Moses was a prophet, what they all have in common is that they are founders. 71.194.44.209 ( talk) 22:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I note the almost daily attempts to add jarring sentences about Tupac and Assassins Creed, and so I wonder if it is advisable to add something like a paragraph of the type "Machiavelli's name an reputation continue to be a theme found in popular culture, for example...". In other words, a properly constructed comment, written in a way which does not overstate the importance of modern pop culture, that might at least be worth keeping, thus hopefully avoiding the constant need to revert. Comments welcome.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The portrait, which pretty much everyone accepts as accurate, could not have been painted during Machiavelli's lifetime because the artist, Santi di Tito, was born 9 years after Machiavelli's death. Should there be some mention of this and why the portrait may be an accurate depiction? Does anyone know of any additional source material which di Tito might have worked from?
The same situation is applicable to the statue by Lorenzo Bartolini, who was born 250 years after Machiavelli died. BenM ( talk) 15:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I tried sourcing the issue on the main page and someone named "Modernist" reversed it, whoever that is! There is definitely an issue here that needs to be resolved. Mr. Modernist, explain this to me since you felt it necessary to remove my question of it:
Machiavelli Death: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=when+did+machiavelli+die%3F Santi di Tito Birth: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=when+was+santi+di+tito+born%3F
I'm not disputing the fact that the man painted this portrait. The question that needs to be addressed is the the time gap. Did he paint him from another painting? Maybe an etching? Santi di Tito certainly was not alive when Machiavelli was so the painting could not have been a "live" presentation. What's the answer? And why is it not referenced on this page? -- Rclosser ( talk) 04:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not very good with Wikipedia, but the beginning of the description of Machiavelli's life has clearly been edited as a joke... Unless he was really born in Florence, America! Anyway, if someone more wiki-savvy than I could fix this, it would be greatly appreciated. 99.133.148.103 ( talk) 19:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a an excerpt from The Prince: "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both." that I heard sampled in twice in dialogue between the Red Queen and the Knave of Hearts in Tim Burton's rendition of 'Alice in Wonderland' [1]. If the author cares to look into it or reference to it in either this page or 'The Prince' page [2]; I just saw Messr Machiavelli's excerpt for the first time in passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.183.58 ( talk) 07:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
See this reverted revert by User:Jodon1971. Do editors familiar with Machiavelli believe that it is OR or editorializing to refer to Machiavelli's use of Cesare Borgia as an exemplary prince as notorious? Or is this just the type of thing that sources on this particular subject say? (I note this is a text for a picture, so normally one should look at the article body for the sourcing. And I believe the matter is discussed there.)-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 21:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Takin into account syntactic gemination in Standard Italian, the IPA transcription of Machiavelli's name really should be [nikkoˈlɔ mmakjaˈvɛlli] ([nik.ko.ˈlɔ m.ma.kja.ˈvɛl.li] if you want the syllables). Also, there's no need for the square brackets, as the phonemic description is identical to the phonetic, so perhaps dashes would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.97.90 ( talk) 12:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
If someone more savvy than I would like to fix it, the last sentence reads "He was a pimp, player, and swagga dawg." Tupac Shakur, your legacy is intact.
70.209.101.190 ( talk) 17:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Header says he was historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer
Should it not be made clear that he is (nowadays) mainly known as a philosopher? Most likely, all philosophians are also writers, how else their philosophical ideas would've been known?
212.50.203.198 (
talk) 17:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what the etiquette is regarding making edits before discussing them here or whatever, but I did think it was worthwhile to note that (in my personal opinion, at least) the first sentence under 'The Prince' is extremely hard to understand upon first reading and I highly doubt it is grammatically correct. Mostly due to the arrangement of the different clauses and the use of commas. Again, I don't know if there's proper editing etiquette or authority but someone should probably take a look at that. -- Vamanospests ( talk) 03:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Is the term 'target audience' appropriate? That would suggest that a hereditary prince is whom he intended to book to be read by.-- Vamanospests ( talk) 20:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Concerning this edit, the edit summary is:
That was a partial revert of my prior edit, which had this edit summary:
The text which has been re-added is:
My concern is as follows:
I do not think this reflects a broad reading of the wide variety of opinions on this subject. As mentioned, our article body, and better still our Prince article, go into this better. Clearly Machiavelli was criticized this way by people who were opposed to his readership. His readership did not say much about why they read him, but by the time we reach the Enlightenment we see them coming into public and quite consistently describing him as a republican and as a realistic historian not enslaved to old traditions. This raises another issue. The paragraph I adjusted places a lot of importance upon the question of whether he was a Republican, which is indeed notable and interesting to our readership here in Wikipedia in the 21st century, as it was to the 18th century Enlightenment folk we cite. But if we are talking about how Machiavelli was read in the first 2 centuries after the publication of the Prince, then this interesting fact (for modern readers) should not be mixed in too quickly and easily with comments about his "readership" generally. Obviously it was Machiavelli's approach to realism, his criticism of idealism, that was one of the most important things about him for his readership in all centuries. The debate about democracies was not yet on everyone's mind, at least outside of Italy, for some centuries. It arguably also was not at the core of Machiavelli's own priorities. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 15:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)