Total misunderstanding of Machiavelli

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) WP:NPOV means that we cannot present the "true" Machiavelli, as scholars dispute this. Your points about the Discourses are present, as are the reasons why not everyone finds them persuasive. Some people see a different significance to the fact that Machiavelli speaks of what is necessary rather than good, just as he never speaks of the soul. Machiavelli himself states (regarding Livy, and in the Discourses) that when someone omits something commonly thought to be important, it is a sign that he thinks it unimportant. We can't very well ignore the Prince (and the less republican statements of the Discourses) because it contradicts (some of) what is said in the Discourses. RJC Talk Contribs 14:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Naturally, and I wouldn't suggest omitting "The Prince", or the less republican statements of the Discourses, as they are important and necessary to understand Machiavelli. What I am saying is that "The Prince" gets much more focus than it should in drawing a conclusion about the nature of the man, given that he merely wrote it for a select few to read and it was never published in his lifetime as he never meant it to be. In the "Discourses", on the other hand, he does mention what is "good", rather than simply using the vague "virt", and he writes with more ideology. Besides, I am curious as to what he says in "The Prince" that contradicts "The Discourses", as "The Prince" is not much more than a guidebook to govern a principality effectively and a plea to unify Italy (one of the very few moments where his human side appears in the otherwise mechanical book). Tancrisism (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you take it up in an academic journal and convince the field. You are likely to meet stiff opposition, given the number of scholars who've studied the Discourses in great detail and come to the opposite conclusion. Until there is scholarly consensus, molding the article about what you feel is the correct interpretation would run afoul of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. As WP:V says, verifiability, not truth. RJC TalkContribs 14:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, I see what you are saying. I suppose I will have to do just that, then. Thanks for the suggestion. Tancrisism (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Layout revision
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) Yes, I think that popular culture is an issue that will not go away on this article, even though pop cultures references to NM are so far in spirit from the reality of the main subject. So a properly made section might be better than just having an eternal series of drive-by edits and reversions which we have had for some years.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

was he gay
on Showtime that appear to make him gay, I never heard this before. what is your view on this please? == == ( monkish)

redundant?
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. Niccol Machiavellis best-known book" could be changed to "The Prince, Niccol Machiavellis 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. Niccol Machiavellis 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 actionit 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 Idealismthus, 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 princes 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. Frankly, the above paragraphs are tendentious and only true if you ignore large parts of "The Prince" and/or decide arbitrarily that Machiavelli was lying in some parts of the Prince and telling the truth in others (the method used by Leo Strauss and his followers, who disdain to supply supporting evidence for their conclusions, since they do not believe in empiricism). Scholars have very differing interpretations of what Machiavelli meant and the article would be more acceptable if informed readers of the range of these differing interpretations instead of supplying its own. It is true that Machiavelli does claim to be describing "la verita' effettuale delle cose" the actual truth of things, but he himself did not identify himself as a "realist" writing against the "idealists". This is presentism -- the application of nineteenth and twentieth century terms to the past. In fact, Machiavelli makes it clear in a long prelude at the beginning that his advice in The Prince only applies to leaders of new principalities that have been seized illegally by strongmen who possess neither the "virtu" necessary to have a what we might call a strong public mandate (and the political skill to keep it) nor the legitimacy conferred by hereditary

succession. The leader or prince that Machiavelli is addressing (a weak and illegitimate i.e., non-hereditary one) must rely on fortune, but fortune will betray him in the end, as it did Cesare Borgia and as it does everyone. In the last chapter of the Prince, Machiavelli calls out for a leader (such as Moses) who does possess virtu (an actual constituency and the support of God) to unite Italy. Machiavelli wrote I Discorsi at the same time as The Prince and there is no necessary contradiction between the two works. The article's identification of "realism" with willingness to resort to cruel and evil actions is overdrawn. Aristotle had made clear in his Politics that a different set of ethics applies to leaders than to ordinary citizens; for example, the advice for Princes to appear to be liberal (generous) while in reality taking care that public resources are not endangered occurs in "Mirrors for Princes" written before Machiavelli.Mballen (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)173.56.200.209 (talk) One more thing, when I checked there are no wiki cross references for "political realism" and "idealism" so it would be best to either define/and or contextualize these terms (with citations) or leave them out.173.56.200.209 (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)My error -- there is a link to political realism in wiki173.56.200.209 (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Actually, I see that Political Realism redirects to Realism in International relations an article that calls Machiavelli, along with Sun Tzu and Tacitus an antecedent of Power Politics because in the Prince he allegedly "held that the sole aim of a prince (politician) [sic] was to seek power, regardless of religious or ethical considerations". Machiavelli does write about how a prince can maintain power in a new state, but he does not really address international power relations. IMO he could more accurately be called one of the founders of systematic political science along with Jean Bodin, the French theorist of absolute monarchy who was roughly contemporaneous with Machiavelli, who is credited with inventing the term.173.56.200.209 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC) It is not a question of any good result -- it must be a good result for very large numbers of people over a long period of time, and not for the short-term private good of the prince and his associates. The best known example is Machiavelli's treatment of the myth of the foundation of Rome during which Romulus murdered his brother Remus in order not to have to share power (The Discourses I:ix); as Edwin Curley writes: 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: 2001) 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)