[001]
TheJessterLeVar
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Should we really state that \
to:
Should we really state that \\\"it has been suggested that that book [ThePrince] was actually an elaborate parody, intended to illustrate just how bad of an idea a pure monarchy really is\\\"? This is a view that was largely held by 18th century Englightenment thinkers and is not particularly in vogue today. It does not really deserve any more mention than Hegel\\\'s view that Machiavelli was writing for a particular period of history (when a state has been overrun by and split apart by foreign powers) or Ernst Cassirer\\\'s that ThePrince was Machiavelli describing the way the world work in a manner that mirror\\\'s the way a scientist like Galileo or Newton described the way the world works (which is currently a rather popular view). There\\\'s also the view that ThePrince is a work whose theory can only be incorporated along with the theory present in the DiscoursesOnLivy.
Also, where does the impression that Machiavelli worked for/was TheConsigliere of Cesare Borgia come from? Almost the entirety of their time spent together was with Machiavelli as a foreign ambassador of Florence, not as a political advisor to Cesare. In fact, this article goes so far as to list Machiavelli\\\'s support of Borgia being an example of MyCountryRightOrWrong when in fact Machiavelli was a Florentine (not a Roman or citizen of the Papal States) and had a deep distrust (if not hatred) of the Papacy. Furthermore, I\\\'m not aware of any evidence that suggests that Soderini was incompetent and that Machiavelli was the man behind the throne.
TL;DR - the interpretation of ThePrince as a satire is over 200 years old and hasn\\\'t been popular since the early 20th century (if not longer) and more popular interpretations are that it\\\'s a scientific work describing politics as they are or as a fragment of a totality that includes the Discourses. Machiavelli neither worked with Cesare Borgia nor was the power behind the throne. Soderini was neither incompetent nor a puppet of Machiavelli\\\'s.
I\\\'d like some discussion on the matter before I begin rewriting the article.
Also, where does the impression that Machiavelli worked for/was TheConsigliere of Cesare Borgia come from? Almost the entirety of their time spent together was with Machiavelli as a foreign ambassador of Florence, not as a political advisor to Cesare. In fact, this article goes so far as to list Machiavelli\\\'s support of Borgia being an example of MyCountryRightOrWrong when in fact Machiavelli was a Florentine (not a Roman or citizen of the Papal States) and had a deep distrust (if not hatred) of the Papacy. Furthermore, I\\\'m not aware of any evidence that suggests that Soderini was incompetent and that Machiavelli was the man behind the throne.
TL;DR - the interpretation of ThePrince as a satire is over 200 years old and hasn\\\'t been popular since the early 20th century (if not longer) and more popular interpretations are that it\\\'s a scientific work describing politics as they are or as a fragment of a totality that includes the Discourses. Machiavelli neither worked with Cesare Borgia nor was the power behind the throne. Soderini was neither incompetent nor a puppet of Machiavelli\\\'s.
I\\\'d like some discussion on the matter before I begin rewriting the article.
