Before I embark on reading the Prince /his/, I have one question. Was it written as a literal guidebook to being a good but amoral politician? Or was a scathing work of satire criticizing the Italian families who jailed Machiavelli as lacking the essence of humanity?
Machiavelli wrote the book so someone (he might have had someone particular in mind, I forget) would use the advice to unite Italy under one rule.
There are literal critiques of princes contemporaneous to Macievelli.
That's pretty much all you need to know.
>>464498
It's serious, all scholarship agrees it's serious, it only makes sense as a serious work, and the arguments that it's satire depend on some of the weakest arguments ever.
Here are the arguments in a nutshell:
>Machiavelli was a republican!
He addresses this at the beginning of the Prince. Ideally, he wanted Italy to be a republic. But you can't have a republic with Spanish warlords rampaging through Italy.
>Machiavelli was lying to the Medicis so they would follow his principles and die and he would get revenge.
IDK how retarded you can be, Machiavelli's personal notes confirm that he hated being a nobody and nothing suggest he wanted revenge on the Medicis. The most reasonable thing to believe, based on actual historical evidence, is that he preferred being in political power with someone he didn't like than a banished nobody.
>Machiavelli was revealing the true nature of political leaders, but didn't really advocate it!
At this point you're just choosing an exegetical method that defies all concrete methodology and relies on reinterpreting the text entirely.
>>464514
>Is the plural of "princes" a typo anon?
No. Machievelli literally critiques a number of princes.
>Kinda fucks up your message.
What?
>>464520
Your sentence sounds like there were literal critiques of princes living at the same time as Machiavelli, as if somebody else wrote them.
>>464525
>Your sentence sounds like there were literal critiques of princes living at the same time as Machiavelli
Because there were literal critiques of princes living in the same time as Machievelli.
>as if somebody else wrote them.
What?
>There are literal critiques of princes contemporaneous to Machiavelli [IN THE PRINCE].
Why would I talk about critiques not within or pertaining to The Prince in a thread about The Prince?
Are you retarded m8?
>>464498
>Is the Prince Literal or Satirical?
Texts don't contain their readings!
>>464556
Some readings are not as convincing as others for good reasons.
Philosophical quips are not satisfactory answers.
Be practical.
>>464498
Only dipshits argue that Machiavelli wrote satire.
Some of his advice seems radical or unsound, but the overwhelming majority of his work has a great deal of logical justification.
Just like you can pick one or two goofy quotes out of context from Nietsche you can pick a couple of silly things that Machiavelli said.
>>464556
Some readings have actual historical evidence to support them, and some have just pure speculation.
The satirical reading is pure speculation.
>>464534
>There are literal critiques of princes contemporaneous to Macievelli.
The problem anon is that you typed -there- and not -they're-
>>464561
>Some readings are not as convincing as others for good reasons.
True. But OPs who post facetious false dichotomies deserve quips.
Be serious.
>>464570
I'd suggest the satirical reading is fallacious because it relies on an unknowable author lying behind the text, and because features of the text point towards sincerity.
>>464609
>I'd suggest the satirical reading is fallacious because it relies on an unknowable author lying behind the text, and because features of the text point towards sincerity.
I'd argue this for the exact same reason. The reason anyone even argues for that side is because Rousseau argued it to fit with his ideologies about human nature, and so his fanboys tend to argue his side.
>>464566
It was pure unadulterated reality. He told the world exactly what politics really was, and they hated him for it. The pretty liars are preferred.
Depends on what you mean, Machiavelli himself didn't want someone like the Prince (Cesare Borgia btw) but If there had to be someone like this, this is how he would do it
It's pretty obvious that it's literal. It's all good advice.
>>464498
Literal, it's all sound advice backed up with historical points and examples he was a patriot 1st and a republican 2nd who was tired of seeing Italy as a punching bag
Its literal. Its only satirical if you're an idiot who can't put his mind in the past.
He was sincere, but that doesn't mean he was describing his ideal leader.
>>464504
true but the one in mind (Lorenzo de' Medici) never read it, the book was banned, and it was discovered years after.
>>464498
it's literally satirical
:^)
It's one of the most direct, literal, and matter of fact books ever written. For every point he makes, he backs up it with a historical anecdote about a successful ruler. The idea that it was parody was made by Machiavelli's enemies to discredit him.
"Hurr Alexander the great was a bad tactician. Here's what you should do if you want to imitate him. You'll like totally win war! Here's how successful emperors have done diplomacy, here's why it succeeded, but it's all joke because being successful sucks xD"
It wasn't satire, doesn't mean he agreed with what he wrote. He wasn't writting what ought to be, he was writting what it was.
>>466764
This, very good.
>>466145
>The idea that it was parody was made by Machiavelli's enemies to discredit him.
No.
Machiavelli's enemies portrayed him as an apologist of the things he described in The Prince. Hence why we have the "word" Machiavellian to describe cruel, manipulative individuals.
>>464498
Once you read it you will notice that the "amoral" and "machiavelic" thing is a meme, specially in the eyes of a 20th or 21th century reader. He is just pragmatic.
>>464498
It's ironic in its normative tone but its propositions are meant to be taken as an accurate depiction.
>>466965
It was Lorenzo de' Medici
Could anyone recommend any books relating to the prince or discussing upon the same subject, ie: in statecraft, ratably of monarchies and running a successful empire?
Door unrelated
>>467058
Establisment of monarchies*
>>466965
It was FOR Lorenzo ABOUT Cesare
>>464519
Wasn't the French Baron rampaging through Italy at the time?
>>466965
It was for Lorenzo of Medici, though not the famous Lorenzo the Medici but a descendant. Cesare Borgia is just one of the examplar characters in The Prince along with Ferdinand of Aragon (Machiavelli never mentions Isabella irc) and the Turkish Sultan.
>>467837
It was both the french and the spanish in that general period.
>>467058
Pls respond
>>464498
Both
Bimb
>>467058
The "Siasat-Nama" by Nizam ul-Mulk.
Basically a handbook for statecraft written by a Persian scholar and vizier for the Seljuq sultan.
Plenty of interesting banter.
>>464505
>Macievelli
wait what
So you're supposed to say that with that italian 'cie' sound and not a hard 'c'??
>>469891
No, he's an idiot
>>469891
No, it's Machiavelli. Dude misspelled.
