Talk:The Prince

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I removed this from the trivia section:

In Umberto Eco's book Foucault's Pendulum the character Casaubon debunks the saying "The end justifies the means" as being attributed to Machiavelli's The Prince, saying that it is uttered by Machiavelli in the center of Hell in the novel...?

I looked on the Foucault's Pendulum article and found no similar reference, and the phrasing here is strange and unclear. Also, an ellipsis followed by a question mark has no place in an encyclopedia. 59.145.121.3 13:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Oops, forgot to sign in. Benandorsqueaks 13:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to add the full summary from http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/complete_text.txt but decided not to at the last minute. It's about 2800 words yet doesn't really summarize the text in a usable way. Better summaries exist on the Internet. Mrwojo 00:15 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Ferdinand II of Aragon could be an inspiration. True? -- Davidme

It's possible. The most common thought appears to be that Machiavelli's main inspiration was Cesare Borgia. --Mrwojo 18:53 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following:

It must be noted, however, that The Prince, akin to Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, was an immense satire.

I have never ever heard it called satire, let alone an immense satire. Any views? FearÉIREANN 23:30 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is it satirical? One could say that, but its hardly a "provable" statement. Unless someone specifically can be quoted as saying "immense satire", that seems to be a bit much. Pizza Puzzle

I agree with Pizza. Perhaps the person who added in the line could mention a source which so describes the book. FearÉIREANN 23:45 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It so happens that I have an essay on Machiavelli in my Makers of Modern Strategy, and in the essay everything in the The Prince is taken completely seriously, not least because it's completely consistent with M.'s personal involvement with the warfare and politics of his time, also with his work The Art of War. Just to be cynical, I can imagine that an academic who'd never been shot at by an enemy soldier might think that Machiavelli was just having a bit of fun. Stan 23:48 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It's clearly not correct to baldly assert it's satire, but Spinoza and Rousseau, among others, read The Prince as political satire rather than political science. -- Someone else 23:49 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
QED. :-) Rationalists would have a hard time understanding Machiavelli's Italy... Stan 05:10 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Indeed, hum, this is jolly. For those who kill over words, satire must seem deadly funny indeed. The political cartoon and standup comedy, not to mention Saturday Night Live, have more to tell us than most textbooks. When Albert Gore appeared on SNL as Trent Lott, to help get the latter fired, and also with Phish, the better to mock the War on Drugs, and the next day refused to run for President, was that political satire, or science? Hoom. Rationalism is dangerous, yes, but, let us not awaken fools too quickly. They may see what we are doing and "rationally" be afraid. EofT

This is the first time I've heard it alleged that Il Principe was a satire. Machiavelli dedicated the book to a Medici in hopes of getting a job. If he really was attempting to "backhand" Lorenzo de Medici, as is said in the "Critical Approach is Needed" section below, he did a very poor job of it. As a result of the book he was comissioned to write a history of Florence for the Medicis and when Florence was once again a republic, he was denied employment because of his associations with the Medici. As is noted in the "Satire" section he was a "lifelong republican," indeed he says in the Discorsi "the governments of the people are better than those of princes." Still, Machiavelli was a man who very much wanted to return to political power. 76.105.199.134 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Iulus

Il Principe, translated in English to me as a Belgian, means The Ruler.

One of the meanings of "Prince" is as a synonym for "ruler", a leftover from when most of the world was ruled by monarchies, and not so commonly seen used that way any more. Stan 14:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] see also?

OK, this is probably a stupid question- but why does the end say "see also Leonardo da Vinci?" -FZ

Not sure. Removed it. --Mrwojo 14:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probably because Machiavellia and da Vinci were contemporary Florentines, but the link is inappropriate for Il Principe. 76.105.199.134 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Iulus

[edit] Satire

Regarding the entry above: the prince could be considered as partially a satire, in that the layout mimicked a cliche of the time, "A Prince's Mirror". However it was as result of Machiavelli's correspondence with Rome, that Savanorolla was hanged and burned in the public square. While Machiavelli may have been mocking "A Prince's Mirror", the advise he gives (e.g. slaughter the entire royal family to avoid latter rebellion) should be taken seriously.

The article should mention that one of its interpretations is as a satire. --Mrwojo 14:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed--I don't have a source, but I learned in school about it being a satire as well, a response to the Medicis.

Yes, this most certainly should be looked at witht he view that it is a work of satire. Machiavelli was a life long republican and opponent of the Medicis. Upon their return to the city he was forced into exile where he wrote this work. It is only logical to consider that The Prince is an attack on the Medicis rather that a complete reversal of his poliical views. --70.179.127.107 (talk)

This probably goes too far: that the Prince is a satire is one interpretation, but it doesn't represent the consensus of scholarly opinion on the matter, nor even that of the majority. --RJC Talk 13:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact the consensus of scholarly opinion is that this is NOT a satire. There is no reason to believe it was "a complete reversal of his political views" and it unquestionably reflected the political realities in Europe at the time. Actually, many of his arguments continue to be relevant today, which is why this is essentially the cornerstone of political thought literature.--Spyde (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link: Art of War

This article links to the Chinese work. I'm too new to know the best way to fix this. Can someone else advise?

[edit] "The end justifies the means"

The attribuition of the above maxim (the end justifies the means) to Machiavelli and The Prince is a common mistake. In reality Machiavelli never said such a thing, and it is nowhere to be found in his works (I am referring to the original italian works). The maxim is simply an interpretation and however strongly it may be 'proved' it remains simply so: a subjective interpretation of Machiavelli's work. In this respect, the Italian Wikipedia site for Il Principe is better in that it states, and I quote: "("si habbi nelle cose a vedere il fine e non il mezzo", scrive nei Ghiribizzi scripti in Perugia, con la constatazione che l'espressione "il fine giustifica i mezzi" non si riscontra tanto in Machiavelli quanto nella critica gesuitica alle sue opere)".

--Sapienza 08:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could you translate the above Italian sentence into English? --Mrwojo 14:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Of course: "thus we see in all things the end rather than the means". So writes in Perugia, with the that the maxim "the end justifies the means" does not figure in Machiavelli, but is found in the gesuit critique of his works".

[edit] Insertion from Ch. VIII

Unless we are going to turn this article into a textual interpretation of The Prince, the section on Agothocles doesn't belong here as a counterpoint to the statement that Machiavelli wanted politics freed from burdensome moralizers. I say this because 1) the passage is poorly translated and 2) it does not provide unambiguous support for the position for which it is adduced. Rather than turn the article into a place in which to quibble over the proper interpretation of a clever turn of phrase, we should just omit this. NPOV might be better preserved by noting that a statement is disputed by a minority than by trying to make that minority's case. --RJC 28 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)

[edit] The beautiful absurdity of encyclopedias that give equal time to ridiculous popular culture and millennia-old classics

Would anyone object to my adding the following line to the top of the article?

This article is about the book. For the little green dude with the weird head shape, see Katamari Damacy.

Just kidding. Best to just go with "This article is about the book. For other uses, see Prince (disambiguation)." -Silence 00:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea (and great lvl2 head), I'm adding it to the top of the article.--Andymussell 02:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on English translations

(This question would apply to any work not written in English.) Would it be reasonable to review the English translations? Is there a public domain translation as good as copyrighted translations? bkm, pdx, oregon, usa, scabland@gmail.com

Perhaps the wikisource link should be more prominent, or somehow mentioned; I would expect that most readers of the article wouldn't know that the book was available for free online. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Prince There's a discussion of this on its talk page....--76.21.22.240 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another XHTML version

There's another version of the book, with dedication page which is slightly better for printing than the existing text linked to. I'm not going to link to this one myself as it's on my web site. http://www.kirit.com/Niccol%C3%B2%20Machiavelli/The%20Prince KayEss | talk 11:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Analytical Discussion?

The Prince is a masterpiece of political science, perhaps the birth of "modern" political thought; leaders carry this book in their pockets and quote from it, even in nations that call themselves democracies. Nobody could think of anything that could be said on the way the book is interpreted, how it is utilised both during the Renaissance and in modern times, discussion on famous quotes such as "the ends justify the means"? Absolutely nothing at all? 71.235.66.254 06:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question about the prince.

how does machiavelli describe politics both past and present? and how might this challange the concepts of democracy

[edit] Critical Approach is needed

I read The Prince and it has a different COVER than the one presented here. Needs to say something about the different art used to represent him or that states the art represents one whom would be the Prince. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev.j.dave (talk • contribs) 06:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Prince is indeed a satire and that absolutely needs to be presented in the Wiki article.

Machiaveli was exhiled from his beloved Florence and tortured by the De Medicis- he held no love for them. He wrote and published The Prince on his own and delivered it himself to those who had been part of the Florentine Republic before the De Medicis took over.

From the satirical introduction that slyly backhands Lorenzo at every turn to the grossly missquoted "the ends justify the means", to the fact that every example of a Prince in the book ends in absolute failure-- The Prince is a handbook of how NOT to rule and how citizens can rise up against a tyrant.

Time needs to be taken to present this as a counter to the creation of American Political Scientists (of which I'm one) that Machiaveli is "straight" in his advocating rule by power.

I think changing the article to suit this view would be to diverge from the spirit of an encyclopedia, which is not normally taken to be the presentation of a minority viewpoint, even if the particular editor agrees with it. In any case, to say that Machiavelli's reputation is a construction of American political science types is a bit of a stretch: Skinner and Pocock are historians, and Machiavelli had a bad reputation long before the American Political Science Association split off from the American Social Science Association a century ago.
Incidentally, Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus turn out rather well, as I recall, as did Alexander VI, Julius II, and Ferdinand the Catholic. It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that every example of a Prince in the book ends in absolute failure. The modern princes tend to fare worse than their ancient counterparts, but that's part of Machiavelli's point, isn't it: he counsels a return to ancient virtue, which was understood politically, which therefore presumed the prior establishment of a political community, which means that those standing at the founding moment (i.e., Princes) are beyond any applicable concept of virtue and vice beyond success, including the Christian virtues which are the cause of his contemporaries' weakness. I'm not going to push this interpretation as the only one, or even say that it represents the consensus of Machiavelli scholars. It does, however, explain why the Prince has a nastier surface than the Discourses without turning the former into a satire, a position that is neither demanded by the text nor shared among those who make it their business to study Machiavelli. RJC Talk 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding Contempt section needs to be edited!

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Prince.jpg

Image:The Prince.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use.

There is currently.--76.21.22.240 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
There is that, currently.--76.21.22.240 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

current page doesn't reflect that.--76.21.22.240 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

N/A--76.21.22.240 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publication Date

The recent change of the date of publication in the info box brings up an interesting issue. Which date should be used? The original date of 1513 when he finished it, or 1532 when it was first published at large? Personally, I think that 1532 is more accurate, since that was when it was first published for the public. Thoughts? sdgjake 15:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Publication refers to when the book was made available to the public, 1532. If the Bantam edition says 1513, that's just another reason not to trust it. RJC Talk 15:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article full of dubious claims

Reading through this article, seemingly every other sentence makes some at least arguable claim; particularly those about Machiavelli's intent are suspect, as Machiavelli was a deep and subtle thinker, hard to summarize with the brevity of this article. This article should be much more cautious in such assertions, and should provide citations where possible. I'd add “fact” tags to every dubious un-sourced statement, but they would overwhelm the text of the article, so I will refrain. I may try to clean some of this up if I have time sometime (many other projects; finite time), but someone with Machiavelli expertise should really take a look at it. Currently, it makes a rather poor showing for Wikipedia. --jacobolus (t) 07:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes on Contentment

This article quotes the following: "...most men are content as long as they are not deprived of their property and women." but Google widely returns the following: "When neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content."

Are both of these accurate quotes? Or do they have the same source? Bushcutter (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)