Was machiavelli truly machiavellian?

[Urca]

I have two papers due tomorrow morning, and I am stuck on the first one. I feel like Machiavelli wasnt truly machiavellian, but I cannot find the textual proof in the prince, most of the evidence points to him being at least in some ways like that, but also I feel like i found a few quotes that show he isnt. im stuck, yet I have two 900 word papers due tomorrow at 11, neither are done, and I am stuck on Machiavelli.
Cannabineer, help me!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Moebius]

The Prince was a book of its time both politically and intellectually . But it was also a personal book, and we miss something of its power if we ignore its biographical context.

Machiavelli's family was neither wealthy nor well-connected. His father, Bernardo, was a lawyer and humanist who diligently grounded his son in the studia humanitatis but was unable to arrange for him a life of aristocratic luxury or even a cushy government stipend.
Instead, although Machiavelli's early years are poorly documented, it seems certain that it was a combination of humanist education, hard work and intelligence that earned him a major appointment in 1498. Machiavelli was as close to being a self-made man any anyone in Renaissance Florence.
As secretary of the Ten of War, Florence's foreign affairs and war committee, he was the city's highest-ranking diplomat for 14 years, leading embassies to and spending months in the courts of the French king, the pope, the holy Roman emperor, and others. The Prince was written by a man who, as he informs Lorenzo de'Midici in the dedication, had "knowledge [that was] gained through long experience of contemporary affairs". When it came to geopolitics, Machiavelli knew whereof he spoke.

The author's diplomatic career saturates The Prince. Alongside the Greek and Roman models so favoured by humanists, the book is populated with contemporary examples and lessons, many of them transposed, almost verbatim, from Machiavelli's personal correspondence and legations. Thus his breathless praise for Cesare Borgia's ruthlessness, his admiration of Pope Julius II's boldness, and his criticism of the Emperor Maximillian's ineptitude passed largely unaltered from diplomatic communiques into The Prince.

Even when his diplomatic memos are not quite so obvious, Machiavelli's experience remains in view. His time at the French court taught him that the Florentine view of their city's power and importance was utterly naive and inflated. If the republic wished to survive it needed to recognise how the real world worked. The Prince offered some candid and blunt advice along these lines, explicitly drawn from a career at the ambassadorial coalface. The author was, in effect, leaking the diplomatic cables in order to help "save [Italy] from the cruelty and barbarity of [the] foreigners" encroaching upon it.

edit: Not my work
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/09/machiavelli-personal-political-prince

 

[dirtsurfr]

sorry lol!...

 

[cannabineer]

Sorry, Urca, I haven't actually read all of Il Principe. However iirc Machiavelli was known for amalgamating principle with realpolitik, and this divergence from rigid precept *might* underlie what has later become a sad pejorative for "scheming". I can't really help with this one. cn

 

[Urca]

I loved reading the prince. Hmm I think i figured out what I am going to say. That he wasnt machiavellian, at least in the sense we know it. like he was a man who espoused that a ruler must do what is nessacary to save his power, but he still advised morality and goodness with his advice to be cruel and conniving

 

[cannabineer]

Urca, imo a key portion of your paper (either the first or second paragraph) should develop the current meaning of "machiavellian". You piqued my curiosity, and i found this.

Machiavellian

Definition


Conduct or philosophy based on (or one who adopts) the cynical beliefs of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) whose name (in popular perception) is synonymous with deception and duplicity in management and statecraft. Born in Florence (Italy), Machiavelli was its second chancellor and (in 1531) wrote the book 'The Prince' that discusses ways in which the rulers of a nation state can gain and control power. Although The Prince contains some keen and practical insights into human behavior, it also displays a pessimistic view of human nature and condones opportunistic and unethical ways of manipulating people. One of its suggestions reads, "Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature."

Deception, duplicity and expediency in the service of a political goal ... and then it becomes a matter of finding examples (and counterexamples) from the stories he related in Il Principe. Jmo. cn

 

[Urca]

I only have 900 words to work with

 

[Moebius]

The point I was trying to get at by that cut/paste.

Was we view Machiavellian ideas through the 20th century eyes and the with the knowledge of history that has taken place in the 500 years since his death. Machiavelli lived through a period of great religious political and social change, the like that wouldn't happen again to the industrial revolution.

One of the issues I would highlight/expand/explore is that we are biased in our judgement of Machiavelli and the adjective 'Machiavellian' has obtained its pejorative connotation because of our modern world.

The link I posted is very interesting and worth a read.

 

[Moebius]

I watched the last series of 'The Borgias'. Machiavelli was in it. Quite good.

 

[Moebius]

His time at the French court taught him that the Florentine view of their city's power and importance was utterly naive and inflated. If the republic wished to survive it needed to recognise how the real world worked. The Prince offered some candid and blunt advice along these lines, explicitly drawn from a career at the ambassadorial coalface. The author was, in effect, leaking the diplomatic cables in order to help "save [Italy] from the cruelty and barbarity of [the] foreigners" encroaching upon it.

You see, Machiavelli was a also visionary and necessary of the change taking place across Europe at the time. We just see him as a schemer.

 

[kizphilly]

I watched the last series of 'The Borgias'. Machiavelli was in it. Quite good.

yeah thats a good show i think the 2nd season just started lol sorry im no help

 

[Moebius]

I loved reading the prince. Hmm I think i figured out what I am going to say. That he wasnt machiavellian, at least in the sense we know it. like he was a man who espoused that a ruler must do what is nessacary to save his power, but he still advised morality and goodness with his advice to be cruel and conniving

Yes agreed, but also relevant was he explicitly advised 'morality and goodness' as a means of control or for the good of the state. This wasn't a religious or altruistic morality.