Does it matter what Machiavelli thinks?
Tabarek Aldabbagh,
Hello everyone! Today's blog will be about a specific point of view on Machiavelli's "The Prince". I took a look at an article and am trying to wrap up all my thoughts about it. In other words, it will be an opinion on an opinion of an opinion. Hope nobody's confused, and let's begin :)
 |
| Painting of Quentin Skinner by: David Hugh Cobley |
He wrote an article about Machiavelli's "The Prince". The article is titled "Machiavelli and the Triumph of Princely Government" and it takes a look at the humanists of the fifteenth century who viewed the book. It is interesting how no matter what the book says, it seems that the humanists' eyes can only see the prince as a virtuous person. According to Skinner, "they continued to insist that the right ambition for this heroic character should be that of winning for himself the greatest possible degree of honor glory, and fame"(Skinner, 204). As Skinner writes, the reader can see that the humanists' bias that was formed by the past continues to influence how they view "The Prince". He also suggests that it is always consistent. He goes "The answer they suggest again reveals their dependence on the scheme of concepts already outlined by the earlier quattrocento humanists."(Skinner, 205).
Skinner's article is very well written that it almost convinces me of something that I don't agree with. One specific part slightly bothered me. Skinner speaks of Machiavelli and writes, "He insists that princely conduct must be onesto as well as utile, and accordingly demands that all princes must take as their model 'some historical figures who have been praised and honored',"(Skinner, 204). Though he is right that Machiavelli emphasizes taking the leadership of the successful rulers of the past, he explains it in almost the opposite way.
In other words, Machiavelli never cared for the prince to be onesto or honest. He writes "Nevertheless, one sees from experience in our times that those princes who have accomplished great things have felt little concern about keeping their word, and have been able to confuse men's minds by cunning"(Machiavelli, 55. This shows how little concern is shown for honesty and integrity. Not that they should be avoided, but it is enough to show that unlike what Skinner says, Machiavelli doesn't insist on them.
I chose this article specifically because I appreciated that it was self-aware. It exposes that it doesn't really matter what the text says if the reader is biased, and I figured "well we're all guilty of that".
When I first started reading "The Prince", with the given context that he was exiled from his country and had the intention of coming back, I knew that this would not be accurately displaying what a ruler should be. As the book starts off we get an introduction that captures Machiavelli's honest intentions so blatantly. He refers to the ruler with very respectful language and ends the introduction with "And if from that summit, Your Magnificence will occasionally glance down at these humble places, you will recognize how unjustly I suffer from the great and continual malice of Fortune."(Machiavelli, 4). It really sounds like sucking-up from my point of view, which is why I question the accuracy.
As I reached the end, it shocked me how well Machiavelli can back up his points with well-detailed explanations and examples, which makes it seem like he truly believes in what he says. He is also a very smooth talker! In the end, he starts speaking in such an inspiring manner, it may criminally be called manipulation. He goes "Thus Italy, left almost lifeless, waits for a man who is the one to heal her wounds and put an end to the plundering of Lombardy, to the taxes imposed on the Kingdom [of Naples] and Tuscany, and to cure her of those wounds that have been festering for so long"(Machiavelli, 81). This is enough to fire any Italian up. Heck! I'm not even Italian and I'm fired up.
