Thoughts on Machiavelli

Forgive my tardiness. I have been trying to sift through my thoughts and create a (marginally) longer post on one thing, but I decided, instead, just to run with a few different (shorter) observations. Hopefully they form some sort of coherent thought process.

• I, like Elizabeth, thoroughly appreciated Wootten's inclusion of [virtù] in the translated text. It was quite interesting to see the different ways in which the word was translated, and perhaps even more interesting to find that what we consider 'virtue' today was not one of those ways.I think Wootten's inclusion of [virtù] also gives insight into what seem to me the primary theme of The Prince: the acquisition and maintenance of power/leadership in its various forms.

• The Augustinian view of the depravity of man, as PTJ alluded to in his lecturelet, is ever-present in both of Machiavelli's works. If man were intrinsically good, there would be little need for the harsh measures which Machiavelli prescribes. That this is the assumption under which Machiavelli works becomes particularly apparent when he discusses the characteristics a prince should possess ( i.e. miserliness, cruelty well-used, cunning, etc). His discussion of whether it is better to be feared or loved also assumes that men are not good/intelligent enough to know whom it is proper to love (and therefore obey). He argues, then, that fear is the only proper way to get men to submit.

I conclude, then, that, as far as being feared and loved is concerned, since men decide for themselves whom they love, and rulers decide whom they fear, a wise ruler should rely on the emotion he can control, not one he cannot. (p. 53)

• Machiavelli's view of religion seems, to me, to be that it is a somewhat lamentable reality. He seems to argue that it is an intellectually inferior exercise, and that the populace, intellectually dim as they are, can easily be swayed by a religious argument (p. 119-121). Though there will definitely be a dispute over the intellectual fortitude of religion, the idea that the public can be swayed by religious argument seems vaguely familiar to our modern sensibilities, particularly with the idea of American "religious nationalism."

• I would argue, like Mike, that Machiavelli is more political scientist than political philosopher, though he is neither one nor the other exclusively. He takes historical examples and observes the consequences of specific regimes. Methodologically, this seems, to me, to tend more toward political science. More apropos of PTJ's lecturelet, though, is the idea that Machiavelli is much more concerned with the concepts of power and efficiency than justice and reason. In the style of Thucydides' Melian Dialogue and the Mytilenian Debate, Machiavelli's chief concern is the interest of the ruler.

• Chapter 6 (p. 18-20) of The Prince provides an interesting narrative about how the greatest men have risen to power based on their strength of purpose, but, more importantly, on the specific opportunity that fortune gave them. The question that came to my mind was that, if fortune had not presented a particular opportunity, would the great leaders have remained inconspicuous? Do all great leaders owe their greatness, in part, to a particular opportunity afforded by fortune?