Talk:Niccolò Machiavelli
From Academic Kids
This whole article looks to have been lifted piecemeal from www.classicallibrary.org (http://www.classicallibrary.org/machiavelli/prince/1.htm - 5.htm). Have we permission to do this? It even replicates the typos.... sjc
- I was wondering about that when I was reviewing the reference to the Battle of Vaila, and certain phrases seemed identical to ones on several web-sites, including the Gutenberg site. I'm confident that the Gutenberg people would make sure it was in the public domain before putting it on their site. If people cited their sources, some of us would not have to be so concerned.
What do these notes like these signify "Aet. 1-25--1469-94"? It looks like a date, but I am not familiar with the format. Perhaps a rephrase or a link should be added to the article to clarify them. --Dori 15:45, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Aet. is the Latin Aetatis, "of age"; so that section deals with the period when he was from 1 to 25 years old, which was during the years 1469 to 1494. --rbrwr
It is simply unfair that the adjective "machiavellian" has come to refer to narrow self-interested behavior pursued for and by interest groups.
I am afraid that the above words constitute undesirable language. According to whom is it "simply unfair?" The statement expresses a strong opinion as if it were absolute. I am unfortunately unsure as to how to reword such a statement. Perhaps we might say that "The adjective "machiavellian" does not completely reflect Machiavelli's works." Lord Emsworth 01:12, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)
- The article at present does not deal adequately with the origin of the adjective "machiavellian" and its commonly understood meaning. As it has been used in conversations I have heard, the users understand it to refer to the acquisition and retention of power through whatever means are most expedient, even if this involves deception and limited injustice, on the grounds that the greater good is served by these deceptive and unjust means. I have more research to do, but having read parts of the Prince, this does seem to be an accurate portrayal of part of Machiavelli's political philosophy. The present article limits itself to out-of-hand dismissals of this understanding of the word, without examining ways in which its popular meaning might be justified. Take the following quote, for instance, which I believe is the most egregious example of the article's apologetic stance on the term:
[The Prince] advocates a form of minarchy managed by a limited aristocracy that is wholly devoted to successful rule, on the chance that they may prevent chaos. Contempt for this limited vision of government may well be the reason that the word "machiavellian" has come to mean something other than the man's views.
- This final statement is not only inaccurate, as there are examples within the book that can support the popular meaning of "machivellian," but reveals the author's bias with a partisan dig against those who rightly point out that Machiavellian politics does tolerate some injustice in cases where it is presumed it will serve stability and the greater good. It is not at all accurate to suggest that the only reason people might use "machiavellian" as a negative epithet is that they object to the limited government that Machiavelli advocates. The element of his politics against which most people level objections has to do with his utilitarian presumption that some deliberate injustice inflicted by rulers on some of their subjects might be justified. The article as it is now does not bring this out. It offers a sympathetic view of Machiavelli, rather than a dispassionate one, and so could bear improvement. Rohirok 06:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Machiavellianism
This article should have a link to an article for Machiavellianism. Unfortunately, no article exists on the topic. I find the wording at the beginning of this article confusing-around where it mentions epithets-it doesn't make any sense. I agree with the previous commentator that this article does not properly address the origins of the term Machiavellian; and the distance between this concept and Machiavelli's own.
Removed the following two sentences for now. I've never heard Machiavelli described as an ideal of the Renaissance man, so I find the first sentence dubious (unless someone can cite evidence that anyone endorses this view). The second sentence doesn't make any sense at all - I can't even decipher the intent.
- Along with Leonardo da Vinci, Niccolo Machiavelli is considered the ideal prototype of the Renaissance man. While this epithet may be more appropriate than describing Machiavelli as "Machiavellian," it may be fair to state that he possessed a "machiavellian intelligence."
Whole page seems to be lifted from a scholarly introduction to The Prince, likely copyrighted. In addition, it shows the POV of the author of that introduction in excessive praise and somewhat archaic language of Machiavelli. Article needs a complete rewrite.
- It's actually from the introduction to The Prince that's in Project Gutenburg (http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=38774&pageno=6). So it's public domain, although your other objections still hold. TOO 00:23, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
