Machiavelli's The Prince Online Resources - Autumn 2003 Scott Hildreth

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading Assignment:
For Friday, 9/26: Read the introduction & chapters I - IX
For Monday, 9/29: Read chapters X - XIX
For Wednesday, 10/1: Read chapters XX - XXVII
The text online:
Nicolo Machiavelli's The Prince; Oregon State University's Philosophy Department. Last updated 1/99; Available online at: http://www.orst.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/prince/prince_contents.html
Halsall, P. ed. (1/8/2000) The Internet Medieval Sourcebook: Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527): The Prince, 1513. Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies. Accessed 9/27/01. Available online at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html
Timeline & Maps
Timeline of Key Events 1400 - 1550 (Hildreth, 2000)
A Map of Italy and the City/State Region
Map of Europe, c. 1519: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/1519eur.jpg
Map of 15th century Italy http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/15citaly.jpg
Full map of Europe AD 1500 Atlas: http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1500.htm
Background Resources & Bibliography
Burckhardt, Jacob (1878) THE STATE AS A WORK OF ART: The Papacy. From "The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy" S.G.C. Middlemore tr.. Accessed 9/22/03. Available online at: http://www.idbsu.edu/courses/hy309/docs/burckhardt/burckhardt.html
Gramsci, A. (1971) The Modern Prince: Brief Notes on Machiavelli's Politics.Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers, New York. Antonio Gramsci Internet Archive (marxists.org) Last Updated 2000. Accessed 9/22/03. Available online at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/works/prison_notebooks/modern_prince/index.htm
Halsall, P. ed. (1/8/2000) The Internet Medieval Sourcebook: Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527): The Prince, 1513. Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies. Accessed 9/22/03. Available online at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html
Oregon State University Philosophy Department (1997) Great Voyages: the History of Western Philosophy from 1492-1776. OSU Philosphy 302 Class of Winter 1997, Accessed 9/22/03. Available online at: http://www.orst.edu/instruct/phl302/)
Oregon State University Philosophy Department (1997) Biography of Nicolo Machiavelli. OSU Philosophy 302 Class of Winter 1997, Accessed 9/22/03. Available online at: http://www.orst.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/machaivelli.html
Rexroth, K. (1968) The Prince. Classics Revisited. Accessed 9/22/03. Available online at: http://www.bopsecrets.org/rexroth/cr/5.htm#Machiavelli,%20The%20Prince
Teuber, A. (2000) Machiavelli Biography. Department of Philosophy, Brandeis University. Accessed 9/22/03. Available online at: http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/machiavellibio.html
Discussion Questions:
According to Machiavelli, the Prince must adapt to fortune.
What are some contemporary examples of politicians who have , and who have
not, successfully adapted to fortune over the long run? What about
free will? Doesn't that have a place in Machiavelli's ideas about
man?
Should Chapter 26, the exhortation to free Italy, change your
understanding of M's viewpoint? Does this chapter fit the tone of the rest of
the book? Why was it written? Might it be used to manipulate Lorenzo and the
Medici to create a republic?
If a country is really being torn apart internally and
externally, does M's advice become more defensible? M says, "the greatest good
one can do, and the none most gratifying to God, is that which one does for
one's country."
What is persuasive about M's view of morality and
politics? What should be criticized?
Machiavelli has been described in a number of ways: as an
advocate of immorality, a teacher of evil, an apologist for absolutism, the
first modern political philosopher, a political realist, a political
empiricist, a political theorist, the founder of liberalism, the father of
nationalism, an advocate of a humanism of action, etc. Based on your readings
of The Prince, how would you interpret Machiavelli? Would you place him in one
of the above categories or would you suggest an alternative category?
It has been argued that
Machiavelli is not suggesting that we abandon morality together, but rather
that he is presenting a new view about the authority of morality. Is
this a true account of Machiavelli's ethical stance? If not, how would you
characterize Machiavelli's ethics?
Does class matter in Machiavelli's world of politics?
How about religion? Why would Christianity, in particular, not be
featured more in his ideas of successful government?
Was Machiavelli too smart for his own good? Can you call him a patriot?
Consider the following quotes. Read them and comment:
"Machiavelli sought to distinguish the realm of what ought to be
and the realm of what is. He rejected the first for the second.
But there is a third realm: the realm of what can be. It is in
that realm that what one might call a humanist realism can lie. The measure of
man is his ability to extend this sphere of the socially possible. We can start
with our democratic values, and we can start also with Machiavelli's realism
about tough minded methods. To be realistic about methods in the politics of a
democracy at home does not mean that you throw away all scruples, or accept the
superior force of "reason of state", or embrace the plice-state-crushing of
constitutional liberties." (Max Lerner; Introduction to The Prince, 1940)
"The Prince is neither a moral nor an immoral book: it is simply a technical
book. In a technical book we do not seek for rules of ethical conduct, of good
and evil. It is enough if we are told what is useful and useless. Every word in
The Prince must be read and interpreted in this way. The book contains no moral
prescripts for the ruler nor does it invite him to commit crimes and villanies.
It is especially concerned with and destined for the 'new principalities.' It
tries to give them all the advice necessary for protecting themselves from all
danger" (Ernst Cassirer, The Myth of the State, p. 153).
"Certain chapters of the The Prince contain the essence of Machiavelli's thought
in the sense that they exhibit most strongly his view that political action
cannot be kept within the limits of morality. Although he indicated that a-moral
action might frequently be the most effective measure which can be taken in any
situation, he never showed a preference for amoral actions over moral actions.
He was not a conscious advocate of evil; he did not want to upset all moral
values. But it is equally misleading to maintain the opposite: that Machiavelli
wanted to replace Christian morality by another morality and that he encouraged
politicians to disregard customary morality because their motives for acting
ought to be the good of the political society which represented the highest
ethical value" (Felix Gilbert, Machiavelli and Guicciardini, pp. 195-96).
"The conflict between [Machiavelli's] scale of values and that of conventional morality clearly did not [...] seem to worry Machiavelli himself. It upset only those who came after him, and were not prepared, on the one hand, to abandon their own moral values (Christian or humanist) together with the entire way of thought and action of which these were a part; nor, on the other hand, to deny the validity of at any rate, much of Machiavelli's analysis of the political facts, and the (largely pagan) values and outlook that went with it, embodied in the social structures which he painted so brilliantly and convincingly" (Isaiah Berlin, "The Originality of Machiavelli," in M. Gilmore, ed., Studies on Machiavelli, p. 196).
SH 9/03
Chabot College