Instead of reading The Discourses after I read the introduction to it I chose to read “The Backgrounds” section of The Prince, which entailed 140 pages of scholarly articles and at the end, two pages of epigrams (Yay Lord Henry!). One would imagine the articles would help me obtain insight into Machiavelli’s writings, and they did; but only to a limited extent. Most of the writing compared Machiavelli to a countless number of other writers and philosophers whom I had never heard of, and don’t plan to read about. I would if I had the time, but I only have until May to finish this project, which seems like a lot of time, but when one takes into account the amount of work regular classes require, there really isn’t that much time to do this project. I have resolved to make the best use of my time, which doesn’t include hunting down books by obscure authors.

I feel 99.99% of people-including myself- couldn’t understand the analyses that I read. One would have to be a philosophy major, which makes my wonder why the articles were even added to the The Prince. I skimmed through about half of the total pages, highlighting the passages that actually had a point to them. The authors of the articles were all post-doctorate professors; and ironically their writing wasn’t as clear as I thought it would be. Like Crick’s introduction, it was weighed down by so many independent clauses that I often became lost in the rhetoric. After about 20 pages of being frustrated, I just stopped rereading and skimmed over any name that I didn’t know. Perhaps this is a crude way to read, but to my credit, I found the points the author was trying to make with his or her examples and highlighted them. Knowing the conclusion is the important part, and like I mentioned before: I don’t have the time to research 40+ philosophical references, let alone incorporate a significant number of them into my project.

Crick’s introduction was considerably longer than any single article in the Backgrounds section, but the writing as all his own. He made sparse references to other works of literature, which made his writing more precise than the other articles I read. The other writers just compared Machiavelli to other writers and philosophers; and unless the reader has extensive knowledge of them, he or she will not understand the comparison. I remember one article: “Big Words, Exact Meanings” By: J.H. Whitefield, started off well, but then managed to ramble on, referencing seemingly every writer from 1500-1900. There was a point where I skimmed until I ceased to see names that I was unfamiliar with. I wondered how this guy could have a PhD and not be able to explain his own ideas with out the help of other writers.

But to Whitefield and the other Background author’s credit, they did make many important points.  And although their jargon equaled or exceeded their clarity I am happy I read their analyses. Their thoughts laid the foundation for my own. I will take a week off reading to write them in this blog, then I will start The Discourses.

And some advice to my fellow readers: take your time reading through scholarly articles, they give great ideas for blog entries and pieces for the final project. They can be more useful than the book itself.

Peace-

I went to Barnes and Noble and bought Machiavelli’s Discourses about a week ago. I’ve been reading it consistently over the past seven days and I have finally finished the introduction.  This may sound diminutive, but it was 50 pages long. I guess it suits the length of Machiavelli’s book, which is 500 pages long.

The introduction was a great start to my project, and I feel I will be quoting its author Bernard Crick extensively in my final project. I found his style of writing to be very complex, and often convoluted. He burdens his sentences with so many independent clauses I often had to reread paragraphs because I became lost in his rhetoric. I feel his style of writing mirrors that of Machiavelli, who also wrote in long, serpentine sentences that connects many independent clauses with commas, colons and semicolons. It will prepare me for the large volume of information I will have to decipher in the near future.

Interestingly, according to Crick’s introduction Machiavelli predicts many of the components of the US political system. Here are some examples:

1. “The basic point is that he [Machiavelli], as it were, a three rank scale for his general analysis of political systems- upper (as aristocratic), middle (bourgeois?) and lower, but advocates ‘looping off’ the top when it comes to ensuring stability in a republic, and thereafter uses a two-rank scale. Hence he either uses ‘Grandi’ (which can mean nobility even) very loosely when discussing a republic, or is flattering ‘the cits’, or is using it to mean something like ‘ruling class’ irrespective of which social group is in the saddle.”

Machiavelli seems to predict the two-party system (Democrats vs. Republicans).

2. “nor do they realize that in every republic there are two different dispositions, that of the populace and that of the upper class and that all legislation favorable to liberty is brought about by the clash between them”

Sounds like the House of Representatives and the Senate.

3. “since they[prudent legislatures] thought that such a government would be stronger and more stable, for if in one and same state there was principality, aristocracy and democracy, each would keep watch over another”

Sounds like the three branches of government: principality=executive, democracy=legislative and aristocracy=judicial

4. “the art of war is an extension of the whole social condition of a society. In other words, much of what he[Machiavelli] has to say about military technology and its relationship to politics can be boldly and roughly, but helpfully, translated into modern terms of industrial technology. He even assumes for military factors (as Marx did for economic) that decline and eventual collapse must follow failure to expand: one can never stand still, expansion and production have mastered us.”

It sounds like Machiavelli predicts the power economics grants a political system. In fact economics was the main reason the North won the Civil War and the Allies won WWII.

I think the writers of the constitution definitely borrowed many of Machiavelli’s ideas. I find his ideas to be very applicable to today’s world. It amazes me that someone could predict the above four things 250 years before the US Constitution was ratified and nearly 400 years before the industrial revolution.

Today I finally finished The Prince- all 72 pages of it. It’s quite an accomplishment, so feel free to applaud; but please no flash photography. Although it may not seem like much of an accomplishment, it was long 72 pages; I guestimate it took me  4-5 hours round trip. Here are a few reasons why:

1. Because the book was written in 16th Century Italy, Machiavelli didn’t know much English. He wrote the book in ancient Italian, so the translator must first change it into modern Italian to even hope changing it into English. For an accurate comparison, try changing Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream into modern English, then translating into Italian. The result would be nothing like what Shakespeare originally wrote; but depending on the translator it could be readable. I have to give a shout out to Robert Adam’s here- he did a wonderful job translating Machiavelli’s ideas into English.

2. Machiavelli wrote in long, serpentine sentences. Think Emerson and Thoreau. It would be quite difficult to translate the two philosophers’ work because of the complexity of their sentences. Many subjects and verbs are placed next to each other, and sorting them out can be a monumental task on its own, let alone translating the whole sentence into another language.

3. Languages commonly have unique constructions and words that cannot be translated directly- the translator must choose the best phrasing he can find even if it doesn’t come close to the meaning of the foreign word (like virtù).

4. Translations like these put me to sleep. Think back to the Iliad and Odyssey. Depending on which translation one had, reading just a few sentences forced your eyelids closed (my Iliad was like this, my Odyssey was better- I finished the whole book!! The Iliad however is a work in progress…). The point is translations are oftentimes unlike the constructions that we have grown used to reading. For a comparison I finished The Picture of Dorian Gray in about the same amount of time as The Prince, and Dorian Gray is three times longer.

5. The footnotes were overwhelming. Machiavelli references seemingly every battle and military leader from the birth of Christ to his lifetime. Granted there were footnotes explaining most of the allusions, but I ended up with a list of 24 historical figures/events that I need to research in order to gain a complete understanding of Machiavelli’s logic. OU library…here I come!

I know, I’m a pretty good complainer. In all honestly I did enjoy the book- It was interesting to read the ideas of a man philosophers have called “the Anti-Christ” and “Lucifer”. And after finishing the book, I can’t say I blame them. Strangely, I have a fascination with Machiavelli’s ideas. True, they are cold and heartless. True, he endorses a world with out rules. But still, I cannot help but agree with him. All of the assumptions he makes about human nature make sense- that is they can, and have been, observed and tested.

Now I have 210 more pages to read in my book. I’ll explain. I bought a Norton Critical Edition, which means there is other material that helps the reader understand Machiavelli, and some awesome footnotes, as I have mentioned before. And after that I have about 500 more pages of The Discourses, which are Machiavelli’s actual thoughts on government. It turns out The Prince was a “Sparknotes version” of his actual thoughts- it was purposely written in a harsh, logical tone to get his point across. The Discourses take plenty of time (more than 500 pages of time) to explain his thoughts in detail. I think it will be interesting to compare how his ideas are presented in The Prince to how they are presented in The Discourses. Sounds like something that will go in my final project!

Anywho, I think I formalized my membership to the Nerd Herd for that last paragraph. This project feels like quicksand- the more I struggle to finish, the more work I create for myself. I guess that’s just how things work. Now I’m really glad I started this project ridiculously early, so I will have time to read and digest all of the information necessary for its completion.

Bill out- mom just brought home Chinese food!!!

Today I witnessed something that some people only see a few times, and others see too many times.

I arrived at the high school at 9 am to train with the girls’ soccer team in the field house. After we ran through an obstacle course we moved downstairs per Kara’s direction to shuffle over cones. This morning felt the same as any other conditioning. You get up. You work. You go home. Nothing happens in between. Today was different though. As our small group was shuffling over the orange cones when the wrestlers upstairs yelled for Kara. Someone had collapsed along the indoor track and Kara immediately ran to address the issue. Our group advanced cautiously behind her to see what was happening. The wrestlers were nervously running around when Kara yelled to call 911. A group of them, myself included, rushed into the hallway by Kara’s training room to find a phone. One was located and 911 was dialed.

Upon coming out of the purple double doors I was startled by the labored breath of Zach Johnston. He was so still and quiet I hadn’t noticed him there, only ten feet away from me. The mechanical quality of the breath made me flinch. Perhaps it scared me because it sounded weird, or because subconsciously I knew humans couldn’t breathe like that voluntarily. The sound will always stay with me. It was air passing through a human body, not breathing. The two may sound the same in words, but today I learned there is huge difference. It was at that point I realized Kara was the only thing pumping his blood through his veins, keeping him alive.

She called for her AED, and a student ran to her office to get it. As the student returned the group of soccer players including myself were ushered into the hall by a school secretary. We could see Kara and a group of wrestlers standing over Zach’s body, waiting for an ambulance to arrive. First two police cars arrived. Then an ambulance. Then another ambulance. Then another two police cars. Then more paramedics. As help arrived the wrestlers were sent away from Zach so the EMTs could work uninterrupted.

As they worked to save Zach’s life, more EMTs arrived, and our group pointed them in Zach’s direction. It seemed like an endless stream of them flowed into the field house. My sense of time melted away. The only thing I could think of was what had just happened. How does one make sense of the situation? A perfectly healthy high school athlete was lying on the gym floor unresponsive. Just a few minutes ago I had been most concerned with the pain in my quads and now the only thing that occupied my mind was a dieing classmate. I had a feeling many of my friends were thinking the same thing because no one talked. Every few minutes one of us shook his or her head, but other than that we didn’t know how to deal with the situation.

I have been to many funerals of aged family members, but I never actually saw a person die. When my grandpa was having health problems he moved into our family’s house so we could take care of him. For a summer I prepared breakfast and lunch for him everyday. He was a WWII veteran who had spent his life taking care of his family. And now I was taking care of him. He died shortly after the summer ended. I didn’t know what to think. Everyday I cooked him food and asked him if there was anything I could do for him, and everyday he said he said he was ok. I never had a personal relationship with him, but after he died I wished I could go back to making him breakfast and lunch every day. I wondered what life had been like for him during his last summer, when the only letters he received in the mail were healthcare bills and invitations to funerals and the only human contact he received was nurses trying to fix his failing body and our family, including myself.

At his funeral an American flag was folded into a triangle, put into a wooded box with a glass cover and given to our family for his service in WWII. I pass by it every day when I arrive home from school, and for a brief moment I think about that summer; how the simplest sights, sounds and experiences mean so much more when the person you experience them with is gone.

I could make some sense of my grandpa’s death because he was old and his body was failing. That was the reason he died. As I walked past the flag everyday I always knew why. Zach was different though. There was no reason he died. He was a perfectly healthy teenager. How does one justify that? How does one place this experience with all of his or her others? It made no sense. Teenage boys don’t die for no reason. Yet here I was, standing out in the hallway, with proof that they did.

Zach was in my German V class. Everyday (most days) I would arrive at room B11 (probably late) and see Zach. His head was usually on his desk, his body fast asleep. Speaking English is hard enough at 7:25 am and speaking German seemed impossible. Everyday I could look straight ahead, and in the middle of Adam’s protein cookies, Creech’s Monster Energy Drinks and Frau’s ridiculous chicken hat I saw Zach. Now that he is gone I feel that daily experience, that one small thread that bound our lives together, even though it seemed so trivial then, would seem like an enormous tear now.

I never knew Zach personally, but just like my grandpa my consciousness brushed past his every day, and I had become so accustomed to it. Now that Zach is gone I feel I will still look at his desk expecting him to open the door, give Frau a pink tardy slip and sit in his desk. But I know that will never happen. He is gone. Such a small detail of my life now seemed so significant. He was just another student, but now that he is gone, I know I will always stare at his desk and wonder who he was.

I imagine all of my friends in the hallway were thinking of how they passed Zach in their lives. Had he been in any of their classes? Had he passed them in the hallway? It seemed like we were all searching our memories, like a computer searches its hard drive, for any remnants of Zach that could help us evaluate our place in what had occurred just 20 minutes ago. We were silent until a secretary told us to go home. I said my goodbyes and left. Just like that. There was no dramatic reason for what had just occurred. It just happened. And now all of us had just left that hallway, an area we will remember for the rest of our lives as the place we experienced our first real brush with death. We felt its chill force our feelings inward, and at the same time prevent us from using words to express them. We were sent home before any of us could answer the question: what does this all mean? Zach will live on in our memories and in those of everyone who knew him, no matter how personal it was.

Perhaps this is my way of dealing with what happened. I encourage everyone who knew him, and those like me who didn’t, to not shy away from memories of him, no matter how trivial they are. I think all of us see a little of ourselves in him, and by evaluating his life and recent death, we can gain a greater understanding and appreciation of our place in this confusing world that we live in.

Rest in Peace and Condolences to his friends and family.

For another perspective here are Ken’s thoughts:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=53734678103

I just finished Dorian Gray, and I found it to be well written and intellectually stimulating. Oscar Wilde is a fantastic author. I found myself highlighting passages because they were so precise. It amazed me that Wilde could use language, which is a very indefinite form of communication, to shape his ideas. After I read certain passages I said to myself: “yes, I know exactly what he is trying to say”. The book overall was quite depressing, but I value it more for its truth than how it made me feel. I also want to make a 365 day calendar, each day having a quote said by Lord Henry. I found them hilarious!

Interestingly I have found a connection between Dorian Gray and The Prince. Both of the books explore the dark side of human nature, the question of: what if there were no consequences? Machiavelli’s advice was closely followed by Dorian, but instead of political gains Gray made sensual ones. He achieved them by any means necessary and charmed anyone who condemned him for it. Dorian was unstoppable. His beauty and charm overshadowed any foul deed he committed. The two aforementioned attributes coupled with his portrait granted Dorian the power to indulge himself with out consequence. This is the equivalent of politics. The best politicians, usually politicos, can charm their way in and out of anything. In this light I view the novel as an answer to the question: what would humans do if there were no consequences to their actions? Wilde’s answer is frightening, but in my opinion very accurate. Dorian Gray represents “the dark side” in all of us (Star Wars might be juvenile but the metaphor fits). Dorian wants to know everything-the good and the bad. He already knows what being good feels like, and Lord Henry shows him how to indulge himself. Upon finding the knowledge of evil, he finds he cannot become good again (like Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader). Someone once said: “when knowledge stretches one’s mind, it is impossible for it to return to its original size”. I find this statement is true concerning the knowledge of evil. Dorian’s journey into his dark side reveals to him the uselessness of being good and the tragedy of being bad- the former damns one to a long, boring life of anonymity and the latter grants one a brief life of exhilarating passion followed by a cataclysmic downfall.

Dorian’s life and the life of a politician (in Machiavelli’s time) are one in the same. Both are granted power over people with out any one to keep them in check. The politicians who chose to do horrible things to indulge their passion for more power were killed quickly, just as Dorian lived a relatively short life of indulgence. The trick, as both parties discovered, is to mask their hedonism with beauty and charm. This way, they could do whatever they wanted with out consequence. And given that opportunity, they always chose indulgence over temperance (this is very arguable).

With out checks like morality and God humans would do anything they desired. What’s stopping them? God and morals cannot be proved or scientifically studied, so for the sake of argument I must assume they are non-existent. The only thing keeping humans in check are themselves. They have an infinite potential for good or evil, and since evil is naturally selected for, it is the more commonly chosen path. The good (unselfish) always die. The bad always live on. And that, unlike morality and God, can be proven.

Look at the most successful people in history. A vast majority of them achieved their success through virtù, not virtue. I could go on and on with examples, but I think the best one is evolution. It naturally selects organisms that are the best at surviving, regardless of how they do it. Knowing this, I envy the mind of animals: they don’t know how to think, and are therefore freed from emotions like guilt and sorrow that inevitably result from the taking of resources from another to survive; emotions that deeply trouble human beings.

On Another Note:

I thought the Victorian Aristocracy was very much like the politics of the 16th Century. Everyone acts like they like everyone else, when really he or she is secretly plotting to advance his or her own position. The result is a world filled with treachery, where everyone wears a pleasant mask to cover up their hideous ambitions. To a person’s face lies are always told, but to their back, the truth is revealed. Also no one is technically above anyone else (save titles). The only thing they have to distinguish themselves is cunning (virtù). They are not really better than anyone else, so they must make it seem like they are.

This post seems scattered and unfocused- maybe I’ll fix it later.

I’m sorry Prince, I have found another obsession for the moment. His name is Dorian.

Just because I’m a soccer player does not make me homosexual. I was talking about the books!!! Geez. Get your mind out of the gutter.

I started Dorian Gray and it’s great. Hedonism fits into Machiavelli’s philosophy, and I find myself noticing the similarities then chuckling. haha (that’s a chuckle). When I finish Dorian Gray I will return to the Prince, and the painstaking research that will inevitably result in order for me to understand Machiavelli’s similes. At least it gives me something to do. I finished season three of House tonight, which leaves a huge hole in my daily routine. I usually come home and watch an episode or two, and now I can’t anymore   How else am I supposed to procrastinate??

Solution: read Dorian Gray. That way I can do two things at once. I can not do my project and still be productive at the same time. I found a loophole in my logic. Excellent.

Peace-

My soccer coach used to say, “soccer is a results oriented game”. It doesn’t matter how you score goals or how pretty they are, as long as you score more than your opponents (ask Diego Maradona about his “Hand of God”). And he was correct. I’ve seen Rees curve a free kick from the 18-yard box around a wall of five guys into the upper corner of the goal. I’ve also seen my own goalie accidentally (I hope) throw a soccer ball into our goal. Ironically both goals were worth the same amount of points.

Machiavelli has a similar view on politics. He argues that morals mean nothing- only the end result matters. Do whatever is necessary to achieve your goals, and crush everyone who stands in your way. Sounds like a cliche sports metaphor, and it kind of is. What I mean to say is virtù is the only thing that matters, not virtue. This idea can be applied to a myriad of topics, including soccer and that dazzling, elegant Governor of Alaska.

Sarah Palin was virtùous enough to adapt a pro life,pro abstinence, anti gay-marriage, pro NRA, pro capital punishment, anti embryonic stem cell research, pro oil exploration and pro Iraq war platform. Does this platform sound like the ultra-conservative stereotype that is becoming more and more common today? Interesting. If someone adapted it she could go far in a very conservative state like Alaska. Enter Sarah Palin. She uses this platform for virtùous purposes rather than the virtuous ones she would like to have America believe.

Her virtue came into question when the American public discovered her 18 year old unmarried daughter Bristol was pregnant. Overnight her “return to traditional American values” was questioned. How can someone who believes in abstinence be credible when she could not teach her own daughter the “virtuous” thing to do. This idea led me to some conjectures:

1. If Sarah Palin is twice as hot as a normal woman, and her daughter is 1/2 her age, does that mean Bristol is 1/2x=2, x=4 times as hot as the average female? Perhaps my math is wrong. But her prego eggo doesn’t lie.

2. In high school Sarah Palin was called “Sarah Barracuda” for her aggression on the basketball court. I wondered if she was also aggressive in other aspects of her life. Maybe she’s a nymphomaniac. And if she is maybe she passed on her nymphomania to her daughter, and since her daughter is 4 times as hot as the average female, it’s no surprise Bristol’s eggo was prego. Sarah Palin has five kids, four more than her daughter. Perhaps that relates to the hotness factor too. Her boyfriend (I would hope he was) was probably dating her to get to her mom anyway.

3. I wonder if Bristol is into role-playing? If she is I can dress up as the American public and she can be her mom. In the scene I will choose not to vote for her, and instead support someone with a more realistic view of the world. After all, politicians are like diapers: they’re full of crap and should be changed often. Our previous administration wasn’t changed fast enough, and that rash called Operation Iraqi Freedom developed on the butt cheeks of America.

My logic may be over-reaching, but numbers don’t lie; people do.

The point I’m trying to make is virtue is really a disguise for virtù. Palin (the mom) would like to say she believes in abstinence, but her family (and the new addition) tells a different story. Her political beliefs are just a ploy to advance in politics, not ones she truly believes in. The mother-daughter relationship between the two is a great way to explain hypocrisy. My logic is obviously over-reaching. It functions to reveal how illogical people can be, and how easily it is to manipulate reasoning to benefit oneself. This strategy is one people usually despise, yet ironically it is one that results in great success. Sadly the most efficient way to become successful is to abandon virtue for virtù. Consider the things Sarah Palin has said in the past year (remember how she couldn’t name two newspapers), then ask yourself how someone like that could govern a state.

The truth is this pattern applies to every human being. Evolution has naturally selected those who are the most successful, and that means hypocrisy, betrayal and virtù have been bred into each successive generation of human beings. Maybe Machiavelli was right after all- there are no such things as morals.

When reading a book published in a foreign language first there is always meaning lost in the translation process. Some words represent an idea, and therefore an appropriate English equivalent is difficult to find; especially when the word represents an idea that is uniquely integrated into a foreign country’s culture or history. In The Prince that is the case with the word virtù. I first read about it in Robert Adams’ Translator’s note. He wrote: “A last, long-standing problem in translating Machiavelli is posed by the word virtù, which can mean anything from ’strength’, ‘ability’, ‘courage’, ‘manliness’ or ‘ingenuity’ to ‘character’, ‘wisdom’ or even (last resort) ‘virtue’”.

This word defined the mentality of a Prince during Machiavelli’s time. Virtù, like my definition of a Prince, is broad on purpose. In context it means any strategy that yields positive results. This relates to Machiavelli’s idea of the ends justifying the means. Virtù is anything that brings success. The result is the only thing that matters, not the trait that virtù refers to. That’s why Adams attributes so many adjectives to the word. It represents an idea, something that is not definable by mere adjectives alone. It needs a well written analysis (like the one here in my blog) to fully explain its meaning.

First and foremost virtù is the driving force behind Machiavelli’s political treatise. During his life the Italian city-states had no definable advantages over one another. The only difference between each of them was political. The interactions between leaders defined the city-states. This created a politically charged atmosphere where alliances were created and broken constantly and consistently. There were many city-states and many alliances; and with those alliances came an enormous incentive to cheat. It was to a city-state’s advantage if they made friends, then betrayed them. It was a way to neutralize a threat and to focus one’s efforts on other enemies. It was in this world that Machiavelli become a foreign ambassador. He was on the front lines witnessing this attrition every day and from his experiences he concluded that virtue is not important. Virtù, or good politics, is the only thing that matters.

A good example of this idea is the title of Part VI of The Prince. Adams translated it as: “About new Princedoms acquired with ones’ own arms and energy [virtù]” (Adams tries to match adjectives to virtù, but since there is no English equivalent he leaves the original word in brackets for clarification purposes). Put into context, it might read: “About new Princedoms acquired by any means you choose”. The Prince sees no distinction between moral and immoral behavior, it only sees the results one’s behavior produces. This is why Adams’ definition of virtù is ambiguous. It means anything a Prince does to successfully gain political power.

Ironically virtù sounds and is spelled like the English word virtue. Virtue has a moral subtext, while the Italian word has none. Machiavelli argues that are no morals in politics and therefore virtue does not exist; only virtù matters because people measure politicians by what they do, not how they do it. Take President John F. Kennedy for example. He was married with children, but still found time in between his presidential duties and spending time with his family to have extramarital affairs. The public didn’t care back then, and doesn’t care now-he is still remembered as one of our greatest presidents. One of his accomplishments was his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Russians never backed down like many Americans may think. JFK made a deal with Khrushchev, promising to leave Cuba alone and withdrawing troops from various parts of the world for Khrushchev to remove missiles from Cuba. It may look like JFK was virtuous for standing up to the Communists, when really he was virtùous. What he did was use good politics to resolve an issue. His actions weren’t motivated by morality- if they he would have never made concessions with Khrushchev. He would have stood up for Democratic ideals no matter what. But we know the moral always perish first. And JFK didn’t rise to the presidency through morality. He was a great politician who would beg, borrow and deal to achieve his goals. Today we remember him for this ability; not for any morals he may have had.

The truth is morals and virtue have a subjective meaning-it depends if the factions benefits or suffers as a results of the virtuous action. So technically there is no one, true, universal virtuous action because a gain for one faction always results in a loss of another. In a strange way virtue and virtù can mean the same thing. They both describe an action but have an ambiguous meaning. They are good for those who benefit and bad for everyone else. The English counterpart attempts to give a positive subtext to the word in order to justify that trade off that any action ultimately creates. The Italian word doesn’t bother with morals. It, like Machiavelli’s book, is cruel, heartless and to the point. It doesn’t bother trying to embellish the idea. One could say the sack of Rome in 1527 was a very virtuous act, but the Romans would disagree. However, both factions , if unbiased, would agree the sacking was virtùous. It expanded Charles V’s empire while severely injuring a powerful enemy. Charles used good politics regardless if one agrees with his motives or not.

Perhaps the words do mean the same thing after all.

Last week I decided I should start reading my AP book. I mean, what better way is there to write about it than actually reading the book? I stated previously I own a Sparknotes version of The Prince, but to find it I had to clean my room, and that is a monumental task by itself. I felt it should stay lost for these reasons:

1. It only summarizes the book, which means important information, and thus meaning is lost.

2. People should draw conclusions from books- people should not draw conclusions from conclusions drawn from a summary.

3. IT IS NOT A REAL BOOK!

4. Most importantly, I didn’t want to clean my room

I prefer to read a book that gives me a story, then challenges me to analyze it, not one that gives me a diluted summary with an even more diluted analysis. Look how much I’ve written already written about the book in my blog- and I haven’t even started it yet. I don’t think a Sparknotes version could ever give me any genuine insight into Machiavelli’s text. It tells what one should think, rather than what he or she actually thinks. The historical introduction, translator’s note and footnotes help, but even those don’t give enough information to fully understand Machiavelli’s comparisons and examples.

My first question came before I read any of the above texts. The title of the book itself was a mystery. What is a Prince? Is he like Prine Charming? Or Prince Harry of England? Or does “Prince” mean something entirely different? It turned out my third conjecture was correct. A Prince is any ruler who has political power. The broad definition corresponds to the wide scope of Machiavelli’s advice. His book is a “how to” manual, but instead of explaining how to assemble a play structure, he explains how to gain political power- a skill very important in Machiavelli’s time. During his life many Princes struggled for power over the Italian Peninsula. The political factions included Florence (Machiavelli’s home), Milan, The Kingdom of Naples, The Romagna (papal states), Genoa, Modena, Venice, Mantua, Ferrara and Sienna. All of these Principalities-lands ruled by a Prince- struggled vainly against one another to gain control of all of Italy. This delicate balance of power was beneficial to the Italians for a while. It encouraged competition and commerce much like Capitalism does today. A problem arose when more centralized governments like France and Spain became greedy for power, and seeing Italy as weak and divided, seized the opportunity to extend their political power beyond their borders by invasion, or supporting local political allies.

Although they were political enemies of Machiavelli the Kings of France and Spain would be considered Princes. Both Principalities acheived varying levels of success in overtaking Italy. They both stood to gain power through the conquest of Italy and were not afraid to try. The rules of politics (or lack of them) applied equally to them as they did to the Italians. Vaulting ambition in the hands of the powerful know no rules. What rules do you place upon those who make the rules? Machiavelli reasoned there were no rules in politics, and all of his advice to Princes omitted moral assessment. Princes didn’t ride white horses or party in Windsor Castle like I thought- they are the dirty, ambitious, throat-cutting politicians who are hated, feared and respected by all. Modern examples include Adolf Hitler, Emperor Hirohito (Japanese emperor during WWII) and Muammar al-Gaddafi (dictator of Libya). I’m pretty sure Prince Harry and Prince Charming would not hold their own against the above three. They are the ones who followed Machiavelli’s advice to the letter. They gained control over new peoples and countries by any means necessary. Machiavelli uses the word Prince as a proxy for all of its many meanings.

It is a term recognized by virtually every political system, regardless if that system includes a monarchy. In this sense a Prince is responsible for continuing the King’s current responsibilities and spreading his Principality’s influence to foreign lands. This definition also fits with Machiavelli’s intended meaning. The duties of a traditionally prince match those of the one Machiavelli refers to. The modern examples I mentioned are obviously not princes in the traditional sense, but their position and goals are the same. They already have power, and know they must extend their empire. If they don’t another Prince will readily take over their lands.

These are the kind of people Machiavelli dealt with on a regular basis as a Florentine ambassador to foreign lands. These aggressive, zealous officials are all Princes. So is George Bush. So is Barack Obama. So is Ehud Olmert (prime minister of Israel). The definition includes all politicians who stand to gain or lose power. The important thing about the definition is its vastness; and upon reading Machiavelli’s advice, one must wonder how many people is he actually advising? The answer is all of them, which is a frightening thought considering how many politicians there are today. What would the world be like if all of them followed Machiavelli’s advice to the letter like the aforementioned dictators? Here’s a snippet:

“And the reason for this is another natural and ordinary necessity, which is that a new Prince must always harm those over whom he assumes authority, both with his soldiers and with a thousand other hardships that are entailed in a new conquest”

Keep in mind that is on page three. And yes, he is talking about using threats, violence and intimidation to retain control over people. Now back to the question: what would the world be like if all politicians followed Machiavelli’s advice? The answer is more frightening than the question.