Why is there so much confusion surrounding this book? It was

>>2179782
no it wasn't it is a hypothetical

>>2179788
>no it wasn't it is a hypothetical

Non-sequitur.

>>2179782

And A Modest Proposal was a genuine suggestion to eat Irish babies, right? Just like The Canterbury Tales were definitely just a transcript of the stories and eclectic group of pilgrims told each other, right?

>>2179804
Was the The Art of War also a hypothetical? It's a logically coherent political treatise, it's stupid to jump in and say it was only a prank bro.

The Prince was absolutely serious and serves as a genuine guide to politics.

But that aside, Antonio Gramsci, an Italian marxist, wrote a great essay called the Modern Prince where essentially he claims the Prince can be used to show the lower class how corrupt their rulers are.

The main proof was that as Machiavelli states, the greats such as Alexander didn't need the Prince to succeed. They already knew it, thus, the treatise is for those that do not know, ie the peasantry.

I don't think this was Nico's intent at all, but it's still an interesting take on it

>>2179782
While Macchiavelli's republican worldview is well-known, the treatise is most definitely not satirical. Would he go in depth about the danger of hiring mercenaries or using allied armies if he just wanted to satirize those in power? Highly unlikely. It's been a while since I read it, but I got the impression that he was simply exploring the mechanics of achieving and holding power without making moral judgements. That, however, wouldn't explain his seemingly genuine (instead of praise as an example) praise of Cesare Borgia, but that might just have been the state of politics around him.

File: smug machiavelli.png (175KB, 250x321px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 250x321px

The Prince was not satirical and Machiavelli did nothing wrong.

>>2180249
He went on a bunch of diplomatic missions for Borgia, so the bias is to be expected.

>>2180189
>They already knew it, thus, the treatise is for those that do not know, ie the peasantry.
..Or incompetent rulers. Just because the likes of Alexander and Caesar wouldn't need it, doesn't mean all other crowned heads were as talented.
Gramsci of course wanted to read everything in a commie light, but what is more likely, that Macchiavelli wrote a book on politics for illiterate peasants, or that he wrote a treatise for stupid fledgling rulers like a good half of the Medici family after Lorenzo?

>>2180249
>his seemingly genuine (instead of praise as an example) praise of Cesare Borgia
Niccolò was an ardent supporter of italian unification, and Cesare was working to build a centralized kingdom out of Italy.

>>2179804
>the prince is satirical

Where does this meme come from? I've heard this about The Republic, too.

It was originally written as a letter to the Duke of Milan, how can anyone think its satirical? Especially with the part at the end where he starts talking about how if Italy doesn't make any effort to unify and just stays as a bunch of city states it'll get gobbled up by Spain+France.

Which is exactly what happened.

>>2180290
>Where does this meme come from?
Tons of people outraged at the mere idea of someone suggesting pragmatism over morality have tried to read the Prince as satire or deceit at least as far back as Gentili in 1585.

>>2180272
>>2180284
Thanks, lads.