The Prince

>>9625601
Yes, mostly of historical interest and juicy gossip.

Discourses on Livy is far more substantial.

>>9625601

If the ideas come to you as no surprise anon, then it's exactly because this text represents beginnings of modern thought which you were raised in and now take for granted. At the time and place in which it was written, even if the ideas themselves weren't novelties, openly setting them down in a text definitely was. The historical novelty is thus the importance of the work.

>>9625676
>If the ideas come to you as no surprise anon, then it's exactly because this text represents beginnings of modern thought which you were raised in and now take for granted.
A friend of mine made exactly the same point. I'm sad to say that you're probably right, although I do wonder how much me being British might factor into this.

>>9625601
It's a brilliant work of satire

>>9625601
Shittiest thread on /lit/ right now congratulations. Satire post was the icing on the cake.

It may be pure propoganda and political pandering, but it actually has some good points about being a singular ruler and maintaining power as such.

To me it's like learning a lot about prison maintenance, culture, and inmate control techniques while being a traffic cop. It sounds interesting and practical but no one is ever gonna use it substantially.

>>9625676
Totally this. Much like the first time i heard the beatles as a mid (late 80s, early 90s) I thought, "meh. I dont get the big deal"

It wasnt until i grew up a little and listened to the other no 1 songs of the 60s. They were really something different that changed the tone of everything completely.

Id say a similar thing can be said about the concepts in "the wealth of nations"

>>9626854
>Satire post was the icing on the cake.
That's an academically respected position, no?

The depth of understanding which Machiavelli showcases about politics and religion is fucking amazing.

>>9627003
Sounds about right.

After reading summaries of The Prince to help consolidate my understanding of the book, I'm quickly falling under the impression that outside of the book's historical value, the summaries are just as good as the book itself.

>>9627270
No. Just because he has a great sense of irony and humor doesn't in any way make the work a satire, nor is there any historic evidence to imply satirical intent. He most assuredly wanted a secure position at court and intellectual prestige worthy of his great genius.

>>9627270
Sure it is, but academics love to look for meaning that isn't there so that they have something to do. All facts heavily imply that the work is entirely sincere, and I see no reason to think otherwise. Just think about how many decades were spent arguing over theories for the authorship of the Illiad, just to return to the conclusion that it must have been one person.

>>9628175
I consider it sincere, not-satire. The interpretation of it as satire feels historical revisionism or something to me.