In our latest HCJ lecture we examined Machiavelli and further to that, we discussed him in our seminar this past week. He was a Florentine polotician. MAchiavelli enters the forentine political system shortly after the Medici family had been exiled in 1494. However in August 1512, the Medici along with Pope Julius II ended the Republican goverment and took charge of Florence again. This assault on the political system by the Medici resulted in Machiavelli being relieved of all his positions. Machiavelli was also blamed for a conspiracy to remove the Medici and was jailed until release after the amnesty of the Medici. This was to recognise the promotion of Cardinal Giovanni de Medici to the seat of St Peter.
The main subject matter I will focus on is why did Machiavelli write The Prince. It is my belief that he wrote it not for flattery of a corrupt goverment but as a CV. In the new goverment, Niccolo could only get a job by pointing out his knowledge of past and future politics. He states in a letter to Francesco Vettori on the 10th December 1513 that he simply wishes 'that these Medici princes should begin to engage my services'. This would imply his book is made simply for monetary return and not for the false appreciation of a tyrant.
Machiavelli is often misconceived as being corrupt. His blunt form of political philosophy can often be interpreted as a form of instruction booklet. He claims in The Prince that 'it is better to be feared than loved for love is fickle and fear is eternal'. This mentality has led many to believe Niccolo to have traded his moras for a right hand job with the Medicis.
His book states somewhat vulgar instructions to gain power in whatever way nessecary and to maintain power through corruption and injust power. To keep the public in fear, Niccolo suggests the murder of rebe politicians or conquests which are false and so clouded by religious quests and rebellion quelling. He even encourages getting involved in other fights, irrelevant to the realm of the ruler. This is the sort of talk which has turned readers of The Prince to Condemn Machiavelli.
It seems to me that Machiavelli is seen to be a realist. He simply states that which has come before. Machiavelli takes examples from famous tyrants such as Caeser, Nero and even past Medici rulers. Machiavelli is not corrupt in my mind, he is simply factual, as the saying goes 'the truth hurts'! If this book was an article in a paper, Machiavelli would seem to be acting in the public interest and simply uncover scandal. Machaivelli achieves this, he simply litters his writing with sarcastic criticism on the current Medici rule. He wants to get a job for this knowledge but also to get some form of revenge on the Medici family even if unknown to them through hidden satiristic patterns.
To summarise, as I have rambled on for a long time now, Machiavelli is simply a realist. He is a journalist in a way, reporting fact and revealing the inner corruption of the Medici rulers. He is far from corrupt as he is working in public intrest if we examine him in a modern legal light.
My next post will be about the Miscarriage of Justice conference including an interview with Steve Gray, one of UAI's leading pioneers.
No comments:
Post a Comment