Talk:Niccolò Machiavelli/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Lifted Piecemeal?

This whole article looks to have been lifted piecemeal from www.classicallibrary.org (http://www.classicallibrary.org/machiavelli/prince/1.htm - 5.htm). Have we permission to do this? It even replicates the typos.... sjc

I was wondering about that when I was reviewing the reference to the Battle of Vaila, and certain phrases seemed identical to ones on several web-sites, including the Gutenberg site. I'm confident that the Gutenberg people would make sure it was in the public domain before putting it on their site.

Confusing Notes

What do these notes like these signify "Aet. 1-25--1469-94"? It looks like a date, but I am not familiar with the format. Perhaps a rephrase or a link should be added to the article to clarify them. --Dori 15:45, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Aet. is the Latin Aetatis, "of age"; so that section deals with the period when he was from 1 to 25 years old, which was during the years 1469 to 1494. --rbrwr

Undesirable Language?

It is simply unfair that the adjective "machiavellian" has come to refer to narrow self-interested behavior pursued for and by interest groups.
I am afraid that the above words constitute undesirable language. According to whom is it "simply unfair?" The statement expresses a strong opinion as if it were absolute. I am unfortunately unsure as to how to reword such a statement. Perhaps we might say that "The adjective "machiavellian" does not completely reflect Machiavelli's works." Lord Emsworth 01:12, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

The article at present does not deal adequately with the origin of the adjective "machiavellian" and its commonly understood meaning. As it has been used in conversations I have heard, the users understand it to refer to the acquisition and retention of power through whatever means are most expedient, even if this involves deception and limited injustice, on the grounds that the greater good is served by these deceptive and unjust means. I have more research to do, but having read parts of the Prince, this does seem to be an accurate portrayal of part of Machiavelli's political philosophy. The present article limits itself to out-of-hand dismissals of this understanding of the word, without examining ways in which its popular meaning might be justified. Take the following quote, for instance, which I believe is the most egregious example of the article's apologetic stance on the term:

[The Prince] advocates a form of minarchy managed by a limited aristocracy that is wholly devoted to successful rule, on the chance that they may prevent chaos. Contempt for this limited vision of government may well be the reason that the word "machiavellian" has come to mean something other than the man's views.

This final statement is not only inaccurate, as there are examples within the book that can support the popular meaning of "machivellian," but reveals the author's bias with a partisan dig against those who rightly point out that Machiavellian politics does tolerate some injustice in cases where it is presumed it will serve stability and the greater good. It is not at all accurate to suggest that the only reason people might use "machiavellian" as a negative epithet is that they object to the limited government that Machiavelli advocates. The element of his politics against which most people level objections has to do with his utilitarian presumption that some deliberate injustice inflicted by rulers on some of their subjects might be justified. The article as it is now does not bring this out. It offers a sympathetic view of Machiavelli, rather than a dispassionate one, and so could bear improvement. Rohirok 06:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Machiavellianism

This article should have a link to an article for Machiavellianism. Unfortunately, no article exists on the topic. I find the wording at the beginning of this article confusing-around where it mentions epithets-it doesn't make any sense. I agree with the previous commentator that this article does not properly address the origins of the term Machiavellian; and the distance between this concept and Machiavelli's own.

Done!--24.217.183.224 06:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed the following two sentences for now. I've never heard Machiavelli described as an ideal of the Renaissance man, so I find the first sentence dubious (unless someone can cite evidence that anyone endorses this view). The second sentence doesn't make any sense at all - I can't even decipher the intent.

Along with Leonardo da Vinci, Niccolo Machiavelli is considered the ideal prototype of the Renaissance man. While this epithet may be more appropriate than describing Machiavelli as "Machiavellian," it may be fair to state that he possessed a "machiavellian intelligence."

Whole page seems to be lifted from a scholarly introduction to The Prince, likely copyrighted. In addition, it shows the POV of the author of that introduction in excessive praise and somewhat archaic language of Machiavelli. Article needs a complete rewrite.

It's actually from the introduction to The Prince that's in Project Gutenburg. So it's public domain, although your other objections still hold. TOO 00:23, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Complete rewrite. Even the image was copied. TaintedMustard 04:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Machiavelli is a very prominent figure and widely discussed in many history classes and whatnot; this level of language is very difficult to understand and could cause confusion. I would attempt to do this but I am much to busy learning about these things to write an encyclopedia page about him. I hope im not doing this wrong. phinnaeus

In my opinion, this whole article needs to be re-written. I'm not an expert on Machiavelli, so I can't really comment on the accuracy of the information, but as someone who just surfed here to learn something, I found it very hard to read. An encyclopedia should be clear and concise, this reads more like something a college student would write for a class where they try to use big words thinking they'll impress their instructor. I'd revise it myself, but I'm not expert enough in the subject matter to feel comfortable doing that, but I write this in the hope that a qualified reader will happen upon this and edit this article.

Removed the lines "He also was accused for many cases of child molestation, most of the time being found guilty." by user 4.248.39.164 . It is not clear if this was refering to the father Bernardo di Niccolò Machiavelli or Niccolò Machiavelli. --Blue520 04:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

snipe

Ôsnipe

I've begun editing...

but so far, all I'll be able to do is clarify some stuff and remove useless links (see 1494). Whoever first wrote this article... well lets just say bleh. It may take me a while as I have only just now searched this article and this is my first Wiki edit. Bear with me please, the most I can guarantee is better formatting and simpler wording. --Desolation0 18:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Airbus?

"More recently, there have been rumors that the Airbus A380 will be named after him."

Really? I'd like to see a source. And, in any case, Wikipedia is no place for irrelevant rumours. That some random individual said something on Airliners.net (or some other out-of-control aviation forum) doesn't mean anything. mat334 | [[User talk:Mat334|talk]] 04:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The Prince

This article does require a complete rewrite I agree. A seperate section is probably required on The Prince, since it's arguably his most famouse work and an interesting read. In the introduction to my copy, it stated that The Prince was an attempt to please the Medici family and one which unfortunately backfired. The book is also reportedly a popular book in business ^{[citation needed]}. -- Tompsci 18:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This article leaves out any mention of a prince's virtù, which Machievelli seems to view as the most important characteristic of a prince can possess. 74.34.30.103 17:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

=====A critical reading on where Modernity in Politics starts [added on 8/2/2006]:

Machiavelli is considered the father of modern Philosophy of Politics and here is why: "The ends justify the means", is sometimes (all too often!!) connected to him but this was essentially NOT his position. And that is the whole point with Modern politics.

Loyola {see Jesuits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuits or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Loyola} thought like that! Not so Niccolò. His stance is "The ends make all means potentially necessary"! Justification with the Jesuits is essentially a moral category, whereas Machiavelli's effort and a historical Novum clearly distinguishes between the two and actually divorces them. Politics becomes technique!

Coming back to "Along with Leonardo da Vinci, Niccolo Machiavelli is considered the ideal prototype of the Renaissance man", we can now see what it actually means: similar to Leonardo performing vivisections, interested with "how things really are", similar to all the other greats of their time and as opposed to the Church dogma, Machiavelli also argues the same point, "Let us see what is actually going on, rather than proscribing things before we investigate them". It is the point raised with Augustine and Aquinas: they came into a research not driven by their unquenchable thirst for truth but their need to justify the dogma/belief before any research began. This is the Novum of the Renaissance and Machiavelli certainly is one of its most distinguished sons, having carefully described the New Epoch without dogmatic constraints! His insight truly is novel!

It took an American to call such a position a "political rodeo" where one does not know if a Player {politically speaking] rides Power or Power rides all the Players.

Just another possibility within Modernity through which we are kept awake at night...

added by gorski

This section, IMO, is written in a very unprofessional manner. Excessive exclamation marks. Maybe a less emotional rewrite? 201.24.52.190 02:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean... IF you mean the "style" in which my addition was written (with due respect, of course):

IF that is the case I must protest for judgemental approach to a style, that is, btw, completely legitimate in various cultures, one of them "my own" [boy, you should see some of my old professors' work - some of them seriously contributing to humanity]...]. In which case this smacks of "slight intolerance" of humanity’s legitimate differences, IF I read it correctly. Namely, IF you want all of us to write the same as you and your likeminded colleagues, in cultures that subscribe to this particular “style”.

I mean, do a few exclamations make it "unprofessional"? Is it really utterly unacceptable because it breaches your preferences (or even prejudices?) when it comes to a “style”? Academia can only be stuffy and allegedly without any passion/emotions? I think not. Firstly, that is not possible! Moreover, nothing of any value comes to this world without passion and emotion! Philosophy included. Some choose to show it a bit more than others do. Is that really so wrong?

Besides, if one cannot see beyond appearances... Oh, well...

    In the English language, exclaimation points make academia appear unprofessional. Yes, you may have opinions, but not in a non-POV encyclopedia. Your section also qualifies are original research. 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad the Stanford text/link is here, at the bottom - the best I've seen in a while... Now, that's a well written text on M.!!! ;) :)

Tupac possibly faked his death?

This is most a most inappropriate line, even if it was on Tupac's article and not Machiavelli's. All evidence to support this "possibility" is circumstantial at best and is not even suggested. There isn't even any mention of how Machiavelli could have inspired Tupac to do such a thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.238.26.154 (talk • contribs) .

You're right. That didn't belong, and I'm glad you removed it. Thanks! --Mr. Billion 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Responses to Machiavelli

Bold textmy man is a doob Started a section on "Responses to Machiavelli" (in contrast with the "Modern appreciations").
Please add more resources. For example, criticism of M by Catholic writers. -- Writtenonsand 14:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

wawawawawawa The following on-line unpublished manuscript seems to be a very useful source for citations: William Gilbert. 1998. Renaissance and Reformation http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/gilbert/04.html Leaders100 14:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pragmatism

Perhaps i fail to understand either Niccolò or pragmatism. It seems to me that he could be added to Category:Pragmatists. --Kevin L'Huillier 19:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pragmatism is a 20th century phenomenon. To apply it to Machiavelli would be to try to shoehorn him into a set of ideas that woulnd't come around for hundreds of years. It would also make the mistake of thinking of a philosopher in terms of what came after them instad of in the terms that they understood themselves. The former risks producing all sorts of stange formulations like Plato the protochristian and Locke the protomarxist. --Beaker342 16:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That was well stated. Thank you. --Kevin L'Huillier 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Why is there a link to the Citadels card game at the top of this article? That article does not even mention Machiavelli!

There is a computer game called "Machiavelli: the Prince", but there is no article for it.

I would be bold and delete the link myself, but I can't help thinking I'm missing something obvious .... Magnate 12:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know why it is there either. I am deleting it, as it appears to be vandalism at worse, or a ridiculously stupid "product plug" at best. LoyolaDude

Discourses on Livy.

This article mentions "The Prince," Machiavelli's most famous work, and the word associated with him. But it contains little about Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy", except to list it in his Bibliography. I think this may do a disservice to Machiaelli's character. His ideas on republics are briefly acknowledged but not very fleshed out.

The title of chapter 58(LVIII) of the first book in "Discourses" is "The Multitude is wiser and more constant than a Prince". In it he challenges the idea that "nothing is more useless and inconstant than the multitude." He states that "A corrupt and disorderly multitude can be spoken to by some worthy person and can easily be brought around to the right way, but a bad prince cannot be spoken to by anyone, and the only remedy for his case is cold steel." "Machiavellian" still applies to Machiavelli in many ways, chapter 41(XLI), book 3 of the "Discourses" is entitled "That one's country ought to be defended, whether with shame or glory, by whatever means possible." But some parts of the "Discourses" still surprise many people I know, as they do not quite fit the perceptions many of them had from reading "The Prince." Therefore I think it might make a good addition to this article.

I'll modify the article myself and let others refine(or delete) it if need be but I am not a great factual/neutral PoV writer. I am hoping someone who comes along can try their hand at it before I make a mess of things. Fean 07:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

=you're absolutely right about this, so why don't you go ahead and if you make any egregious errors of fact, i'll try to clean it up, and also provide a grammatical check for you. scholars know there are 2 Machiavellis, which are really just 2 sides of the same coin. lemme know when you're done. good luck. Stevewk 18:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

References

"Japanese Rock band Dir en grey featured a song on their 2005(Japan)/2006(US) album "Withering to death." titled "Machiavellism".
Chanakya(c.350 - c.275 BC), a well-known name in India, was a professor of political science at Takshashila University in ancient India. He has been called the Indian Machiavelli by Jawaharlal Nehru."

Does this belong in references?--24.215.180.100 23:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Machiavelli / The Sack of Rome

in Niccolò Machiavelli, under "Life", it says:

     "...on top of all of this the rise of Lutheranism, culminating in the sack of Rome at the 
      hands of rampaging German soldiers in 1527"

But under the topic of the Sack of Rome (1527), under "background", it says:

     "Apart from 6,000 Spaniards under Bourbon, they included some 14,000 Landsknechts under 
      Georg von Frundsberg, Italian infantry led by Fabrizio Maramaldo, Sciarra Colonna and 
      Luigi Gonzaga, some cavalry under Ferdinando Gonzaga and Philibert, Prince of Chalons"

Therefore I would find it fair to take out the "rampaging German soldiers" from Machiavelli's site, or extend it to the other soldiers as well - although I don't know if all soldiers were "rampaging" or just the Germans, or just the Spaniards, etc.

Cultural depictions of Niccolò Machiavelli

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate content

There has been some vandalism in this article which has now beem removed. I suggest protecting this article from futher acts of such kind.Gogo 16:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering if the whore comment at the end of this line is accurate or neccessary "it is no wonder that he turned his intelligence to analyzing the military and political events surrounding him and his whore ."

Influenced

I've started an Influenced section. I'm sure some people will disagree with putting Tupac in, but I think it works (he even named himself after Machiavelli!). Regardless of that, such a section is long overdue. --User:PrinceMyshkin 16:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So someone deleted the Tupac from the inf luenced section, which I think is a mistake. Shakur read Machiavelli in prison, and "said he learned a lot from reading Machiavelli's books, particularlyThe Prince and The Art Of War.[1]" Obviously this is not the best source, but it is a source nonetheless, and I see no reason for it to be faked. Until someone can give me a good reason not to have Shakur as an influence, I'm gonna put him back up there. --User:PrinceMyshkin 7 December

The "influences" and "influenced" sections are there to show direct lines of influence between major philosophers. The infobox would get way too big if we listed every single influence, including contemporary artists. Even to list influences/influenced of every minor philosopher would make the infobox too big. I understand the reason you want to put him there, but I think it's enough just to keep Tupac in the "Popular Culture" section of the article. FranksValli 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's a fair and perfectly reasonable answer. I'm glad my Thomas Hobbess reference stayed. Thanks! --User:PrinceMyshkin 18:06 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for understanding :). FranksValli 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Personal Interpretations

Machiavelli has a very entertaining writing style that is superficially quite easy to follow. Unfortunately, this means that there is a tendency for people to quickly form opinions of him that further research would probably call into question. His apparent inconsistencies lead the reader to 'play detective' and try and solve all sorts of riddles, like "how are The Prince and the Discorsi related?" For example (from the Wikipedia entry):

     "Another way of thinking about the two books is that The Prince was written hastily,
      in an attempt to secure a job with the new Medici rulers, whereas The Discourses is
      Machiavelli's serious political tract. In this the two books might reasonably be
      compared to two of Marx's works: the Communist Manifesto was written in a hurry to
      provide direction in the 1848 uprisings, while Das Kapital is Marx's real political
      thesis."

Without reference to a reliable academic source, I don't think this kind of statement should be included. It requires historical contextualisation to support it, which is probably beyond the scope of the entry. My recommendation would be that something like this be written:

      The relationship between Machiavelli's various political writings (The Prince
      and the Discorsi in particular) has been the topic of much debate. Notable
      theories include:

then have a bullet-point list of significant theories -- there is a huge body of literature on the subject (someone with access to JSTOR or the like should pad this out). Here are some off the top of my head:

      -Rousseau: The Prince was a disguised warning for the multitude about
      the dangers of tyranny
      -Mary Dietz: The Prince was intended to trap the Medici into throwing
      away their power over Florence
      -Hans Baron: the chronology of the works is DisBk1 -> Prince -> DisBk2 -> DisBk3.
      He argues that the strong republicanism of Bk1 gives way to an acceptance
      that the Italian states were too corrupt for republican govt, hence The Prince
      -Sheldon Wolin: The Prince is a handbook for the 'founder' who acts as the
      precursor to the republic described in the Discorsi
      -Renaudet: Machiavelli is mainly concerned with method and in each work
      is using the same method to theorise on different forms of government

The most important thing that this Wikipedia article could achieve is to let people know that Machiavelli is about more than just The Prince. At the same time, however, we should make sure that this doesn't involve providing normative judgments on how the Machiavellian oeuvre all ties together as one unified vision. He was a complicated character, and the best we can do is to let people know about all the information that is available. Oh and another thing: the Influences and Influenced section is very misleading and could do with a rethink. Terrencethetractor 17:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a little go at the infobox, not 100% happy with it, but then it is very difficult to pick out influences and suchlike when there is nobody in particular who he really descends from. I've gone with the Roman historians Cicero, Sallust, and Livy, as I feel that they are important to an understanding of Machiavelli's thought and the civic humanist trend of his time. For Influenced, I've taken away Thomas Hobbes because I think it's quite a tenuous link, although feel free to put it back in if you have some good evidence to the contrary. Instead, I've added Rousseau, who mentions frequently mentions Machiavelli as a similarly minded pro-republican (whether that is true or not), and Leo Strauss, who is becoming quite an important character in contemporary political philosophy and wrote extensively on Machiavelli. All of these additions are contentious, so I'm open to any better ideas. One edit which I think is a no-brainer, was to add classical republicanism to his School/Tradition section. I've left Realism in, although I think people should be careful about putting someone in a School/Tradition just because they appear to put forward similar ideas. My own inclination is to kick Realism out, because being a (supposed) forerunner of realism is not the same as being a realist. Terrencethetractor 21:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This note explains why I removed Leo Strauss as someone influenced. The source of the story is adequately addressed in Michael and Catherine Zuckert's The Truth About Leo Strauss. It was started by Shadia Drury and popularized by Lyndon LaRouche. On the face of it, the thesis is implausible. Strauss said that the crisis of modernity was the inevitable result of the modern break from classical philosophy, specifically, Plato and Aristotle. When he wrote about esotericism, he hadn't yet discovered the importance of Machiavelli (cf. the place of Hobbes as the founder of modernity in Natural Right and History). And when he came to studying him in Thoughts on Machiavelli, it was to establish him as the first to effect the break from the ancients which he had formerly attributed to Hobbes; this was his position from there on out (cf. Machiavelli's place in "What is Political Philosophy?"). Which is to say that Strauss's primary relationship to Machiavelli was as an appreciative critic of his thought, much like his relationship to Nietzsche, Heiddegger, Schmitt, Loewith, Kojeve, etc. Moreover, Machiavelli can't even be said to have been essential to Strauss's formative period: his fundamental thesis about ancients and moderns was established before he came across Machiavelli. Strauss wrote far more about Plato, Xenophon, and Maimonides than about Machiavelli. I'll add that the view that Machiavelli influenced Thomas Hobbes became Strauss's. RJC ^Talk 23:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the response. To be perfectly honest, I would rather these philosopher pages didn't have 'Influences' and 'Influenced' on them, because they rarely seem to be helpful. Your argument about Strauss is convincing, although I'm still unsure about the connection with Hobbes. The line between being an "appreciative critic" of someone and being a philosophical descendant is blurred, and highlights a big flaw with the infobox -- if Machiavelli could be summed up accurately in so few words, we could all go home early!

My own judgment is that Machiavelli lacks philosopher descendants because he wasn't a philosopher himself. It is impossible for the modern thinker to be anything more than an appreciative critic, picking out pieces of his thought here and there. Anyway, got to go now, but will come back to this topic later in the week. Terrencethetractor 19:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

rome sacked in 2007

really? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.96.212 (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Influences and Influenced

I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC ^Talk 14:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Machiavelli's Education

The statement, "Education left him with a thorough knowledge of the Latin and Italian classics" seems vague. In The Seekers, Daniel J. Boorstin writes, "As a youth he was mostly self-educated by the books he read and by an occasional private tutor. He learned Latin bu not Greek. So, luckily for his later work, he was never overwhelmed by a pedantry or erudition and retained thh alertness and curiosity of the amateur." 70.251.250.244 04:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Birth date inconsistent

In the first line of the text, it reads "..Machiavelli (May 3, 1469 – June 21, 1527) was..."

but in the sidebox it states:

"Death: June 22, 1527 (Florence)"

Auke Slotegraaf 09:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

Can you add this?

tuttotempolibero.altervista.org/poesia/quattrocento/niccolomachiavelli.html Life And All Complete Works By Niccolò Machiavelli - Format HTML]

What's the policy on adding foreign language hyperlinks? RJC ^Talk 15:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Later unclear addition

There is a minority view, an alternative interpretation of "The Prince" as satire, contrary to his views as a republican, his life-style, and his other writings. This interpretation resolves the extreme cynicism and duplicity inherent in this apparent advice for a prince. (Mattingly, G., 1958, “Machiavelli's Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?”, The American Scholar 28: 482-491. See also [2].)

I put here this late addition as it was interesting, but needs to be rewritten in order to be meaningful.

POV and the prince

This article on the prince does not present the prince in a NPOV way. there is significant argumentation as to the nature of Machiavelli and his intent regarding the prince and the treatment given is decidedly one sided. Even if the o pion here is held by a number of scholars there is no consensus in academia about the issues discussed but the article does not read that way at all. simply put the article makes controversial claims without sited sources and fails to present other interpretations or even note that they exist. see some of the work by Harvey C Mansfield. (as a side note i have some trouble with posting if i multi posted sorry and please delete excess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckboyanch (talk • contribs) 07:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the formatting problem, I think. RJC ^Talk 17:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Unclear

What does "His family were believed ... to have kid Florence 13 gonfaloniers of justice" mean? 62.145.19.66 (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It means that someone failed to revert some vandalism. I've restored it to the version added here. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tupac

I've again reverted anonymous IP edits that have attempted to place Tupac among those influenced by Machiavelli. This was discussed back in December 2006 (see "Influenced," above). The infobox is for major philosophers, not every literary or cultural figure upon whom Machiavelli had an impact. The template would get out of control were they to be included. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Works

I'm about to remove The Prince and Discourses on Livy from the "Other Works" section - "other," after all, suggesting that these are works that are not already mentioned in the article above. No problems? The Last Melon (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Birth place disagreement within the article

The sidebar says Machiavelli was born in Florance. The main text says he is born in Paris. They need to agree.159.53.46.141 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Small changes

The second introductory paragraph claimed that Machiavelli considered The Prince his magnum opus. While I expect whoever wrote that was extrapolating from the letter to Vettori of 1513, the statement is a gross exaggeration. The circulation of his texts suggests that he considered other works more highly. So I have edited that paragraph to make it more circumspect. I've also commented on this on my own website: http://bonaelitterae.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/can-we-trust-wikipedia/ David rundle (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Machiavelli and Bruni on militia

RJC: I see you've removed the clause I added to provide a link between Machiavelli and Bruni on the issue of the militia. I think your point is that the context in which Machiavelli should be placed is in doubt, and that is true for much of his work. However, on the specific issue of the militia, I can think of no work which denies that particular connexion between his writing and the earlier generations of civic humanists. Bruni is the best-known exponent of that in his De Militia. This is not to suggest that Machiavelli, in a wider sense, is in the same mould as Bruni, or that, in this single case, he simply copied Bruni, but the purpose is to give a sense of the intellectual tradition in Florence of which he was certainly aware. Would it help if I added a reference to Mallett's chapter in G. Bock et al., Machiavelli and Republicanism? Or perhaps C. C. Bayley, War and Society in Renaissance Florence? While I think of it, the sentence we are discussing could better refer to The Art of War than to The Prince. View on this?David rundle (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I have a more general point than the context into which Machiavelli should be placed. Rather, how much of Machiavelli's thought can be explained by reference to his context? The answer to this question is what I was saying was disputed (although perhaps not as actively, since the camps are each ensconced within different disciplines and so don't have to talk to each other in order to get published). I think the best way to avoid privileging one side over the other is to have a separate section on possible influences on Machiavelli; going through point by point and ascribing influence, however, seems to give undue weight to the view that Machiavelli's thought is clarified by situating him in his historical context (the authors I mentioned in the edit summary would say that it instead obscures his thought). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Niccolò Machiavelli/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs citations plange 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)