Even though I did not agree with everything Machiavelli wrote, I did understand where his writing was coming from. In his Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli talks about how there are three good kinds of governments, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. He shows how they are all good but eventually degenerate into tyranny, oligarchy, and mob rule.  Specifically, I like to talk about two things I found this area.
     First off, I liked to talk about his criticism on monarchy, which I totally agree with... "But if at the beginning this monarch who rescues the unworthy people from themselves is virtuous, his successors will not be; and so step by step monarchy again becomes tyranny in the same way discussed earlier." This got me thinking. He's right, when he's talking about earthly monarchies, because we all are human, and none of us are perfect (As Sir Gawain demonstrated earlier this week). Then I thought about how God is a king and a perfect monarch.  I found myself amazed at how God, through Machiavelli, revealed some His glory to me.  God was suppose to be Israel's only King, that is why He never instituted a monarchy over Israel until Israel begged for one. In doing so, Israel rejected God as their King, the mob rule. God gave them over their desires and established a earthly monarchy, and from the slow degeneration of that monarchy Israel was destroyed and exiled.  But God being our perfect King can never degenerate, will never have a successor, He is eternal and whole. He is also a perfectly just King and perfectly merciful. We will never live in fear or a corrupt monarchy, serving Him.
     Secondly, (This kind of goes off another path) I like how Machiavelli says the best government is a combination of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, that they all balance each other. This gave me a lightbulb moment! Balances, balances, like our checks and balances! This is kind of how our government was set up. Monarchy resembles our executive branch, aristocracy our judicial, and democracy our congress. That's what came to my mind anyways.

Well that's all folks

P.S. commented on Becca's post

Fun in the Middle Ages

I really enjoyed sir Gawain and the green night. When ever I think about the Middle Ages this Is the picture I see. People playing games and laughing, just having fun in general. I don't really see how a be heading game is fun but I guess they did. I just really enjoy reading the funny poems from the middle ages, it's almost a reminder that not everything is do depressing. I love thinking about all the love and chivalry going on, like Susan said in her blog, people should be like that now days.


Ps I commented on Susan Berner's

Gawain's Troth

I really enjoyed reading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Although this was not my first time, I feel like I understand it much better now. Before I didn’t really understand the difference between truth and troth. Actually I did not even know there was such a word. However, Sir Gawain is the epitome of troth. Just as the pentangle represents the aspects of troth, Gawain shows all the characteristics of the pentangle. He has manors, faith, compassion and chastity. He shows all of these throughout the story. I believe he only falters in one way.  That is when he fails to give the sash to his host, but even still, he redeems himself when he confesses his failure to the green knight. As humans do we not all fall at some point in time? Is Gawain to be punished for is human nature? I don’t think he should be. 

PS i commented on Nick's

Falling victim to deception

In class when discussing Machiavelli's The Prince we mentioned how he says that to be a good king you don't necessarily have to have all these outstanding leadership characteristics, but you have to at least appear to have them. What stuck out to me in this passage is when he says, "that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived." I could  not be anything but amazed at how much truth lies behind this quote. In today's society we get so outraged when we have governors, senators, or presidents that promise to do one thing or appear to be able to be a strong leader and then go against their word or completely fail when they get elected. Who should we be getting mad at though? Should we be mad at a president who deceived us or should we be mad at ourselves for being deceived. The only way a leader can successfully get elected by deceiving people is if people are allowing themselves to be deceived.

In history and even in the epics  there are so many people in power such as Hitler or Odysseus that appear to be a good speaker or a good leader and have successfully deceived their people. Hitler convinced his followers to slaughter innocent Jews among millions of other innocent people and also wound up loosing in World War II. Then, Odysseus' crew basically got themselves killed by following Odysseus on all his crazy adventures. Would all of these things have happened if people had not allowed themselves to be deceived. While it is hard to go against a ruler once already in power, there is a way of stopping deceptive politicians from being elected. It is easier said than done but can be accomplished by refusing to fall victim to deception. It is crazy how something written by Machiavelli in 1515 can still hold so much power and truth in today's society.

p.s. commented on Molly Gray's Not Our Forefathers

Ezio vs. Machiavelli

Alright I understand that I might sound like a complete nerd bringing this up, but just because of the fact that Machiavelli lived in Florence, Italy, I was incapable of preventing myself from thinking about Ezio Auditore from Assassin's Creed II. They both lived during the same time (during the 13th and 14th centuries) in the city of Florence. Throughout the whole game, Ezio fights with his clan of assassins against the secret society of Templars who basically have control of almost everything, including politics and religion. He even battles the Pope during this time in order to find the truths behind spirituality as well as the origins of this world and the devastating ends that it is coming to.

In Machiavelli's "The Prince" he tries to change the way in which the government is being run in Florence. His message seems satiric but it is ultimately just a peaceful way to lead to reformation. Even though Ezio's story is fictional, I could not help but compare the two methods of reforming the political justices that had overcome the city. Machiavelli sought a peaceful method by writing his political thoughts. Ezio tried to reform the city by basically killing off all the Templars. At least Ezio's story is not exactly true; but I do enjoy the game's story line.

Call me a nerd, but that is what stuck out to me the most this week.

P.S. I commented on Nick Hampton's "Camelot!"

I really enjoyed reading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and love learning about Medieval times, because they seem so fun and romantic.  I mean, this reading literally starts out with the most fun house party ever!  People celebrating Christmas, everyone is at the party, there is tons of food, and everyone is dancing and having fun!  Of course I know that it probably wasn't as fun as all that.  No running water doesn't really sound like the best thing.  However, the knights had a chivalrous was about them, that defined the way they acted toward their fellow man.  There is a lot of this in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.  It is the knight's code of honor that keeps him from sleeping with his host's wife, from lying, and ultimately from dying in the end because he is so honest.  It makes me wonder how different the world would be today if people were more kind and honorable and respectful to each other.  I like the think that if men could be more chivalrous like the knights, the world be a better place.  

I commented on Mallory's post!

I'll Pass on the Hemlock

In Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli wrote, "one who would found a solid and lasting Republic should recognize the defects of each, and, avoiding every one of these forms by itself alone, should create a form of government that would partake of all three" (I.ii., 3). He wanted a combination of these different governments, something that would be have less defects than any one form by itself. This seemed to be his ideal government.

But, in The Prince, he gave advice to on how to be a good monarch. I don't think that this is a contradiction of his position in Discourses on Livy. Machiavelli may not haved changed his mind about the form of government he wanted. Actually, it seems like he was trying to use the existing government to achieve his own ends. In section 26 of The Prince, he wrote, "This opportunity, therefore, ought not to be allowed to pass for letting Italy at last see her liberator appear" (18). He was not necessarily sanctioning monarchy as the best government - he was hoping it could be used to save Italians from a nasty situation.

This may seem like an odd way to influence a ruler - until you remember that he had been tortured by the family of the man he was advising. Machiavelli may not have been willing to play the gadfly here. It would have been much safer to suggest rather than make an insulting speech (remind you of anyone?). If Machiavelli wanted a different form of government than a monarchy, he probably wouldn't want to tell this man!

Not Our Forefathers

    The excerpt from Machiavelli' Discorsi that we discussed deals with the types of Republics that exist and how they are founded. However, what spoke out to me the most was the flow from one type of government to the next that Machiavelli created. From anarchy to monarchy, to tyranny and then aristocray, on to oligarchy and finally democracy; with bouts of  revolution inbetween all, ending with anarchy before the cycle begins again.
     Now being the conservative, southern baptist, patriotic American, college student studying politcs that I am, I am a firm defender of democracy. I believe that it is the ideal form of government, but unfortunatly, Machiavelli believes that a democracy can only be short lived.

"For when that generation that had organized it passed away, soon the people come to be so selfish and and so self-serving, each did absolutly anything he pleased, with no consideration for anyone else, wheather private citizens or public officials: in this situation, as each individual pleased himself and harmed his neighbor, a thousand injuries were inflicted every day: so that, constrained by necissity either through the suggestion of some good man, or to escape from sich anarchy, the people once again turned to a form of monarchy."
 

As Americans, our fist reaction to this statement is that its absurd; America is over 200 years old! But in terms of great nations, the US is still a todler. However, if we analyze this quote critically and honestly observe our country, we will see that although the United States is still labeled as the same democratic-republic that we were founded as, we are not the Americans that our forefathers intended us to be. So maybe Machiavelli is right; maybe it is impossible for a true democracy to reamin just that, a true democracy.

What Really Constitutes True?

Dr. Bear asked us to consider what the meaning of ‘true’ is and whether or not Gawain is ‘true.’ My answer to this question changes every time I read “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.” Last semester, when I wrote a paper on Gawain in three or four different Medieval works, I was of the opinion that no, Gawain was not true. He lies, cheats, and is incredibly cowardly. However, this time, I feel that Gawain is true. Yes, he lies, cheats, and is a coward, but in the end he is true to the code he follows. Even though he strays from the path of being ‘true,’ He very quickly repents of his wrongdoing and vows to stay on the path of ‘truth.’

Until next time, good luck with your papers! I’m going to go stress about paper and project stuff!!!

~Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit,

Meghan

PS I commented on Tinsley’s

The Eternal Knot

I've always loved British poetry, in particular, Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.  The intensity and creativity of these literary works is intriguing, as we discussed in class.  My favorite thing about Sir Gawain is how the poet brings the reader into the story.  As the reader, you're concerned for Gawain's fate, and are begging for him to remain "true." The endless knot on Gawain's shield really fascinated me as we discussed it in my small group.  By wearing it on his shield Gawain emphasized that he was the epitome of truth, of honesty, of the eternal concepts necessary to the ideal knight.  Indeed, the true root of this romance is not whether or not Gawain will survive the Green Knight's challenge or protect the honor of Camelot, it is to challenge and test the eternal knot on his shield.  At the beginning of his quest, "For ever faithful in five-fold fashion was Gawain in works unalloyed, devoid of all villainy, with virtues adorned in sight."According to the poet, the star on his shield means more than a sign of truth.  It is a challenge and standard Gawain set up for himself, and one which is tested throughout the entirety of the poem.

P.S. Commented on Preston's :)

Rambling Thoughts and a Broken World

I have been thinking a lot lately about the brokenness of society.  It seems to me that no form of government is really working.  People, for the most part, are broken, corrupt, and selfish.  I used to believe that most people would choose to do good if it came down to it, but lately it's been hard to maintain hope for society.  Machiavelli may not have been speaking seriously when he wrote The Prince, but part of me wonders if he was feeling some of what I'm feeling. What if Machiavelli took a "beat them at their own game" view at the end?

Commented on Mallory's Machiavelli

the corrupt city

One of the main things that stood out to me in the reading for today was that Machiavelli seemed to have the lowest possible view of humanity. In his Discourses he seems to list almost every reason why a Republic is the most ideal form of government.. and also why it would never work because man is corrupt. The Republic is a good thing, but since men are corrupt a good institution can't be maintained by corrupt people. Therefore, Machiavelli turns to violence as the means of gaining power. "For to want to reorganize and reform the political life of a government presupposes a good man; but to seize power over a republic by violence presupposes a bad man. Therefore it will hardly ever happen that a good man will gain absolute power through violent means, even if his goal in doing do is truly to reform and improve the government...we can see how truly difficult it is to maintain a free form of government in a city where the people have become corrupted..." (p.6)

I was interested to hear in class today something that I didn't pick up just from reading it myself, that Machiavelli's end goal was not power, but the establishment of a republic for the good of the people. Perhaps he had a strange way of going about it, but his arguments in favor of his methods were quite plausible... if men are really as completely awful as he said. But, if he decides to get rid of those who are "bad" or otherwise not beneficial to the success of the republic, would he not be taking a Hitler-esque stance and presuming himself to be above everyone else? A truly good man could never resort to the violence necessary to overcome the tyranny of a bad man, but only a truly good man would be able to judge without bias who should be spared in the cleansing of the government. Only God is truly good, so only God can make the call who should live or die... and so the formation of the Republic through a revolution of good men would either be unsuccessful or eventually corrupt those who were leading it.

Perhaps this is why in The Prince, Machiavelli seems to be writing tongue-in-cheek about how a monarch should rule, partially through corruption and deceit. He has such a low view of humanity and all his dreams of a successful Republic went unrealized... while he watched his beloved Florence get torn apart by wars. Maybe he finally gave up on the Republic and is advising the monarch how to rule and keep the peace and happiness of the people? Since monarchy, according to Machiavelli, is the inevitable outcome of any political system given enough time, considering the corruption of humankind.

p.s. commented on Mallory's "Machiavelli"

There are Two Sides on Every Coin

Today in honors, we talked about the infamous Niccolo Machiavelli, as well as his two works: Discourses on Livy, and  The Prince. I would like to discuss The Prince in relation to the man who wrote them, as I find several discrepancies between the man and the work.

First, I'll give a brief biography of Machiavelli in order to give us an accurate picture of the man behind the books. Machiavelli enjoyed an early childhood education, which he later decided was useless for understanding politics. In 1494, Florence drove out the ruling Medici family and created the Florentine Republic, placing Machiavelli at the head of the second Chancery. During this time, he carried out several diplomatic missions to foreign governments, sampling everything from the Court of Louis XII to the brutal methods of Cesare Borgia. In 1512, the Medici, with the aid of Spanish troops, retook Florence, and imprisoned Machiavelli, where he was repeatedly tortured due to his previously held political positions, as well as a supposed involvement in a conspiracy. After repeatedly denying involvement, he was released and sent to his home, where he lived for the rest of his life. It is believed that the Prince was written during this time.

Now , I would like to point out some things that did not line up as I saw them in between what he did and what he wrote. First, throughout the entire work: He uses the words "prince" and "tyrant" interchangeably. Second, To be more specific, In Chapter 17, he states:

 “The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.”

This is Machiavelli's "defining quote" as we might know it. It is what he is most famous for saying. Ironically, he was a publicly elected official before he wrote this book. He was loved as a public official as well. In addition, concerning the matters of the military, Machiavelli supported arming the people, many of whom would hypothetically recently conquered. He also advised that the prince should live in a city that he himself conquered. I'm not a political expert by any means, but I'm pretty sure that living next door to the people whose family members you killed aren't going to sit idly by while you rule over them. 

I'd put a conclusion here, but I think I've rambled on for long enough.

~~Cody Martin

PS. I commented here.

The Pearl Poet's Scarlet Pen

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is the chain drug that begun my literary expanding. I didn't enjoy reading in high school (most of our readings were boring and unhelpful in  helping the student appreciate fine arts), but my senior year we were asked to read this story. After reading this for the first time, it wasn't the story that had me interested, nor was it the intuitive writing style, but it was the simple imagery. Simple excerpts that would describe the characters were just astonishing. In describing the Green Knight, the "Pearl Poet" uses the most astonishing description,

 "And in guise all of green, the gear and the man: A coat cut close, that clung to his sides, And a mantle to match, made with a lining of furs cut and fitted-the fabric was noble (151-154)."

After reading the work I begged my English professor to lead me to other writings such as this. This work is incredibly sentimental to me and has served as one of the first works I ever became interested in. However, there were so many other uses of imagery that I believe Chaucer had done exceptionally well. For example, one of the hardest things to describe in a narrative work is loneliness. Chaucer uses harsh and piercing language to describe Gawain's isolation, "Now he rides in his array through the realm of Logres, Sir Gawainn, God knows, though it gave him small joy! All alone must he lodge through many a long night where the food that he fancied was far from his plate... Many a cliff must he climb in country wild; Far off from all his friends, forlorn must he ride (691-694,713-714)." Loneliness is a hard element to connect with the reader, but Chaucer's descriptive imagery puts them together easily.  There are many others examples, and I know that this was not the main focus during the class, but this is what speaks to me the most from Chaucer. Chaucer had various ideas and opinions concerning religion and political hierarchy, but I think he wrote this work simply to entertain, and that he did.

P.S. I commented on Mallory Searcy's "Machiavelli..."

Scary stuff!

Machiavelli...

Assuming that Machiavelli's The Prince is not total and complete sarcasm, I don't like it.

I mean, I don't like the core of it. I don't like the idea that the ruler of a city should be able to do evil in order to preserve the state. The idea that for the good of the people there are "necessary evils" which rulers should be allowed to commit is the total opposite of what I believe.

If there really is a God who loves his creatures, then doing the right thing, living honorably and acting justly. I just can't accept that the only way to govern is through necessary evil.
I'm with Plato and his philosopher kings...
..... anyone else?

Camelot!

The Camelot we see in the beginning of Sir Gawain reminds me of the Camelot from Monty Python and the Holy Grail!!! (Which just happens to be one of my favorite movies). It is probably bad that when I started reading of Camelot in Sir Gawain and saw lines 38-45ish that included,

“Many good knights and gay his guests were there,

Arrayed of the Round Table rightful brothers,

With feasting and fellowship and carefree mirth…

Then came to the court for carol-dancing…”

I immediately pictured the cast from Monty Python in this fashion…

I do know that this Camelot in our reading was actually celebrating Christmas and in that were showing their nobility under Christ. Most older people in churches here would say that must separate them from that cast from that great movie, but come on there’s nothing wrong with a little feasting and dancing and turning Camelot into a “rather silly place” at least for a little while.

Don't lie or you'll get your head chopped off

I know that Gawain didn't get his head chopped off in the text, but I liked that title more. One of the lessons of Gawain and the Green Knight is to be good to your word. Although we would never have to be in Gawain's place, the lesson is to do the self sacrificing thing and to make good on your word even when it could mean your life. Also, value others more than yourself. I have mixed feelings about Gawain but he is a relatable character. It's good to see a character who is human and not the perfect archetype.