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.