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!