Thread: Twinkies

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Machiavelli was easy.

For those who have not done so before, set aside The Prince. Then read Machiavelli's other works (letters, Discourses on Livi, Florentine Histories for example), and *then* read The Prince. And just consider the possibility that The Prince was written as a satirical piece never intended for widespread publication, but rather for the entertainment of his decidedly non-"Machiavellian" friends.

It gives the thing an entirely new meaning.

Originally Posted by Cangooner

And just consider the possibility that The Prince was written as a satirical piece never intended for widespread publication, but rather for the entertainment of his decidedly non-"Machiavellian" friends.

I don't remember learning this part about it in college. How do you know this?

Originally Posted by sheffieldlover

I don't remember learning this part about it in college. How do you know this?

It's not actually something I could say I 'know', but back when I was an undergrad, one of the profs in my honours program gave us a bunch of Machiavelli in one of our reading courses. But he started with his other works before assigning The Prince and suggesting that we approach it embracing the possibility that it was a satire. It has never been proven, but it's a really interesting theory, and one that makes an awful lot of sense when his other works are considered as well. The Prince is really out of character for him when the rest of his writings are considered. It stands out like a Twinkie in a Ding Dong factory. (How's that David?)

Originally Posted by Cangooner

It's not actually something I could say I 'know', but back when I was an undergrad, one of the profs in my honours program gave us a bunch of Machiavelli in one of our reading courses. But he started with his other works before assigning The Prince and suggesting that we approach it embracing the possibility that it was a satire. It has never been proven, but it's a really interesting theory, and one that makes an awful lot of sense when his other works are considered as well. The Prince is really out of character for him when the rest of his writings are considered. It stands out like a Twinkie in a Ding Dong factory. (How's that David?)

You know - I am convinced that history majors are the most interesting people in the room lol!!

Originally Posted by Cangooner

For those who have not done so before, set aside The Prince. Then read Machiavelli's other works (letters, Discourses on Livi, Florentine Histories for example), and *then* read The Prince. And just consider the possibility that The Prince was written as a satirical piece never intended for widespread publication, but rather for the entertainment of his decidedly non-"Machiavellian" friends.

It gives the thing an entirely new meaning.

It may be written for satire, but it is also amazingly accurate at times.
That is often the strength of satire: to make blindingly obvious what people known but don't want to acknowledge if it is not over the top.

[QUOTE=Cangooner;1070935Discourses on Livi[/QUOTE]

Let's not throw mastro livi under the bus, too!!!