A question gone unanswered by the man who promised an explanation, “What actually does makes a republic tick?”. Joseph Epstein, in his very poorly named article “Machiavelli Explains What Makes Republics Tick”, does not actually talk about a republic, but instead ecompasess the quinecential Machiavellian style in order to give readers a proper understanding of the classic era without reading the work firsthand. Rather than focusing solely on the content of Machiavelli’s masterpieces, he instead displays the way in which these works are distinctively crafted. From his negative, degrading tones, to his constant emphasis on the “flaws of humanity”, Epstein embodies all of the criteria of a true Machiavellian work. Ultimately, Epstein’s choices
…show more content…
When stating that,“Only Machiavelli could hold up the cruel regime of Cesare Borgia as worthy of emulation”, he alludes to the fact that only he is capable of interpreting a work as “textured and rich” as this one. Epstein’s tone shifts slightly again as he calls his audience to reflect on “their significance for our day”. At this point he begins to alter his method of persuasion from belittling to more cautionary and informative. He has already established that he and Machiavelli are at a higher pedestal than their audience’s, and now can finally reveal how “successful spartans” differ from the “transient athenians”. Epstein tells his readers that the Spartans knew that men were naturally evil, and therefore “supported their strong customs with strong laws” in order to combat their vicious ways. He implies that once someone understands that they must take into account the nature of those they are dealing with, that is when they will become a success. He provides a modern day example of the “insidious influence of corruption” by mentioning the “string of poor presidents”. By choosing to add excerpts like this, Epstein forces his audience to come to the realization that they will never be as “permanent” as he and
When stating that,“Only Machiavelli could hold up the cruel regime of Cesare Borgia as worthy of emulation”, he alludes to the fact that only he is capable of interpreting a work as “textured and rich” as this one. Epstein’s tone shifts slightly again as he calls his audience to reflect on “their significance for our day”. At this point he begins to alter his method of persuasion from belittling to more cautionary and informative. He has already established that he and Machiavelli are at a higher pedestal than their audience’s, and now can finally reveal how “successful spartans” differ from the “transient athenians”. Epstein tells his readers that the Spartans knew that men were naturally evil, and therefore “supported their strong customs with strong laws” in order to combat their vicious ways. He implies that once someone understands that they must take into account the nature of those they are dealing with, that is when they will become a success. He provides a modern day example of the “insidious influence of corruption” by mentioning the “string of poor presidents”. By choosing to add excerpts like this, Epstein forces his audience to come to the realization that they will never be as “permanent” as he and