Recently, we attended a lecture where distinguished professor of history emeritus, William Cook (SUNY Geneseo) made the case for exalting, Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527). Since the publication of his political treatise, The Prince in 1532, Machiavelli’s name has become synonymous with unprincipled, deceptive, and tyrannical tactics. In his lecture ‘Machiavelli on Republican Virtue,’ Dr. Cook argues that The Prince is grossly misinterpreted, deemed an apology for tyranny, critics have gone so far as to label it the dictatorial handbook. On the contrary, Machiavelli, through The Prince, was advocating for Republican government. Cook maintains that the Prince, needs to be read with an adherence to the historical context to obtain the true intention of the work. Italy, during the 15th-16th centuries, had become the battleground for European conflicts. Machiavelli
…show more content…
Cook’s lecture was substantive and provided much for attendees to take away. History, Cook stresses, is not determinant and should not be strictly followed. Consequently noting that we cannot simply copy history, for civilization to advance, it needs to be done through creativity and ingenuity. Having read The Prince multiple times, Cook’s background analysis makes me view the work in a different light. I appreciated Cook’s citing of the Roman Republic as the picturesque republic, in Machiavelli’s perspective, so too did the founding America’s founding fathers. Cook’s lecture has made me look back on world leaders throughout history and play the ‘Machiavelli game’, determining who exemplifies Machiavellian qualities, and who is not. In hindsight, The Prince, for me is stressing the importance for realism, as opposed to idealism (e.g., accepting the way things are and governing in accordance to achieve the common good, as opposed to focusing on the Aristotelian political ideals). Most importantly, promoting republicanism as opposed to, monarchical regimes, authoritarianism, and
Cook’s lecture was substantive and provided much for attendees to take away. History, Cook stresses, is not determinant and should not be strictly followed. Consequently noting that we cannot simply copy history, for civilization to advance, it needs to be done through creativity and ingenuity. Having read The Prince multiple times, Cook’s background analysis makes me view the work in a different light. I appreciated Cook’s citing of the Roman Republic as the picturesque republic, in Machiavelli’s perspective, so too did the founding America’s founding fathers. Cook’s lecture has made me look back on world leaders throughout history and play the ‘Machiavelli game’, determining who exemplifies Machiavellian qualities, and who is not. In hindsight, The Prince, for me is stressing the importance for realism, as opposed to idealism (e.g., accepting the way things are and governing in accordance to achieve the common good, as opposed to focusing on the Aristotelian political ideals). Most importantly, promoting republicanism as opposed to, monarchical regimes, authoritarianism, and