who were some denoucers of machiavelli and his work from the prince? i know napoleon bonapart was a supporter . but who was against what machiavelli had written in The Prince?
2007-02-08 10:34:27 · 4 answers · asked by frank t 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Who were some denouncers of machiavelli?
Some were Innocent Gentillet (a Huguenot author), Frederick the Great, and the French philosopher Voltaire. See the following quote.
"Of the many books specifically refuting The Prince, two deserve special mention. The first, written in 1576, was the Discours sur les moyens de bien gouverner contre Nicolas Machiavel by Innocent Gentillet. Gentillet, a Huguenot author protesting the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacres, did more to establish Machiavelli’s devilish reputation than did The Prince itself. The most famous response to The Prince came from Frederick the Great, King of Prussia. In 1740 he wrote, with the help of the French philosopher Voltaire, the Anti-Machiavel, a vigorous condemnation of Machiavelli’s principles."
From http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-148,pageNum-83.html
2007-02-11 02:02:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Cruelty vs. mercy" In answering the question of whether it is better to be loved than feared, Machiavelli writes, “The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.” As Machiavelli asserts, commitments made in peace are not always kept in adversity, however commitments made in fear are kept out of fear. However, a prince must ensure that he is not feared to the point of hatred, which is very possible. Above all, Machiavelli argues, do not interfere with the property of the subjects, their women, or the life of somebody without proper justification. Regarding the troops of the prince, fear is absolutely necessary to keep a large garrison united and a prince should not mind the thought of cruelty in that regard. For a prince who leads his own army, it is imperative for him to observe cruelty because that is the only way he can command his soldiers' absolute respect. Machiavelli compares two great military leaders: Hannibal and Scipio. Although Hannibal's army consisted of men of various races, they were never rebellious because they feared their leader. Scipio's men, on the other hand, were known for their mutiny and dissension.
2007-02-12 10:32:05 · answer #2 · answered by silly_bitch 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Machiavelli was not a important figure at his time. Italy was very divided at the time, with numerous noble families that were fighting against each other. He supported some, therefore got deadly enemies from the other side. Quite common these days.
Whoever has open eyes must admit that most of The Prince is real, even nowadays. It is not 'politically correct' to say that in public.
2007-02-09 04:49:33 · answer #3 · answered by BataV 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sun Tzu's tactics as explained in his Art of War may be considered to be the anti-Machiavelli Prince.
2007-02-08 19:46:51 · answer #4 · answered by Andrew Noselli 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋