Synthesized answer
The provided passages do not explicitly state why writing "The Prince" in vernacular Italian was considered a significant innovation beyond stylistic choice, nor do they detail how this decision reflects broader intellectual shifts in the Renaissance beyond Machiavelli's specific context.
However, the passages do emphasize Machiavelli's deliberate and precise use of language. The translator notes that Machiavelli "weigh[s] every word" because his "themes were lofty, his substance grave, his manner nobly plain and serious" [2]. This precision is highlighted by the example of the word "_intrattenere_", which in Elizabethan English would translate directly, but in modern English requires a more complex phrasing [1]. The translator's aim was to preserve this "pithy brevity of the Italian" [1]. Machiavelli himself states, "In _The Prince_, it may be truly said, there is reason assignable, not only for every word, but for the position of every word" [2]. He also describes his work as a "small work on ‘Principalities,’ where I pour myself out as fully as I can in meditation on the subject" [4]. The passages do not elaborate on the intellectual implications of this linguistic precision…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
Prince_, it may be truly said, there is reason assignable, not only for every word, but for the position of every word. To an Englishman of Shakespeare’s time the translation of such a treatise was in some ways a comparatively easy task, for in those times the genius of the English more nearly resembled that of the Italian language; to the Englishman of to-day it is not so simple. To take a single example: the word _intrattenere_, employed by Machiavelli to indicate the policy adopted by the Roman Senate towards the weaker states of Greece, would by an Elizabethan be correctly…
ernments otherwise than as he found them, and he writes with such skill and insight that his work is of abiding value. But what invests _The Prince_ with more than a merely artistic or historical interest is the incontrovertible truth that it deals with the great principles which still guide nations and rulers in their relationship with each other and their neighbours. In translating _The Prince_ my aim has been to achieve at all costs an exact literal rendering of the original, rather than a fluent paraphrase adapted to the modern notions of style and expression. Machiavelli was no…
n the state. And it is on the literary side of his character, and there alone, that we find no weakness and no failure. Although the light of almost four centuries has been focused on _The Prince_, its problems are still debatable and interesting, because they are the eternal problems between the ruled and their rulers. Such as they are, its ethics are those of Machiavelli’s contemporaries; yet they cannot be said to be out of date so long as the governments of Europe rely on material rather than on moral forces. Its historical incidents and personages become interesting by reason of…
I forget every trouble, poverty does not dismay, death does not terrify me; I am possessed entirely by those great men. And because Dante says: Knowledge doth come of learning well retained, Unfruitful else, I have noted down what I have gained from their conversation, and have composed a small work on ‘Principalities,’ where I pour myself out as fully as I can in meditation on the subject, discussing what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they can be acquired, how they can be kept, why they are lost: and if any of my fancies ever pleased you, this ought not to…
osition; its title and patron were changed; and for some unknown reason it was finally dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici. Although Machiavelli discussed with Casavecchio whether it should be sent or presented in person to the patron, there is no evidence that Lorenzo ever received or even read it: he certainly never gave Machiavelli any employment. Although it was plagiarized during Machiavelli’s lifetime, _The Prince_ was never published by him, and its text is still disputable. Machiavelli concludes his letter to Vettori thus: “And as to this little thing [his book], when it has been…
More questions about this book
- How would you explain Machiavelli's argument that "the aims of princes – such as glory and survival – can justify the use of immoral means" to someone unfamiliar with the text? What fundamental moral dilemmas does this concept immediately raise?
- The text mentions "controversy had swirled about his writings" even before official publication. Based on the description provided, what specific aspects of *The Prince* do you think fueled this immediate controversy, and why might such a message be particularly unsettling in a 16th-century context?
- If *The Prince* was intended as an "instruction guide," how might a new prince misinterpret or oversimplify Machiavelli's core theme of justifying immoral means, potentially leading to unintended consequences? What safeguards or deeper understanding would be necessary to avoid such misapplications?
- Imagine you need to explain to a peer why *The Prince* was considered 'especially innovative' for its time. What specific details from this excerpt would you use, and what further questions would you need to investigate to fully elaborate on this innovation?