From an intensive academic study based primarily on Machiavelli's works, critical arguments arise in this text that undermine not only the current-day political mind-set, framework, and practices, but also the views established academically, up to the point where the "body politic" formed by the Western classical tradition is dissipated and dispersed. Comprised in a contrary unconventional manner similar to Machiavelli, the basic essential factors of history, religion, power, and authority were formulated as the four main chapters in this work by (...) Nevio Cristante. From it, one can readily see the flaws today in the false praise in nostalgic historical hubris, the forgetting of a brand of religion that is essential for healthy politics, the overlooking of coercive forces that reduce politics to power, and the loss of true authority. In this book, Cristante comprises Machiavelli as a virtuous, unprecedented, "extreme humanist," in stark contrast to the common incessant interpretations of him being a "teacher of evil," a "diabolical," "soulless" political advisor. A subversive satirical interpretation of The Prince has been formed herein, extending from the generated knowledge of history and the history of Machiavelli's own experience. From the vivacious and unraveling Italian Renaissance, a cogent force prompted Machiavelli to create his literary works in order to form an educational cure for the deteriorating human condition, of his time, and any time. There is in Machiavelli, a differing sense of newness from that which is commonly known today, which circumvents its worth in this distinct educative interpretation. Machiavelli goes back in time in order to produce lessons applicable to correct the shortages in his, and every, present-day. With a divergent view of the works of art and literature outlined in this analysis, Machiavelli's education becomes revived today in creating a virtuous political, spiritual, and cultural dynamism as a battle-cry to repel the ignorance and great misfortunes in our human condition. (shrink)

Femina in line 28 has nagged me subconsciously for years. I have now belatedly realized that it sabotages the poet's prudent disclaimer: it is not women in general who are in question, but only those not ruled out of bounds by stola and uittae. The repetition of the word in the following verse, where it means, as the opposition to uiri indicates, ‘the female sex’, only serves to underline its inappropriateness here. Cristante's defence of the anaphora, that it ‘ribadisce (...) la necessità dell'insegnamento, introducendone la giustificazione’ , sets up an unwanted connection: lines 25–8 are strictly parenthetic to the main argument, as indeed is signalled by the truly functional anaphora of femina in line 29, whose effect is blurred in the text as transmitted. The form of the couplet, typical of Ovid, dictates that what is wanted is a variation on nil nisi lasciui, e.g. nec or, better, non proba. The source of the intrusive femina is not far to seek, though how precisely it ousted the original reading I do not pretend to guess. (shrink)

Femina in line 28 has nagged me subconsciously for years. I have now belatedly realized that it sabotages the poet's prudent disclaimer: it is not women in general who are in question, but only those not ruled out of bounds by stola and uittae. The repetition of the word in the following verse, where it means, as the opposition to uiri indicates, ‘the female sex’, only serves to underline its inappropriateness here. Cristante's defence of the anaphora, that it ‘ribadisce (...) la necessità dell'insegnamento, introducendone la giustificazione’, sets up an unwanted connection: lines 25–8 are strictly parenthetic to the main argument, as indeed is signalled by the truly functional anaphora of femina in line 29, whose effect is blurred in the text as transmitted. The form of the couplet, typical of Ovid, dictates that what is wanted is a variation on nil nisi lasciui, e.g. nec or, better, non proba. The source of the intrusive femina is not far to seek, though how precisely it ousted the original reading I do not pretend to guess. (shrink)