Qabalistic Values in The Prince by Machiavelli
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Here are some points of interest I recollected after reading the book:
Pieces and parts across the whole work draw distinctions between cruelty and evil:
...every prince must wish to be considered merciful and not cruel. Nevertheless, he must avoid using mercy inappropriately. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel, yet his cruelty brought order to the Romagna, uniting it and making it peaceful and loyal. All things considered, Borgia proved far more merciful than the people of Florence, who allowed Pistoia to be destroyed simply in order to avoid a reputation for cruelty."
Ch. 17 - Of Cruelty and Mercy, and Whether it is Better to be Loved Than Feared, or the Contrary
...it is best to both seem and be merciful, loyal, humane, upright, and scrupulous. And yet one's spirit should be calculated in such a way that one can, if need be, turn one's back on these qualities and become the opposite. It is vital to understand that a prince, particularly a new prince, cannot afford to cultivate attributes for which men are considered good."
Ch. 18 - Of the Need for Princes to Keep Their Word
For good to slay evil, good must commit murder. This all feels very "Geburian."
Towards the end of the writing (Ch. 25), Fortune (kaph) is discussed and described metaphorically as a wheel, a torrent, and a woman (Binah, Briah, &c). It is also very affirmative of both the power of the individual free will and the power of Fortune. There is apparently enough room for both of them, thank Nuit!
...for God does not want to do everything, lest he take from us our free will and that part of the glory that belongs to us."
Ch. 26 - An Exhortation to Free Italy from the Barbarians
As the book comes to a close, it becomes at once both more specific to the time of its writing and more personally affirmative to readers open to its teachings.
I see plainly the correspondence between the Princes of the Tarot and those of Machiavelli, and I see this is a Yetziratic correspondence, being of the Tarot. I found something deeper in the Book of the Law:
... Also, o scribe and prophet, though thou be of the princes, it shall not assuage thee or absolve thee. But ecstasy be thine and joy of the earth : ever To me, To me!"
Liber AL vel Legis cap I:53
The language here is a bit tough for me, but I think "princes" here could be another word for "adepts." In following one's own will, all may be right if done in the Love of Nuit/Heaven/Infinite Space/&c. (without expecting to be either assuaged or absolved, of course).
I had a great reading of the first two chapters of Liber AL last Friday... Its becoming more and more important to me as I continue to work in solitude, and I look forward to discussing it in future threads.
The translation of The Prince I read is by Peter Constantine, which came to me at the recommendation of a local university professor. Please feel free to discuss and/or contribute.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I see what you mean, but that's virtually unavoidable in almost all the writings of the period. I'm sure it had a lot to do with the agenda of the Church and the acquiescing political powers at the time, but I don't think that should stop anyone from discarding some things and/or reading much of it symbolically.
I tend to do that anyway with most of the older and often ancient works I read, though...
I found this book in particular easily lends itself to business affairs. Inventing something could be like obtaining a new principality, applying for a job and building a career on previous experience could be akin to rising to power in an existing principality, &c.
Not to mention the specific war strategies offered at the end (and, in general, most of the writings) are akin to the charge of Ra-Hoor-Khuit to "Fortify it" and "Dung it about with the enginery of war."
-
Not a lot of people know this, but Machiavelli actually wrote it as a biting satirical critique of the ruling family.
On other words, it sounds dark and cruel because he meant to point out the darkness and cruelty of the Medici family.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Not a lot of people know this, but Machiavelli actually wrote it as a biting satirical critique of the ruling family.
On other words, it sounds dark and cruel because he meant to point out the darkness and cruelty of the Medici family."
That's a view that only became popular after Rousseau, who held the view centuries after Machiavelli wrote The Prince. However, you present this as if it were a fact. Your point of view is a highly debated one based on speculations created centuries after the author's death.
I will agree that there are a few points of interest presented here, but all of the information presented in the argument is little more than speculation.
What can be said for sure, as a matter of fact, is that Machiavelli was Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence from 1498 to 1512. He lost this seat as the Medici came to power. He wrote The Prince to the Medici family in an attempt to secure himself the position of Adviser to the Prince.
The work does highlight the importance of a Senate and other arms of government to which should be delegated "difficult tasks," but this is still congruent with Machiavelli's intention of securing himself some sort of position resembling his former seat as Secretary.
If Machiavelli himself declared the writing as satire at any point, it would only be after his attempt to secure a position of authority failed. In such volatile times, it would make sense for him to ultimately snub his nose at the nobility, but it is plain (to me, anyway) that this would only be a reaction to his inability to participate as a noble himself.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Veronica said
"I have never read the book ...
Always seemed like it was dark, depressive and oppressive not to mention blatant sexism."
Why does it seem that way if you've never read it? Is your information based on what other people are telling you about it? I wonder if they read it...
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"... it sounds dark and cruel because he meant to point out the darkness and cruelty of the Medici family."
Since you're of the same opinion about the book, I have to wonder if you haven't read it either!
I found the overall work to be an exciting and thoughtful historical account that chronicles great leaders and how they came to power. Whether or not the leaders were "holy" or "moral" (although, many examples presented in the work were good and just men!) in character is irrelevant since what is of concern here is what they did with their circumstances to benefit their aims.
Lets say you and your family are about to be killed by a murderer. Do you buckle down and obey "thou shalt not kill," or do stand in your strength and defend you and your loved ones? Sometimes being ruthless is a matter of life and death.
There is much in this book that deals about War (peh), which is totally natural, given its historic context. I think this is only relevant for us in modern times if the obstacles of our lives prove to be enemies.
-
@Zalthos said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Veronica said
"I have never read the book ...
Always seemed like it was dark, depressive and oppressive not to mention blatant sexism."Why does it seem that way if you've never read it? Is your information based on what other people are telling you about it? I wonder if they read it...
Lets say you and your family are about to be killed by a murderer. Do you buckle down and obey "thou shalt not kill," or do stand in your strength and defend you and your loved ones? Sometimes being ruthless is a matter of life and death.es."No one I know has read the book, or at least let me know they read it. My summation was based upon the few random pages that I sampled when I first got the book. Based upon that I decided I wasn't going to read it. I have read things like this about it
www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/prince/themes.htmlAnd as for the last question, I never buckled down and was never taught to obey anything but my own judgment.
-
So...
Machiavelli (whose writings were all anti monarchist) has his arms broken by the monarchist Medici family for being too anti monarchist and then, in an about face, writes the Prince to brown nose his way into their favor. It fails, and he goes back to his anti monarchist writings for the rest of his life.
Further, this single uncharacteristic piece, which failed at its alleged mission, is chock full of sage advice, and deep qabbalistic references. Yet the author went right back to his previous message after he wrote it.
Sorry if I roll my eyes at how convoluted that sounds to me. And yes, I read it in history class.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Machiavelli (whose writings were all anti monarchist) has his arms broken by the monarchist Medici family for being too anti monarchist and then, in an about face, writes the Prince to brown nose his way into their favor. It fails, and he goes back to his anti monarchist writings for the rest of his life."
I will give this to you, since he was Secretary of a Republic, and I haven't read The Art of War or Discourses on Livy yet.
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Further, this single uncharacteristic piece, which failed at its alleged mission, is chock full of sage advice, and deep qabbalistic references."
But this: I never intended for the Qabalistic and Thelemic Holy Book tie-ins in my previous posts to be considered intentional by the author. I wasn't trying to say that.
However, it is interesting to me that "Lorenzo the Magnificent," a Medici, served as patron to Leonardo da Vinci for seven years. And this whole affair takes place during the Italian Renaissance...but that's still a stretch, and still not my intention to begin with.
You can Qabalistically analyze anything; you can put anything next to a Holy Book and compare the language. That's all I was doing here. I thought it would be fun to engage in this together, but I see am spending more time defending my choice to read The Prince (at all and in this way) than I am engaging with anyone in any of the activities I had hopes for.
O well.
-
Can we blame it on the full moon?
93