WWWBoard/LT

Renaissance Forum   Humanities & Classics 1002

[ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ]

In Reply to: Love VS Fear posted by Shane Courtland on December 29, 1998 at 20:03:56:

:
I understand the point made, but I think that you have understood the use of the word "Love" used in the readings too literally. It is my impression that it was meant in terms of being popular with the masses. That the prince would have approval by the people for his actions of governing rather than being loved as a kind and generous ruler. Machiavcelli was writing about leading a people not on how to be well accepted by them. When one is in that postion of being a prince I agree that your people must not "fear" you per se, but that they must respect your postion of authority in order to aviod total chaos and anarchy. One cannot lead a mass of people without some sense of control. True, when you as a ruler are well liked your have no reason to stray. But going back to my previous post, it is important to keep on mind the time at which this was written. It was not a society like we know. It was a very unstable time in European history where rulers, territories, beliefs, and knowledge were changing at a rapid rate. Being a ruler at that time was not a matter of "love" or popularity as it is today. People were not allowed to chose who controlled them. Leaders had to take a firm hold of their populations in order to be successful and that is where the concept of fear places itself. I would have to agree that in a society such as that, a ruler would have to instill some sense of fear in order to secure his place as a ruler.

Follow Ups:

POST FOLLOWUP

NAME:
E-MAIL:
SUBJECT:

RESPONSE:
: : : I understand the point made, but I think that you have understood the use of the word "Love" used in the readings too literally. It is my impression that it was meant in terms of being popular with the masses. That the prince would have approval by the people for his actions of governing rather than being loved as a kind and generous ruler. Machiavcelli was writing about leading a people not on how to be well accepted by them. When one is in that postion of being a prince I agree that your people must not "fear" you per se, but that they must respect your postion of authority in order to aviod total chaos and anarchy. One cannot lead a mass of people without some sense of control. True, when you as a ruler are well liked your have no reason to stray. But going back to my previous post, it is important to keep on mind the time at which this was written. It was not a society like we know. It was a very unstable time in European history where rulers, territories, beliefs, and knowledge were changing at a rapid rate. Being a ruler at that time was not a matter of "love" or popularity as it is today. People were not allowed to chose who controlled them. Leaders had to take a firm hold of their populations in order to be successful and that is where the concept of fear places itself. I would have to agree that in a society such as that, a ruler would have to instill some sense of fear in order to secure his place as a ruler.

LINK URL:
LINK TITLE:
IMAGE URL:

---

[ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ]

---

[ FOLLOW UPS ] [ POST FOLLOWUP ]

---

 

v 1.1 is made possbile by:

Original WWWBoard design and code by Matt Wright.  See the original at Matt's Script Acrhive. WWWBoard v2.0a © 1998 Matt Wright. WWWBoard/LT Upgrade by Lion Templin of Leonine Computational Resources.  © 1998 Lion Templin. Tom Bacig, University of Minnesota, Duluth.  © 1998 Tom Bacig.