A great essay. I think you are right to focus on The Prince when drawing distinctions between Xenophon and Machiavelli. Near the centre of The Prince, Machiavelli expresses the highest praise for Xenophon and twice refers to the Education of Cyrus. While some might say that the Discourses is "much more thoughtful" (it is certainly longer), I am not aware that Machiavelli himself made that distinction. Indeed, at the beginning of The Prince he tells us that that book contains everything that he knows.
If you are ever inclined to write more about Xenophon and the Education of Cyrus, I'd be very interested in your take on the discussion of (a) the importance of the Prince reading omens for himself and not leaving it to a priest (1.6.1-3 and following) and (b) Xenophon's discussion of the King's eyes and ears (eg. 8.2.10)" and (c) how those concepts might relate to the here and now. For example only, to what extent 'modelling' about certain complex things a modern version of augury?
Enlightening article. I have one quibble. Machiavelli has been misjudged because he wrote one short easily readable book -The Prince, and a long, much more thoughtful book -Discourses on the Books of Livy- that is completely different from The Prince. The Prince is his prescription for an absolute ruler, specifically Cesar Borgia. The Discourses are a treatise on the rise and fall of republics. Jefferson, and perhaps even Xenophon would have found little to disagree with in the Discourses.
I am surprised that Leo Strauss was apparently ignorant of them. Appraising Machiavelli only on the basis of The Prince is an undergraduate error.
A great essay. I think you are right to focus on The Prince when drawing distinctions between Xenophon and Machiavelli. Near the centre of The Prince, Machiavelli expresses the highest praise for Xenophon and twice refers to the Education of Cyrus. While some might say that the Discourses is "much more thoughtful" (it is certainly longer), I am not aware that Machiavelli himself made that distinction. Indeed, at the beginning of The Prince he tells us that that book contains everything that he knows.
If you are ever inclined to write more about Xenophon and the Education of Cyrus, I'd be very interested in your take on the discussion of (a) the importance of the Prince reading omens for himself and not leaving it to a priest (1.6.1-3 and following) and (b) Xenophon's discussion of the King's eyes and ears (eg. 8.2.10)" and (c) how those concepts might relate to the here and now. For example only, to what extent 'modelling' about certain complex things a modern version of augury?
Enlightening article. I have one quibble. Machiavelli has been misjudged because he wrote one short easily readable book -The Prince, and a long, much more thoughtful book -Discourses on the Books of Livy- that is completely different from The Prince. The Prince is his prescription for an absolute ruler, specifically Cesar Borgia. The Discourses are a treatise on the rise and fall of republics. Jefferson, and perhaps even Xenophon would have found little to disagree with in the Discourses.
I am surprised that Leo Strauss was apparently ignorant of them. Appraising Machiavelli only on the basis of The Prince is an undergraduate error.
Extraordinary share. Those that find being transactional or guided by mimetic spirituality would learn from this and Marcus Aurelius