projection for survival. >> a question. the relationship of people and their environment for sustainability and survivalist variation. there's traditional societies that have exterminated, over utilized resources important to them. the reason why you so does state is building you're not going to see on the street and tell a friend or or any of the animal studies to be in north america 14,000 years ago is very likely because of the overhead team of the large animals by human colonists. i want ostrom from university of vienna -- this may be a good note for which do some things that. what are the circumstances under

which traditional society manages resources bellin under what circumstances as we are doing today. to sum up a less work for for which a nobel prize and one or two sentences. traditional societies were much more likely to take good care of their resources under two conditions. first they could exclude outsiders to be the only ones themselves utilizing resources. if they had confidence, they would pass on resources to the children. to pass on the fishery, land and if they were sure they would keep outsiders out committed to take good care of their resources, where if they could exclude outsiders, they could pass on resources to their kid. somebody else is going to chop the street sound, so am i. so do it ourselves. that seems like a good note on which to add.

[applause] each >> next on booktv, analyst, step two, james johnson and edward muir talk about the immediate and long-term impact of "the prince." it is about an hour and a half. >> host: good evening, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to an event to mark the 500th anniversary the appearance of machiavelli's, "the prince." and james johnson at the department of history. this is the second of three moments the history department is marking of landmarks in history. we have marked the 50th anniversary of the cuban missile

crisis in later this year, we'll mark the martin luther king speech at the lincoln memorial. tonight we are talking about "the prince." we were invited to are eminently suited to do what we want to do, which is look at the past in its own terms and look at the ways the past is present now. that is edward muir, one of this country's leading preeminent historians of renaissance italy and michael ignatieff engaged in global affairs and very familiar with electoral politics. "the prince" is perhaps the starkest anatomy of power ever read. it follows its declared intent without fear and without hesitation. that is to show rulers how to survive in a world as it is and not in a world associate v.

it's only criterion is success, goodness, justice, honesty, virtue are valuable only if they help you succeed and if not you should neglect them. it is more important to appear good and honest and just being to be so and one should not hesitate to live, to deceive and to do whatever else is necessary to hold power. this is a book that focused famously on the main power. people should either be caressed her crushed. if you defend minor damage, they will get their revenge. but if you cripple them, there is nothing they can do. if you need to injure someone, do it anyway that you do not have to fear their vengeance. this is a book that talks about cruelty that is well used and cruelty that is poorly used.

this is a book that talks about cultivating an enemy so that you can crash and publicly and therefore intimidate other people. machiavelli writes an hour to get a secure hold on the new territory, one needed to nearly eliminate the surviving the rest of the family of the previous rulers. this has been called the first modern book on politics. that is what underlies human relation is power that the state and its laws are purely human artifacts date for human hands. it is written honestly secular. it mentions moses and the point is possibly barred. the example of a leader that came to power through his own authority. machiavelli, depending on your point of view is david's account

and a realist or a cynic. he promises to describe how things are in the real world and as he writes, not waste time with the discussion of an imaginary world. he writes, anyone who ignores everyday reality to live up to an ideal will soon discover he's been taught how to destroy himself and not how to preserve himself. the book gives a particular view of human nature. machiavelli writes that humans aren't grateful, fickle, deceptive avoiders of danger, eager to gain. he says it is natural and normal to take things that do not belong to you. it sketches a view of how we can and cannot control our fate. even the best prepared and direct events only half the time controls the rest of the fortune favors the bold.

this is a book with silence. the biggest silence is its lack of all moral evaluation. how do we read it? do we read it as a manual for success? how do we evaluate its author? according to the effect of a set of strategies, or is the author himself implicated morally by writing comley and without disapproval about the effect of massive assassination, wars of aggression, colonization and the necessary atrocities. there are other silent as of this vote. whether there are moral bonds that transcend the pursuit of power for that transcend the laws of any particular states, the status of what we now call universal human rights, such

silencers take a certain amount of the city states of renaissance italy to modern global politics. and a book called the independence of nations, david from kids, a member of the faculty invokes to describe what he calls the of what politics. if god does not exist, anything can exist. in the circumstances that people ought to act in self-interest, even if it leads them to crime. this is a reasonably true definition of that states. at their worst, states are beasts that roam the jungle of world politics, killing when they are hungry and obeying the laws, but those of their own nature. where they are concerned, terrible words rang true, anything is permitted.

to read savoie today for sadistic take about accumulating a global context about whether rules of ethics applied the jungle of world politics. it may recall to list the names that means that spoke about moskowitz employed in any detainees in the names of the greater serbia, mass murder, deportation, a strategy report, political assassination. it may also make us question the grounds on which we claim that these are crimes against humanity. reading someone they put us in the mind of things done and in the national security, it invasion of iraq, waterboarding, collateral damage insurance rates, targeting terrorists. readers have asked such

questions over the past 500 years in ways that make sense to them. many newbies out there only by his book and condemned him accordingly. his effigy was put on the index of prohibited books that same year, 1559. it was removed in 1890. the english cardinal called the prince a book written by's hand. and the 20th century, machiavelli has been called the teacher of evil and associated with the not the. the two studied machiavelli in his own time is to give a fuller and possibly different sense of the man, a man raised by people of humble means to value books, a man who is a voracious reader as a child, a man who wrote that whenever he took a walk he had a book by dante or patcher type

under his arm. a man who claimed to have imaginary conversations with the chins at the end of a long day. he was a scholar, a poet, playwright. he was fiercely loyal to the city of florence. he was a member of its government for 14 years under the republic. he was an eloquent defender of an independent and engaged citizenry. machiavelli sent a letter to his friend, francesca d. r. cheney. niccolo machiavelli, historian,, co-author, tragic author. the particular circumstances of his trading "the prince" in 1513 may be relevant. the republic had just fallen. domenici were about to be restored to power. machiavelli was suddenly out of a job. he wrote this book and in the introduction to the rinse

domenici had it as a recommendation. this is the context that has led many readers to study the sciences of the prime, to read between the lines to ask if there is a deeper message to the book and some have concluded that it is an attack on tierney, chronicling the crimes of a desperate so that careful readers will draw their own right conclusions. some have seen this as a defense of the rule as equals better republic. and even as catholics likened it to the subversive but luther and denouncing it, protestants read it as an attack on the tyranny of catholicism. during the french revolution can people said disembodied the ideas of the revolution by showing they tierney that was meant to overthrow.

from decided to print says that all things to all people, but in the last 500 years has been many more things to many more kinds of people that have simple toned mice suggests. today it is one of the most assigned votes that the greatest number of university departments , including philosophy, political science, religion and many, many others. those of us who of top machiavelli know that the book still caused outrage. those of us would read the scholarship i machiavelli know that it still provides original and surprising readings. but perhaps the dominant reading today's youth are outraged nor original insight. perhaps the dominant reading today is a breezy except vince, when netscape's over any puzzlement or worry.

perhaps it is an attitude in which we flatter ourselves with our sophistication, perhaps an attitude that says we've seen this before, we are not shocked, will take it in stride and use a few trips along the way if we can. here's a recent books of machiavelli in the title. management in machiavelli, a prescription for success in your business. the print chess, machiavelli for women. this is from the dust jacket for the worse of intimacy to the battles of public life, whether confronting baathists, competitors or lovers, the greatest power belongs to the woman who dares to use the subtle weapons that are hers alone. i machiavelli for moms. maxims on the effect of government to children.

even in 2013 or maybe especially in 2013 we should not be complacent about this book. after 500 years, it is still potent, so possibly dangerous. it is still rich and assailants is. it is still deceptively simple. it is still a threat they've been forcing us to consider questions of right and wrong, the exercise of power domestically and globally. we are fortunate this evening to have to engaged in thoughtful commentators on this book. the first is professor edward muir among a handful of modern historians here and abroad who have redefined as a field. he is a pioneer in methods of cultural history. he looks over the details of

everyday life tell us about the structures of power and the nature of hierarchies. professor muir draws from a vision of christ to social science is to look at group behavior, human psychology and the meaning of virtual. his subjects have included violent, urban ceremony said festivals, religious nonconformists, theatergoers and learned societies. professor muir is a professor in the art and sciences at northwestern university in chicago has been recognized by the mccormick professorship in teaching excellence. he's the author of four books and numerous articles. he has co-authored or edited another five books and the recipient of many prizes, including the american historical association's prize for the first best book in history.

that is for his book, civic ritual in renaissance venice, a classic in the field in the aha's prize for the best book in italian history, users see pathways for his book on civic ritual as well as the stirring vendetta in renaissance italy. in 2012, received the distinguished service award for his lifetime achievement across his career by the andrew mellon foundation. professor muir. [applause] >> thank you, jim. it's a great pleasure to be here and think about and talk about machiavellian who in fact had the abbreviated version of his name has been my password for years. i'm not going to tell you exactly what it is. when asked to present on this occasion about muir, i turned to

my bookshelf and i was quite surprised. i'd farmer books i machiavelli than any other subject and certainly any other person. i never really systematically attend due to collect on machiavelli. this is the one college professors send you books and give them to you, there's an enormous number. but i read a few titles. you've heard some already a fortune as a river, leonardo da vinci and machiavelli's magnificent dream to change the course of florentine history, all about a planned two dvd-r gold river, not the normal and you hear about. fortune is a women, gender politics, feminist interpretations of machiavelli, nokia valley and modern leaderships commit similar to one of the tightest jim just mentioned by the iron rules are as time he today as five centuries ago.

niccolo smile, machiavelli's virtue, machiavelli in love, machiavelli and how. i also found 113,000 hits on google to the word machiavelli in books and articles inadequacies of many things and for the riches, which presents us with such tidbits difficult problem of how would make sense of a man who wrote a deceptively simple book that has been interpreted in so many different ways. is machiavelli old neck as the late 16th century equivalent of the devil had it? my grandmother, who is full of all kinds of old-fashioned assumes when she was angry with my brothers used to fake it than make out of your pants. i have no idea what she was talking about until i became a scholar and realized it was machiavelli. he was there all along.

is he the most or sexist theorist? that the ricci one of the most famous passages of in the prints prints -- in "the prince." chapter 25, i insert a convincing case that it is better to be impetuous than cautious because fortune as a woman and is necessary to keep her down, to beat her and struggle with her entity seen issue more often allows herself to be taken over by men who are impetuous than those who make older dances. being a woman, she is always the friend of young men, for they are less cautious, more aggressive and command her with audacity. so are we to understand this is a metaphor as a fundamental way

to understand politics? or is he in fact, as most of my colleagues who specialized in a renaissance issue but they, is in fact the dedicated republican , a believer in not what we call democracy certainly, the liberty of the citizenry to exercise its own individual and collect will and that's basically what i want to argue tonight and i'll try and prove that in a few ways here. first, let me put it in a broader context and i'm going to borrow from the late william bosma, and historian of renaissance thought, who understood renaissance republicanism and in fact the renaissance of tough as a manifestation of one side of the radical dichotomy. to put the matter briefly,

between the 13th and 17th centuries, western europeans and perhaps italians most directly and vividly war-torn between two largely antithetical modes of perceiving reality, end of quote. both included commentary. for most of her public key universal community created hierarchy in the roman catholic church and headed by the pope and the other was civic republican of the particular manifestation of a political order in a particular time and place, which was embodied typically in the statutes and customs of local regimes, what we might now call constitutions. plasma labeled this first part of the dichotomy made evil and

the second renaissance. but he did not intend these two labels to be historical. , but in fact ideal types as a way of helping us to understand the nature of conflicts, to ideal types pcs having existed in tension with one another. the crucial difference between the two positions was an utterly different conception of the general nature of order. every other difference between them can be related to this. it's all about order. the medieval position based every element of human experience within a cosmic order, hierarchically unchanged and ipo, which bring themes, values and persons higher or lower.

any change violated this universal order and was therefore in pious, tomorrow, indefensible. the renaissance physician and can't trust bill to proceed any coherence in the universe, rejected hierarchy is a principal in instead of stasis perceived only the incessant flux of things. the principle rooted fundament lien history and the notion of change. when system was close. in general the other oak and peered renaissance republicanism in contrast to the medieval position did not identify the substance of human nature is the intellect, but as the well and this is most clear in machiavelli upon renaissance figures, a man who celebrated the free exercise and the well under the conditions of

political liberty, not only in a famous book about the public discourses, but also in a very interesting way throughout muir. turn the page to see. the renaissance republicanism sawn no absolute structure, no ground for classifying some out elements and others is lower. the reason accessible demand for affirming that reality can be said of the system forms and that the fluidity of common experience could be dismissed as meaningless. except it inconsistencies, contradictions and paradoxes is insurmountable and it's precisely those three conditions that i think are so evident in

machiavelli's thoughts, inconsistency, contradiction and paradox, something that did not bother him, in fact something he celebrated. that one of the particularly interesting things we discovered in recent years about the print is that it is really part of a segment of an ongoing dialogue. in particular, a diet like that machiavelli was having with his friend, francesco the lorry whose correspondence recently been examining in a brilliant book called between friends. it's quite clear to these fighters beginning about 500 years ago this month, through the rest of 153rd team that machiavelli was thinking about two books. first, discourses, a book he

started to write about republics. and then he interrupted that it started to write muir end and finished the discourses later on. so it is it is wedged within the writing of a book about republics and liberty. and he talked about how his thinking evolved in these letters and said that in many ways, he sees this maybe not as as a finished product, but as one provider, one more open-ended segment in an ongoing dialogue between friends, not to see philosophical treatise ease, often under it and talk, but it's a dialogue. now who was machiavelli? as jim has mentioned, he comes from a prominent, but not most distinguished family in florence. they weren't aristocratic, but

the machiavelli said produced 54 prioress up until nicholas time, which meant they were city councilman, the mayor of a neighborhood and have strong republican tradition within the family. chorlton though had been jailed, tortured and executed by domenici three generations before niccolò. francesco wrote against tyranny and for civic freedom. this is the world that it to inherited. his own father, bernardo, with a rather rockish lawyer, ineffectual, impoverished, really fun of the lesser light than the machiavelli clan, who had in some ways made a little money by writing indexes for other books. so clearly, he came to some

degree his interest in books from his father, his interest in politics from a family that had been long committed to political behavior, but at the same time, he was no longer really in the mainstream of florentine life. his own family, he was married and had seven children, although despite the fact he was reasonably affectionate with his wife, yet numerous affairs, fell madly in love with the the court is on that one time in his letters as they think the passage i just read from the print indicates, displayed a deep ambivalence about my men, trusting them and about to feed their influence in the political world. throughout muir, for example, he is always warning to not be effeminate. i may talk about his political

career and what that might help us understand what happens in "the prince." machiavelli is born in 1469 and is a young man in the state. the hegemony beginning in 1434, between 1434 and 1494, the family, first caused by domenici and then his son, grandson and then great-grandson controlled the city of forthcoming even though they virtually never held significant public office. ..

>> it would go to the townhall. to present their credentials. then get out of there as fast as they can, walk down the street and go over to the palace where the real work took place. now, what this is, i think what the situation, historical situation contributed to trend once thought was a radical distinction between authority and power. machiavelli when he contemplates that period, you see, this difficult throughout "the prince," that it doesn't matter what your title is or how, what authority you have. what matters is how you exercise power. he had no authority of all of

the power. 1494, they blew it. they failed to protect florence from and vision of the french. replaced by a charismatic prophet, who becomes kind of an ecclesiastical dictator also from behind the scenes. he was controlling things from the polar. distillate elections, still is a public officially but machiavelli sight of as shifty as a liar, as irrational. the experience i think for machiavelli and his generation was really the informative experience for them. it was for his generation much perhaps as the vietnam war was for the baby boomer generation in this country. as perhaps 9/11 is for my own students.

after he was arrested and burned in 1598. you can still see the spot, the mark where he was burned, within three weeks machiavelli gets the job to be applied for this job several times, always turn them. assume he is he was out of the way he's elected to the position of second chancellor in the republic, a job he held for 15 years. and a job in which he was clearly known as the man, the servant of the most powerful member of the new florentine republic. became an outsider on the inside. you went on numerous missions, and was famously was florence representative to the duke

valentino where he directly served attempts to conquer. hero back letters virtually every day from these various diplomatic missions to force. is never the ambassador. he is the guy behind the scenes who does the really nitty-gritty negotiations while the ambassador goes to the fancy banquets and niccolo goes to the kitchen with the other representatives of servants. and he writes extraordinarily frank letters on france back home until florence he writes, the french respect only those who are willing to fight or to pay. and since you've shown yourself incapable of either, we consider you, ministers. mr. 's. he had to manipulate. had to control.

he had to find information of value. and i must say i spent much of my reports, and when you read machiavelli's letters, they are stunning. not only is he probably the best pro-stylist in this time, from this period, but he is, letter after letter there's this analytical quality in which he is looking at what's at stake and what the sources of power are for florence. it's not just gossip or who's going to fight whom as you find in so many other diplomatic reports. itit's analysis all the time. then in 1512, they return to power. the republicans power. the republic is overthrown to decide they don't even bother with the charade of elections. they just become in effect the gators of the city of lawrence. machiavelli loses his job. he is accused of conspiracy against them. his name is not on the list of

conspirators. is arrested and tortured. he is released and retired to his farm, where you can do today to see the house and see the tavern across the street where he hung out. and it is there that his literary career takes off. he writes perhaps the two greatest renaissance companies, of course "the prince" and the discourses history of florence. humors of the works. but he found this prospect, especially in the first year, the year he is writing "the prince" he finds deeply depressing to i feel useless to myself, to my french. it is that depressed state that he describes his writing of "the prince" to his old friend, francesco vettori. probably the most famous letter written in the renaissance. he talks with his day collecting wood to sell back to his old

friends in florence and have achieved him about catching birds to feed his family, how he spends the afternoon with an innkeeper, a butcher, a miller and to baker's gambling and the fight over the deaths and over their wages. and then at the end of the evening, this famous passage about him returning home. when evening comes, i returned to my home and i go into my study. and on the threshold i take off my everyday clothes, which are covered in mud and mire. i put on regal and robes. i assume these were his old robes of office. and dressed in a more appropriate manner, into into the ancient courts of ancient man, and am welcomed by them kindly. and there i taste the food that alone is mine. and for which i was born.

and their i am not ashamed to speak, to ask for the reasons of their actions, and they, in their humanity, answer me, and for four hours i feel no boredom, -- i do not tremble at the thought of death, nor do i longer fear poverty. i become completely part of them. this is, of course, the renaissance fantasy, begins in many ways his humanist enterprise by writing letters to cicerone who had been dead for 1342 years. and machiavelli is engaged in the same fantasy game of a controversial -- conversation. it's reading is what he's doing like he describes it as a conversation and within and can back him and he's describing this to his good friend who

truly is also continuing a conversation of dialogue. and he goes on, and as dante says that knowledge does not exist without the retention of thy memory, i have now done what i've learned from their conversation. and i composed a little work, "the prince" where i delve as deeply as i can into thoughts on this subject. this is discussing what a principality is, what kind are, how they are acquired, how they are maintained and why they are lost. so in some ways it's an open ended kind of book, a book that doesn't have the final answers. let me just briefly, in kind of including here, turn to one of the core chapters. the most famous parts of the book, the ones that are most disturbing perhaps two people are chapters 16, 17 and 18,

where he asked these binary questions, is it better to be generous? miserly. is it better to be loved or to be feared? the answer, feared. is it better to be cruel or merciful? certainly not merciful, but only cruel up to a point. is it better to be a fox or a lion lex answered, both. then become to this famous part, perhaps the part that has generated the most controversy in the literature. and let me read to you so everyone is clear about what we are talking about. i want you to notice a few things. first, the repetition of the word necessity or necessary. that is a guide to how he is thinking. therefore, it is not necessary

for a prince to all of the above-mentioned qualities, though these are the virtues, but it is very necessary for him to appear to have them. furthermore, i would be so bold as to assert this, that having them and practicing them at all times is harmful. and appearing to have them is useful. for instance, if your other virtues, to seem merciful, faithful, remain forthright, religious, and to be so. but his mind should be disposed in such a way that should it become necessary not to be so, you will be able to know how to change the country. in other words, kind of instinctive pragmatism your and it is essential to understand this, that a prince and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things by which men are considered good.

for in order to maintain the state, he is often obliged, and here he thought in the italian, to act against the promise, against charity comp against humanity and against religion. and, therefore, it is necessary that he had in mind ready to turn himself according to the way the winds of fortune and a changeability of affairs require him. and as i said above, as long as it is possible he should not stray from the goods, that he should now how to enter into evil when necessity commands. a prince, therefore, must be very careful never to let anything slip from his lips, which is four of the five qualities mentioned above. he should appear upon seeing and hearing him to be all mercy, all

faithfulness, all i could come all kindness, all religion. and there is nothing more necessary than to seem to possess this last quality, that is, religion. now, so far we've got necessity, we have a pure one way. you do this is to always have to cave that way. now here is why. and men in general judge more by their eyes than their hands. for everyone can see, but few canfield. in other words, we make men in general, the people, make judgments based upon appearances. everyone sees what you seem to be few perceived what you are. and those few who do, do not dare to comment the opinion of the many who have majesty of the state to defend them, and any actions of all men, and especially of princes where

there is no impartial arbiter. one must consider the final result. one must consider the final result. this is the passage that is often mistranslated, literally one looks to the end. this is the passage that is often mistranslated as the end justifies the means, which it doesn't say. there's nothing about justification you. but the whole two paragraphs are about, are about necessity. let a prince, therefore, act to seize and to maintain the state, his methods will always be judged honorable. and this is what necessity is, to maintain a safe. will always be judged honorable and will be praised by all. for ordinary people are always deceived by appearances and by outcome. and in the world there is nothing but ordinary people. and there is no room for the few

while the many have a place to lean on. now, let me just finally say that this passage, which claims, seems to be so condescending to the many, to the impoverished masses is, in fact, a rather strange comparison to what happens throughout the rest of "the prince." because you have to come in the end, ask where does power come from? it doesn't actually come from this manipulation of appearance. that's just what you do to maintain power. power ultimately comes from those very people who are being deceived. they are the source of power. throughout "the prince" what he talks about fortresses, when he talks about invading foreign territories, when he talks about almost every other element of power. ultimately, derived from coming

he says, the people. there is a notion of popular sovereignty which permeates this come into certain very clear also in his other writing come and i would argue that it's what often we do is we mistake the sources of power with the techniques of maintaining the power. and that ultimately, the prince must respect the people. and if they hate him, as machiavelli says, several times in "the prince," they will get rid of him. thank you. [applause] >> as a scholar, as novelist, teacher and public official. michael ignatieff is the author of 12 books translated into 18 languages on subjects ranging

from political economy and the penal system to human rights come a nationalism and and the political ethics in an age of war on terrorism. as a scholar, michael ignatieff has provided an eloquent sense of human rights, friend and a way that acknowledges their origin in a particular time and a particular place. is work is not naïve about modern tyranny is that deny rights i violence or ideology. his work is not blind to the coercive and destabilizing elements of western campaigns of liberation. in human rights as politics and idolatry, a book from 2001, he writes of what he calls humble humanism that basic universal rights on shared human capacities, capacities of empathy, conscious and free will. and on things that define the

individual with autonomy and choice. as a novelist, michael ignatieff writes with economy, penetrating human inside and gripping immediacy. most recent novel is called charlie johnson into the flames, about a journalist without collisions who were swept up in the violence of war. is motivated by a sense of justice that only he can bring, and he has destroyed. as a public figure, michael ignatieff has served on the independent international commission on kosovo, 1999 and 2000 or he's been a member of parliament of canada, 2006-2011. he was the leader of the liberal party of canada between 2009-2011. he is a member of the queen's privy council for canada. he holds now a joint appointment at the school of global affairs

at the university of toronto and the kennedy school at harvard university. michael ignatieff. [applause] >> is an enormous pleasure to be here in the far-off days when i still an honest man, i got a ph.d in history, and it was kind of wonderful to listen to historians again and hear what only historians can do, which is to take, take a text like "the prince" and begin to understand all the human conditions, the historical conditions in which it became possible. and i will, i hope, having heard this from both of you, such a fine description, first of the renaissance context, and then his afterlife, the two of you have given me a place to talk

about the role of machiavelli and his relevance. if you've ever done politics, i thought that would be an interesting thing to do. what is it about a book written in 1513 that seem so stinging only relevant, when you actually throw your hat into the political ring? what is it about this book, more than almost any other book that we teach, that seems to give a politician lessons he can't afford not to listen to. i'm going to surprise you by not talking about exactly the famous chapters about this assembly, about appearing, about line, all the standard areas in which machiavelli appears to have such shocking relevance to contemporary politics. i'm going to talk about one word in machiavelli, and that's

fortuna pic because i have to say when i was in politics it was the first time i understood exactly what he meant by fortuna. fortuna, in machiavellian, professor muir would do a better job telling you where fortuna comes from and the language of the renaissance, but for me, fortuna his fortune, chance, contingency, lock, fate. and until you have been a electoral politics you don't know what those words mean. and that i think will be my theme which is that one of the things that makes machiavelli indirectly relevant is his very unique grasp of time as a factor in politics. and that's really what i want to

talk about. one of the places, one of the most famous remarks about time and politics was made by british prime minister. you probably know this one, but it's one of my favorite stories about politics. they asked harold macmillan, who is a british prime minister between 1959 and the early '60s, what was the toughest thing about being a prime minister? and harold macmillan looked at the questioner for a while and said events, my boy, events. this is a deeply wise remark. one that machiavelli would've understood immediately. time is the medium in which politicians work. and political judgment is a sense of time. the unique and specific genius of the great politician is a

sense of when the time is right and when the time is not right, when an idea time has come, and when an idea's time has gone. and all that there is of politics, i think machiavelli is the one who understands that most deeply. and this deep understanding of time comes through famously in chapter 25 to you took us to 17, 18, 19 and 20, and my heart was in my -- i thought professor muir was going to do chapter 25 and then i would have nothing to say. but in chapter 25 there's a wonderful long passage about fortuna, which many of you will know and i will read a little bit from it. i compare her to one of those torrential rigors that when they get angry, break their banks,

not countries and buildings, strip the soil from one place and deposit it somewhere else. everyone flees before them. everyone gives way in the face of the onrush. nobody can resist them at any point. but although they are so powerful, this does not mean men, when the waters recede, cannot make repairs and build banks and barriers. so you have this famous image of the arno breaking its banks. fortune breaks, it's like a violent river, an act of nature. men plan, men disposed, men and women build their habitations, and fortune breaks through and breaks apart the preventive structures, the institutions that men create to master time.

but notice, there are two images at work you. first of all, fortuna is like the arno flood. it's returned. it's unavoidable, and it's unpredictable. like hurricane sandy, but it's not providence. ..

the world of the unpredictable, the unforeseeable, the violin, the unforeseen and that seems to me a genetically powerful aspect of machiavelli. but he will yet the same time as this quotation shows, that are not prisoners of misfortune. the whole burden of chapter 25 b.c. say yes, step out the. the unpredictable occurs, catastrophes occur, there are no overflows. but man are not prisoners of this and they need not be resigned to their fate. there is a very strong emphasis. i think her faster muir at this point about the tremendous importance of will in machiavelli, will against fortune, will against feed, will against chance, will against contingent fee. these are strong, powerful and resonant themes in machiavelli.

for china does not preach resignation. there's not a line of transit nation in machiavelli's writing. politicians, in other words were people in charge of public affairs and cannot predict the unprotect bowl. they can't be sure when the arno is going to flow, but they can put it takes, they can put it dan's and persuade fellow citizens to take action to do what they can to mitigate the impact of fortune, and the impact they say. they can't prevent the worst, but they can channel the flood downstream. mitigate harms, and seek to control for chin to to jack reid a kid. the chapter ends with the notorious passage about fortune being a woman. it is a violent passage, an a

passage. other passages in machiavelli make it clear he had pretty formidable leaseback as it happens, for women as political actors. but the metaphor is fair to say, well, human will, masculine will can control beyond project will, do not have to submit to fate and contingency and chance with pious resignation. and so, that's each unanimously important element of his vision of a political life is about. political life is react and to chance, to contingency, to fate, as their wonderful evocation of the context makes clear, it is in power for 14921512 and

suddenly he's in jail and being hung up and being tortured. he had for what any human being is the most shocking and contingency and misfortune. he builds it into sense of politics. hoping your word won't betray others is what a sense of political life is like. the radical, meaningless encounter of fortune. what is like i find inspiring in a way about machiavellian is that in the famous letter to the tory, it is not implement out

his misfortune really. it's not a repining fate. it is not a metaphysical inquiry into the mystery of time. he simply says, that's life. that's how we live, that's how we are. and that again, it seems to me, is a profoundly modern view and i think crucially, a non-tragic fission of time in a non-tragic vision of political action. you get a much sharper vision of the tragedy of political action imax papers. machiavellianism is a scathing portrait of human folly, but equally it's a very, very deep portrait of human stubbornness, persistence, willingness to get

back up at your feet after you have been dumped in the mud by the fate, by faith and my fortune. it is a non-tragic vision of time in which men are rarely the equal of their times, but some men can be found to be the measure of their times. most men are, but some stuff up. but i think is his deep sense of what human life is not tragic. some fools will fail, but other men will be found equal to their moment. he says at one point, since fortune changes and then stubbornly continue to behave in the same way, meant for ash when their behavior suits the times and feel when they are out of step. is, what professor muir was

calling his kind of ruthless pragmatism i think is a core of his attitude towards politics, the sense that success and failure depends on having mysterious alignment between willing retention in the times you live in. but you don't have to choose machiavelli saying come you don't couldn't choose any must never assume you can shape your times more than you think you can. deeply realistic not even pessimistic, just this is where you are. don't get ideas above your station. don't think you can master your times. because just when you think you have mastered your times, someone will throw you in jail or you will lose an election or whatever it is. so these are elements in which i am still enough of a nestorian to say this is not aikido is

modernity. he was writing for 1513. but when i read him, having been through the experience of politics, i see a deep resonance to aspects of politics, which are. in an difficult when you do. you're not the the master of fortune and if you think you are, you will fail. lock, and being aligned with your times is a crucial element of political success and failure. every rascal who ever lived will blame his times and his lack of cortisone and morality by lack of courage. machiavellians is deeply aware of that particular reason exercise of exculpation and god knows if a politician identified as that. but she can't hide for niccolò.

that's the great thing about that book. you cannot hide from the cynical -- and it is cynical -- deeply realistic sense of what human he and their like and what political action is like. let me move towards a conclusion everything is a pickup for machiavelli that connect to the sense of fortuna. deep sense that politics is local. yes, it is true he is writing and dialogue. he's in dialogue with the ancients. he has a strong desire to produce than propositional meanings about politics that will endure. if you look at the text of the prints, it's constantly what sutter really got ready, this is what fortune got wrong. he could be talking about the senate united states.

it worked in wyoming, will not work in oklahoma he. i'm incredibly dense sense of context is an import blessing in itself about how to understand politics. machiavellianism seemed to oversteer racier. all politics is local. the traditions, demeaning state drive and the political action are contextual to cities, contextual tcn, contextual toluca, contextual to rome. another thing that is so powerful is politics of character. outcomes depend tremendously on what kind of person soldering u.s., what kind of person the fryer was. that deep sense of the driving

factor. and politics as i said earlier its timing. the sense in machiavellians that you get everywhere, that ideas are interesting. but a politician has nothing to do with ideas. it has to do with whether an idea has, or whether an idea has gone, whether the moment is right, the sense of the moment, the decisive moment. why machiavelli is so inextinguishable a sisters of political inspiration is this emphasis on the contextual, the local, seizing the moment, losing the moment, being fortune threatened or beaten on the wrong side of fortune. and finally, a final point in our moment in which is conventional in american politics in canadian politics to foment conflict, to the meant

partisanship, to the meant canadian politics machiavelli says, now boys and girls, what do you think this stuff is? this is war by other means. stop fooling yourself. conflict is integral to political life. it is the essence of political life and in relation to republican virtue, one of the most surprising and heartening messages you get from the discourse is is one of the things that keeps republics very as the conflict between elites and nobles and citizens. it is that conflict that is the source of our freedom. one of the things that comes through so strongly is to fight for your freedom. republics can lose it. republics can regain it, but that conflict at the heart between elites, privileged elites in citizenry is the driver of republican freedom in

domenici loots the desire to fight. that vision in other words, the politics is local, the politics of the city, politics of personality, geniuses and politics at the people that have this mysterious gift of knowing what fortune is going and make it is another key point in machiavelli, that gift of knowing what fortune is going is temporary. you have it enlisted. there's no such thing as permanence, permit genius and politics. but will work in one situation will not work in another. finally, the concept is integral to political action normatively to freedom. these are aspects of machiavellians message, which seem to me to be of extraordinary the powerful influence, certain money on us all and not our vision of politics. thanks so much for listening.

[applause] >> thank you both very much. we have time for questions about the nasty say you should hold your question until you are holding the microphone. so yes, question right here. >> hi, my question is for our second speaker. i really appreciate your emphasis on for tonight, an integral part of machiavelli's work. the fact you've given us a mixed bag the central concern machiavelli has, specifically fortune is a problem not because of the events politically that we are armed with her to speak and actually stem the tide of those political events. the problem seems to be -- and elements that we cannot prevent when we are going to die.

given that we can't prevent those things, i think perhaps we are a little bit misguided in saying that machiavelli's picture of politics is one where we might have some hope. in fact, discourse on "the prince" is given a politics is made up of men and men are subject to the whims of fortune and there's no way we can overcome them, but those political regimes to matter how well thought out going to die as well. what do you think we can do with our understanding of events and is there something we can do based on your talk of events? >> that's a very powerful reading and it's really good to put the emphasis on death. it is very present in machiavelli. but i think you should ask yourself, why we would rather to write "the prince" and the

discourses if you believe what he think he believes. that is, i think he wrote these books because he believed britain's armed with certain kinds of knowledge might be able in certain cases to forestall what you rightly described as something he was worried about the inevitable decline and corruption republics. a key element in machiavelli sense of time is a sense of the inevitable corruption of virtue, corruption of the republic. an old way to organize your understanding of time is the sense that all republics are threatened with corruption. i come away with a more optimistic reading of machiavelli. god knows it's difficult to find revelation in his ac pages, but i sense the passage from chapter 25, you can't stop the river

overflowing, but you can the banks and that is crucial to his sense of being able to resist corruption, resist a client, deemphasis used a rare proven, he writes these books because he wants to string in the arms of prudence. >> i think that's right. that's the classic example. he does everything right. he follows all the rules and he dies. he loses in that sense. but i think michael is exactly right. you don't write about it has no utility, that has no use for you or others and i think he's thinking about the practical side of things you can do short of that. let's see what he can do.

>> have a question about one chapter that i don't think we have talked about yet, which is the last chapter, which has always struck me as the most wildly utopian chapter in the entire book, that it's possible to do great deeds, that all the people have been praising in this book, moses, cyrus, they're just men just like you. you can do what they do. the horribly difficult situations just let to display the one word we had a talk about. you can then perform these virtuoso acts. so maybe we can talk about what that means for him because it seems like it's absolutely crucial to what is going on in the book. >> well, chapter 26, the chapter were talking about was probably

tacked on later. so it would have been the fortune as a woman passage originally dedicated to giuliano who dies. bad fortune for him he has changed the dedication to his other prints, lorenzo and apparently at that time that chapter called some lorenzo to drive out the barbarians. it is a clarion call to arms, from foreign domination. and as a kind of optimism about it. the opposite throughout the "the prince," the force you had to do with fortune is virtue. fortune is a goddess, and also gendered fortuna, feminine, so she is a goddess in the opposite

is that machiavelli understands is not in the christian sense, but the attributes of a roman warrior and i certainly think that the passage we been talking about at the end of chapter 25, the audacious young man. so there are two, which again we can understand in a variety of different ways during understanding of the untalented capacity to act boldly, courageously and with some degree of foresight is the only thing you've got to deal with this capricious fortune. and it permeates the text so machiavelli is about to. these are the two mechanisms of history.

>> another question? >> i have a question for professor muir. if an interested manner because aristotle gives the same advice to the tyrant, what it means that machiavelli advises the prints to cultivate the appearances of, for example, mercy. this is in keeping with your thesis because it seems to me a question that when a political figure cultivate spiritists, they also have a reality that can simply be worse i suppose. but would it be to appear to be merciful except in some public way to be merciful, at least in some particular act. i'm not sure if a firm elated that questioned sharply in. what do you take the political leader appearing, this is also not a political reality? >> it is a way of creating a

reality. the way i would think about it and the way i teach it is to compare the prints on the set of passages with the contemporary tax, which deals with other courtiers that that the prints should behave in which there is clearly articulated codes of behavior, the core of which is his famous wired coined called panache, nonchalance, but this, in order to be in effect a person in public, you have to behave in a certain way. you have to behave according to the accepted social norms of the community.

looking behind your face to be introspect days. but not being introspect devanagari sticker back to the passage a radio, most people see with their eyes in fear at their hands. you don't look behind your mask to the point that becomes who you are. so in fact, we think about social behavior for a few minutes and we all know that from childhood on, we are trained not to express our emotions fully and directly all the time, otherwise society would be in chaos. in some sense that is what is going on, they should have to need team insert kindness demeanor to be the prints. so by the late teen 16th century compass become so widespread that there's true disease on lovely oxymoron, on

this dissimulation. how can you appear to be honestly appear to be something you're not? and that is exactly what's going on it seems to me. >> first speaker, under our member your name. he just brazen as this would a founder of his own power in such except i'm very confused by the fact that noses of all the founders quite literally have the wrath of god on his side and if left to his own devices would have been a shepherd. so i don't know if you could expand on that confusion. the >> is a good question. i wondered if the point was

barbed, which is to say we would have that reaction when we think about noses. this is a man of god. machiavelli singled to not be an example of someone who is a self made and and could be a little way of saying this is nothing to do with higher powers. this is resolutely secular. it's part of the separation of the world of politics and units from the divine world. you have the right response. i think that's what he wants is to say. >> abbott at the other thing about noses, moses is quoted a lot, all throughout his text, moses is all over the place. and he is quoted in the context most commonly as a lawgiver along with solon and machiavelli is interested in the origins, where he most often appears.

the book is a bashing the grassy called machiavellian reading of the bible where he is a much more astute student of the bible then we would take from those passages in "the prince." >> with time for for another question quite yes. >> i guess working off of that, a passage that's always been really intriguing to me is his discussion of weaponry and he brings that daybed absolves landing on this armor to daybed and it's just not the right fit. perhaps it's not the right persona he should have been so he has to arm himself and he uses that as the metaphor for making sure your rvs are armed themselves that ain't.

so i guess i was continuing and connecting to questions in the sense you attacked about, professor muir, creating a persona, that is there also a fan of creating your own persona, but just being subtle about it as well? >> only mean, the first goal is to do it in such a way that it doesn't appear like you are doing it. that's what it means literally. doing something which is cultivated an unnatural and making it appear natural. as you are suggested here, it is a spectrum. you really do it well, you lose a sense of your performance. for those of us that assert this, remember advertisement about michael jordan and of

course when michael jordan made a jump shot, it seemed miraculous. it seemed utterly unacceptable. of course the man must've spent years practicing, practicing. that is the point where to do it right, late playing the piano really well, you can't think about it. you have to cut it down to the point where there's no thought, no recognition this is a performance. vicious the body remembers the essay. and i think that is what is being talked about as the goal here. >> you have to be capable of turning it off also. with attendance necessary coming you need to flip it off. >> would require some knowledge.

one last question towards the front. >> yes, my question is more rather than, modern. i guess the point that power and authority are two separate concepts really intrigued me when you consider how wall street has been able to create a power base without any actual political authority. i was wondering what you think machiavelli's judgment would be that these men who have been able to amass such power despite the fact that it seems to subvert the system that is best given them the power. [laughter] >> as just got handed to me. i'd recall something i said at the end of my talk, which was one of the very startling

aspects of machiavelli's political sociology of republics is its awareness that inequalities of wealth are a source of corruption and a threat to the survival of republics, the rich elites are habitually subversive of democratic liberty. he has a very startlingly disabused or disenchanted ito of wealth and magnificence so that in the machiavellian sociology of wealth, there's no authority that comes with wealth by

itself. it's just another form of power. that is a different view of wealth that you get another sociology for both power and decision. i think that's what i would say. i would not venture into wall street, but i think what you can take from machiavelli is he isn't in price. now, let's import. he's not an press with people who go to work in a helicopter cricket aid figures at the end of the salary. he sees as coldly as a form of power. power is separated from any authority. the authority that this was a strong point of what professor muir was saying, machiavellian thinks is a normative position

that power comes from the people. he thinks that's -- that's what he thinks authority comes from, to the degree carries the gordian machiavelli's world, his vision of the republic, authorities thought that the money. it's what the people. as i said, what is very striking and his vision of politics and liberty being driven by economic conflict. and when the people stop fighting and opposing the power of the merely rich, the republic is threatened and not part of a machiavelli said was a very strong influence on the american republican tradition rights or not to send, the federalists of all this staff. they know what he's talking

about. jefferson knew what he was talking about. >> let me invite you to join us for a reception outside immediately following this enduring and thinking our guests tonight. [applause] >> here's a list of the best selling nonfiction books.