About debate surrounding Foucault's reading of Machievelli I have no hard
references, but a rumor of a suggestion. In conversation someone once said to
me that "the French" have a reading of THE PRINCE as a parody designed to
expose the actual functioning of the governing forces at work. Machievelli
apparently wrote the piece after the with royalty he was in favor with
(serving as an advisor) was removed from power and replaced with another royal
faction.
If there is historical support to these claims I would love to hear more of
them in detail. I will dig for some of them and get back with it. The point
here is to suggest that Foucault's reading of THE PRINCE as setting to work a
particular discourse of the art of governance requires that the text be taken
literally. Could THE PRINCE have been a more subtle political text?
references, but a rumor of a suggestion. In conversation someone once said to
me that "the French" have a reading of THE PRINCE as a parody designed to
expose the actual functioning of the governing forces at work. Machievelli
apparently wrote the piece after the with royalty he was in favor with
(serving as an advisor) was removed from power and replaced with another royal
faction.
If there is historical support to these claims I would love to hear more of
them in detail. I will dig for some of them and get back with it. The point
here is to suggest that Foucault's reading of THE PRINCE as setting to work a
particular discourse of the art of governance requires that the text be taken
literally. Could THE PRINCE have been a more subtle political text?