TOW #24: The Prince by Machiavelli

            **I totally forgot that the independent reading was supposed to be nonfiction! So instead of continuing on the second portion of the Westing Game by Ellen Raskin, I decided to completely change the book to The Prince by Machiavelli.

            A political theorist and diplomat in the 16^th century, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince in Italy during a time when the nation became the scene of intense political conflict. Composed as a guide for rulers on the basics and understandings on how to govern, he dedicated The Prince to the ruler of Florence, Lorenzo de’ Medici. His underlying purpose on this dedication was to win the favor of Lorenzo as he hoped to land an advisory position within the Forentine government. The straightforward tone of the piece laid a stable foundation for the validation of his advices.

When Machiavelli released The Prince in 1532, he received several criticisms and was not as recognized as he is today. As the word of the book spread, Machiavelli’s piece began to be criticized as immoral, evil, and wicked. Some of the critiques included the objection of the Catholics as they interpreted the piece as an attack against the church as Machiavelli degraded the church’s power. The main factor that drove the church to denounce The Prince was Machiavelli’s dislike of strong power of the Catholic church. Many authors, including Machiavelli, lived in a world where Christianity became filled with undesirable religious outlook, causing many to object and dislike the Christianity. This caused Machiavelli to set an anti-Christianity view. His belief established tone of attack toward the church, making the church to set the idea that Machiavelli was indeed attacking the church.

Besides Machiavelli’s tone, the result of weakened Italy was due to the rise of the power for the church. Machiavelli advised that the increasing power of the church brought separation and frail nation, “when in these later times the Imperial control began to be rejected by Italy, and the temporal power of the Pope to be more thought of, Italy suddenly split up into a number of separate States…Hence Italy, having passed almost entirely into the hands of the Church…began to take foreigners into her pay (Machiavelli 96). Machiavelli previously favored princes to rule their nation as nationalized country. But bringing foreigners to one’s nation will, in Machiavelli’s perspective, allowed decline of the country since there was no loyalty existing among the civilians. Not only that, a split nation also causes a nation to be vulnerable against other nations, where there would not be coherent decisions made. When the church took power of Italy, the church divided the nation instead of joining together. Machiavelli, then, indirectly suggested that huge power of the church will only bring destruction toward nations, and in conclusion, princes should not offer such ordeal amount of powers to the church.

Machiavelli’s writing brought great shock toward religious society. People of the church saw his work as an attack, and the mass of believers believed that he was sinful and immoral. It was evident that his work revealed his notion of degrading the church and going against the Catholic moral conducts. People now read this piece academically, but back then, reading this book without any religious pious was difficult.

TOW #23: The Necklace by Guy de Maupassant

            Written in the late 1800s of France, a time period often called “Belle Époque” (Lovely Age/Grand Years), “The Necklace” by Guy de Maupassant explores the human tendency to desire much more than one could afford. This short story specifically revolves around an attractive yet dissatisfied young woman named Mathilde Loisel, who longs for a better change of fate. Mathilde deplores her poverty while her modest husband, Monsieur Loisel, expresses his pleasure at the little things in life. This contrast between the two characters foreshadows the impending conflict.

            Mathilde flaunts extraordinary beauty regardless of her unsatisfying financial status. She is “pretty and charming,” however her life as a wife of a lowly clerk in the Ministry of Education leaves more to be desired. Although she is very aware of her husband’s economic situation, she begs for a large sum of money to buy formalwear for a grand party they’ve both been invited to. As selfless as he is, Monsieur speaks no more and hands over the hard-earned money. Despite this, she craves more, reaching out to her wealthy friend to lend her diamond necklace. This greed eventually results in a tragic mistake: Mathilde loses the luxurious jewels on the way home from the ball. Again, although it was solely Mathilde’s fault, Monsieur searches high and low for the necklace that his wife lost. When they realize that they can never find the necklace, they attempt to buy a similar necklace of the same value, beginning to live a life of crippling poverty. Without complaining, Monsieur faces the dark future that his wife had induced, displaying his unchanging love for Mathilde. They then spend ten years of hardship to pay off their financial debt, Mathilde losing her youthful beauty in the process. She wonders, “What would have happened if she had never lost those jewels? Who knows? Who knows? How strange life is, how fickle! How little is needed to ruin or to save!” Despite the life of struggles that she had commenced for both she and her husband, Mathilde fails to learn from her mistakes. She should be regretting her greed and desire to borrow the jewels in the first place instead of asking herself what would have happened if she hadn’t lost them. Life is not fickle; it is Mathilde who made life seem fickle. At the end, she meets her friend, Madame Forestier, whom she had lost the jewels from. Mathilde learns that the diamond necklace that she had lost was not worth anything; she and her husband spent ten years of their life replacing a necklace that was only fraction of what they paid off. 

TOW #22: The Lottery by Shirley Jackson

            If I do recall correctly, the last time I read “The Lottery” By Shirley Jackson was in middle school. Back then, I remember that this short story made a lasting impression on the thirteen-year-old me. Even from the title, the plot line is inferred to be positive. This remains true until the climax builds up and tension rises. Then, the rising action comes crashing down, leading its string of unfortunate events. Then, I came to a realization that the unexpected conclusion was actually hinted at all along.

            The introduction of this piece begins in a very light tone, narrating that the morning of the lottery was “clear and sunny, with the fresh warmth of a full-summer day; the flowers were blossoming profusely and the grass was richly green.” In the midst of the positive mood, a strange act occurs with the children. The narration continues, including the detail that “Bobby Martin had already stuffed his pockets full of stones” and “made a great pile of stones in one corner of the square and guarded it against the raids of the other boys.” The initial thought of this behavior is taken lightly as it is merely seen as “kids play” However, as the tension rises and the situation becomes more serious, the reader begins to sense the pending severity of the event. Then, when the lottery is chosen, “the children had stones already” and “they were upon” Mrs. Hutchinson, the unfortunate lottery “winner.” The gradual shift of mood and event is indicative of Jackson’s style in her short story, which enhances the unexpectedness and adds an element of surprise.