#Renaissance politics

[tmarshconnors]

"The court is rife with intrigue and betrayal, with everyone seeking to secure their own position and avoid the King's wrath." (Letter to Charles V, 1537)

Eustace Chapuys, the son of Louis and Guigonne Dupuys, was a Savoyard diplomat who served Charles V as Imperial ambassador to England from 1529 until 1545 and is best known for his extensive and detailed correspondence.

Born: 1489, Annecy, Annecy, France Died: 21 January 1556 (age 67 years), Leuven, Belgium

[sforzesco]

niccolo machiavelli & biagio buonaccorsi

Machiavelli's Service to the Republic, John M. Najemy

eventually I'll read Sasso's writing on Machiavelli, but even reading Najemy's summary of the text with regards to Biagio and Machiavelli's relationship made me feel unwell™ in some kind of way like. even love. what an absolute gut punch pair of words to put in the middle of a sentence. I feel fine about it!! (a lie)

The Life and Times of Machiavelli, Pasquale Villari

AND NOW. regarding the scene. the letter exchanging hands is referencing their correspondence in general, but to also how Biagio was a collaborator to Machiavelli's plans (and a little bit about how some of Machiavelli's works were copied in Biagio's hand)

Machiavelli, Leonardo and the Science of Power, Roger D Masters

and regarding the red panel with the figure getting measured, it's about how Biagio had clothing for Machiavelli made to his own measurements in Machiavelli's absence.

Niccolò’s Smile, Maurizio Viroli

[redbootsindoriath]

Fëanorian Week 2023, Day 2: Maglor

It took me no fewer than half a dozen attempts to even get a sketch I liked for Maglor.  I kept trying to include an instrument into the composition of the piece but they all just looked so weird and out of place until I realized: stone statues don’t often have instruments in them because there are just too many fragile elements.  So I just left it out and finally it started coming together.

That being said, I originally raised the question of which instrument would be best in a Maglor drawing to my friend group before I had fully decided on a pose for him.  We were bouncing between panpipes and a lute when one said “maracas LOL” and I realized that I had just been granted the opportunity to create one of the most blursed images I’ve ever set to paper or tablet.  So here you go: Maracglor.

Just out of frame are Finrod on the steel pans and Fingon on bongos.

[aeriondripflame]

begging for more interesting worldbuilding conversation fr. like i wanna know what the zodiac equivalent is. do people flex that they were born under the warrior or the maiden’s star? let me know about the essos-westeros spice trade. what about valyrian epics? were they influenced by earlier ghiscari literature? what about the art. where are all the art movements in westeros.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Shakespeare

The philosophy of Shakespeare refers to the exploration of philosophical themes, questions, and ideas within the works of William Shakespeare. While Shakespeare was not a philosopher in the traditional sense, his plays and sonnets are rich with philosophical insights that address issues related to human nature, ethics, politics, love, fate, identity, and the human condition. Scholars and readers alike have long examined how Shakespeare’s writings engage with philosophical concepts and how these concepts are dramatized through his characters and narratives.

Key Themes in the Philosophy of Shakespeare:

Human Nature and the Human Condition:

Complexity of the Human Psyche: Shakespeare's characters are known for their psychological depth and complexity. His works explore the multifaceted nature of human beings, including the tensions between reason and emotion, ambition and morality, and appearance and reality.

The Tragic Flaw (Hamartia): Many of Shakespeare’s tragedies revolve around the concept of a tragic flaw, a characteristic that leads to the downfall of the protagonist. This theme raises philosophical questions about free will, fate, and the moral consequences of human actions.

Ethics and Morality:

Good and Evil: Shakespeare’s works frequently grapple with the nature of good and evil, exploring the moral ambiguities of his characters' actions. Plays like Macbeth and Othello delve into the corrupting influence of power, jealousy, and ambition.

Justice and Revenge: The tension between justice and revenge is a recurring theme, particularly in plays like Hamlet and The Merchant of Venice. These works examine the ethics of retribution, the consequences of revenge, and the pursuit of justice.

Fate and Free Will:

Destiny and Choice: Shakespeare often explores the tension between fate and free will, questioning the extent to which characters are in control of their own destinies. Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth are notable examples where the characters' actions seem predestined, yet their choices play a crucial role in their outcomes.

Prophecy and Foreknowledge: The use of prophecy, as seen in Macbeth and Julius Caesar, raises philosophical questions about whether knowledge of the future alters the course of events or if it leads inevitably to the fulfillment of that future.

Identity and Self-Knowledge:

The Fluidity of Identity: In plays like Twelfth Night and As You Like It, Shakespeare explores the fluidity of identity, particularly through themes of disguise and mistaken identity. These themes challenge the fixed nature of identity and raise questions about self-knowledge and authenticity.

Self-Deception: Characters in Shakespeare’s plays often engage in self-deception, either out of pride, fear, or desire. This theme is particularly prominent in King Lear and Hamlet, where characters’ inability to see themselves or their situations clearly leads to tragedy.

Politics and Power:

The Nature of Authority: Shakespeare’s historical plays and tragedies frequently address the nature of political power and authority. Richard III, Henry V, and Julius Caesar explore the ethics of leadership, the legitimacy of rulership, and the corrupting influence of power.

The Body Politic: The metaphor of the body politic, where the state is likened to a human body, is a recurring theme. In plays like Coriolanus and Measure for Measure, Shakespeare examines the health of the state and the moral responsibilities of rulers.

Love and Relationships:

Romantic Love: Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies offer deep reflections on the nature of love, its joys, and its perils. Plays like Romeo and Juliet and Much Ado About Nothing explore the idealization of romantic love, the pain of unrequited love, and the complexities of human relationships.

Friendship and Loyalty: Beyond romantic love, Shakespeare also delves into themes of friendship and loyalty, as seen in The Merchant of Venice and Julius Caesar. These relationships often raise questions about the conflicts between personal loyalty and public duty.

Appearance vs. Reality:

Illusion and Truth: Many of Shakespeare’s plays involve themes of appearance versus reality, where characters and situations are not what they seem. Hamlet and Othello are prime examples of how deception and the search for truth drive the plot and philosophical inquiry.

Theatricality of Life: Shakespeare often blurs the line between reality and performance, as seen in As You Like It's famous "All the world's a stage" monologue. This raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality, the roles people play in life, and the construction of identity.

Mortality and the Meaning of Life:

Death and the Afterlife: Shakespeare’s works are deeply concerned with mortality, the fear of death, and the unknown aspects of the afterlife. Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" soliloquy is one of the most famous meditations on existence and the fear of what comes after death.

The Transience of Life: The fleeting nature of life and the inevitability of death are recurrent themes, particularly in Shakespeare’s sonnets and tragedies. These reflections often lead to a broader contemplation of the meaning and value of life.

Philosophical Skepticism:

Doubt and Certainty: Shakespeare’s characters often grapple with doubt and uncertainty, questioning their beliefs, their perceptions, and the world around them. This skepticism is evident in Hamlet's introspection and in King Lear's descent into madness.

Relativism and Perspective: Shakespeare frequently presents multiple perspectives within his plays, allowing for a relativistic view of truth and morality. This multiplicity of viewpoints invites the audience to question the nature of truth and the reliability of perception.

The philosophy of Shakespeare is not a unified doctrine but rather a rich and varied exploration of fundamental human concerns. Through his characters and narratives, Shakespeare engages with philosophical questions about human nature, morality, power, love, identity, and existence. His works continue to inspire philosophical inquiry, offering insights that are as relevant today as they were in the Elizabethan era.

[amphibiousmercurial]

From Pandemonium to Gotham: Is There Heroism in the Heart of the Anti-Hero?

Men are not gentle creatures who want to be loved, and who at the most can defend themselves if they are attacked; they are, on the contrary, creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness. (Freud)

Milton’s Paradise Lost and Nolan’s The Dark Knight deliver two of the most compelling anti-heroes in Satan and the Joker, respectively. Both characters offer a fascinating exploration into the shadows of heroism, where the line between hero and villain blurs into intriguing moral ambiguity.

Satan, once the brightest angel, now the proudest fallen, declares from the fiery abyss, “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” His defiance against divine authority is portrayed with an eloquence that almost makes you root for him. This isn’t just a rebellion; it’s a tragic fall from grace, wrapped in the grandeur of self-assertion and liberty.

Switching to the grimy streets of Gotham, the Joker turns the city into his anarchic playground. With a grin, he challenges the very foundations of order: “Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I’m an agent of chaos.”

Unlike Satan’s celestial coup, the Joker’s methods are terrestrial and visceral, striking fear and fascination in equal measure.

Freud would likely argue that our fascination with these figures is due to their embodiment of the id’s desires—unrestrained, primal, and taboo. Jung might add that they reflect our shadow selves, the parts of our psyche that we are both drawn to and frightened of. Sociologically, figures like Durkheim would interpret our collective captivation as a break from the normative monotony of societal life, where such extreme deviations from the norm temporarily unify society in their wake.

Yet, their appeal is paradoxical. While intellectually stimulating, their philosophies, when stripped of glamor, reveal a landscape of chaos and destruction. This brings us to a complex realization: we are drawn to the idea of breaking free from constraints, but the reality of such freedom, as embodied by Satan and the Joker, is often catastrophic.

These reflections prompt us to question not only the nature of heroism but also the underpinnings of our moral and societal structures. Are these anti-heroes, with their profound challenges to order and morality, carrying a torch of truth, or are they merely reflecting our own hidden desires for disruption and change?

In a world grappling with power dynamics and authority, characters like Milton’s Satan and Nolan’s Joker challenge the established order, prompting us to reflect on the socio-political structures that govern us. Their narratives stir debates on freedom, control, and the moral complexities of rebellion against oppressive systems.

[alexanderpearce]

the peoplw in the comments of the 8k in progress keir starmer/rishi sunak fic on ao3 are talking about a lolitics renaissance

[hard--headed--woman]

Ce fut une torture pour moi d'aller voter étant donné que tous les grands partis sont absolument TERRIBLES (le Rassemblement national plus que problématique, le parti de Macron merdique et le NFP rempli de clowns) et tout ça pour que le RN passe largement en tête ?? Génial. Ravie de savoir que la majorité des citoyens de ce pays soutient l'extrême droite :/ (même si comme je l'ai déjà dit la dernière fois, vu l'état actuel du pays et de la gauche, ce n'est pas surprenant...).

De toute façon, en tant que femme + lesbienne + étudiante + pauvre je me fais baiser dans tous les cas, peu importe qui passe, donc je ne sais même pas pourquoi je râle

[hotgirlbelle]

“O, let my land be a land where Liberty / is crowned with no false patriotic wreath, / but opportunity is real, and life is free, / equality is in the air we breathe. / (There’s never been equality for me, / Nor freedom in this ‘homeland of the free.’)”

Langston Hughes — Let America Be America Again

[borgialucrezia]

tapping the mic to say 🎤 when do u think the real shift in cesare and juans relationship happened and when did it begin to sour (or the audience could argue there were always notes of sourness and love mixed in together that just developed as time went on to be less fondness and more envy on both sides) bc lowkey ive been thinking the rift began when juan was chosen to go defend rome against king charles's army in s1 and cesare was desperate to don the armour and go and so when juan came back defeated, he was so ashamed with himself but cesare felt petty vindication and in this essay i will...[the audience cuts me off]

"He's not making excuses for what he is anymore, and what he wants to be. He ultimately feels that killing Juan was the right thing for himself. It's something that he focused on and I think he can control his mind into having no second thoughts. And that's the only way you can rule in that era, really." - Francois Arnaud

you're right! it's a mixture of sourness and love because, while cesare resented juan's weakness and naivety, but i think he still cared for him at first because he feels obligated to protect him since he was his family. but mainly, rodrigo's vicious cycle of ambitions tore them apart as he made cesare believe he was inadequate, despite loving, admiring, and relying on him. rodrigo's deliberate self-delusion (he is aware that cesare is the driven and more competent one) and self-loathing prevented him from embracing cesare's true self. appointing juan to a task desired by cesare fueled the hatred and envy as he started thinking juan was rodrigo's favorite. eventually, his frustration towards juan led him to murder him because this is where he becomes the cesare borgia we read about in machiavelli's 'the prince.' and like i said before, juan shaped the rest of cesare's story till the end. he was the one who drove him to finally become what he always meant to be and take the path he was always destined to. it's why juan's death is necessary to him because it was also a way for rodrigo to release him from his position as a cardinal. he claimed to rodrigo that he killed juan because he brought dishonor to the family, but cesare pretty much did contribute to bringing dishonor to the family by not wanting to warn juan about ludovico's army coming his way at forli after machiavelli informed him about it. cesare could have spared his family from another failure but decided not to because his priority was to humiliate juan just to prove a point to rodrigo, that he is the better son. he even gaslit juan about it by telling rodrigo that he wasn't aware of the attack, which makes cesare self-contradicting, just like how he went all "we're borgias, we never forgive" while killing juan because he was well aware juan struggled all his life questioning himself if he was truly rodrigo's son or not and desperately wanted to belong. cesare very decidedly excluded juan because he wanted to even emotionally hurt him in his final moment, then later was begging for "forgiveness" from rodrigo, a borgia, after the murder. also rodrigo feels a great deal of guilt (as he was hallucinating and dreaming of juan in s3) for making juan envied by cesare which led him to the decision to murder him, as that was the only way for cesare to gain his father's attention and the papal army. and when rodrigo finally forgives cesare for his sin of fratricide, rodrigo also forgives himself of the blame he's placed upon himself and the guilt he feels for letting his ambition destroy his family. they finally let go of the past and rodrigo can finally embrace cesare for the person he really is and has always loved deeply.

"he loves his errant son, does he not? More than he loves his dutiful one." - Cesare Borgia

cesare was proven wrong after all the time he was thinking juan was the favorite. he came to the realization that even though rodrigo saw so much of himself in him, he still planned from the beginning to make cesare his true heir. this brought relief and a sense of validation after years of feeling inadequate. rodrigo always intended for cesare to succeed him in the church, which was the only way that truly mattered to him. he made cesare a cardinal, a prince of the church, with the ultimate goal of cesare becoming the future pope and king. when rodrigo shared his dream of creating a papal bloodline to be passed down to cesare and his own son, cesare's perspective shifted. he began to heavily care about the perceptions of others, which not only fueled his power hunger but also led to him becoming classist. he even felt ashamed of his mother when she offered him counsel and to join him in war, rejecting her because of her former occupation as a "whore." it was a chilling development in cesare's character and honestly he became more interesting to me than he was in the first two seasons.

"One thing that I've always said about Juan is that every action that he does is heartfelt and genuine. When it was the war against the French, he was there and he was going to go to war, even though he knew he was going to die. He saw them getting ripped apart, but he was there and he was going to do it. I believe if Lucrezia hadn't come over, he would have led all his troops into death. I don't think there's anything that he's done which was through general cowardice. In terms of his survival, he died how he lived, and that's laudable, in itself." - David Oakes

rodrigo sending juan to war against the troops definitely (and rightfully) triggered cesare because juan has no idea what the hell he is doing and even though juan is incompetent, he never asked for the position he was given, but he tried his best to fulfill his responsibilities. like when he showed bravery by willingly risking his life against the french, even after his troops were torn apart in front of his eyes, insisting to lucrezia that he would never accept defeat and that he will keep fighting because he'll never let king charles of france destroy rome and get rid of their father, but only surrendered because the prospect of him dying would upset lucrezia, and lucrezia told him she already had a plan to prevent this.

"It’s interesting that Juan’s attempt at relieving pain is through closeness and hugging and love. When he forgives Cesare at the end saying how they’re brothers and wants to be together, I think that’s genuine. That’s the first time you realize what he’s always wanted." - David Oakes

juan felt deeply isolated because he never had a peer, and unfortunately, he was too weak and succumbed to his darkness, impulsiveness, and insecurities. he had a deep love for his family, but he lost himself in the pressure of the role and even committed heinous acts to prove himself, unaware that it would make his siblings hate him. all he wanted was to be included in their world. however, he struggled intensely in expressing his feelings, which led to him being shunned. it is tragic because ultimately he longed to feel like a 'true' borgia and have a close relationship with his family, especially with cesare. but the lack of moral guidance and the weight of expectations pushed him to behave inappropriately, resulting in everyone pushing him away and his death going unmourned except by his father, the one's responsible for his failure and feels guilty for it.

byeeee i really went on and on answering this oops sorry zaynab!!! anyway i hope these insights help lol

[good--merits-accumulated]

god. this anderperry renaissance au is knocking me around some kind of way

[xsceneusernamex]

When you see sites like IGN posting about the FCC restoring net neutrality laws.

[anghraine]

It's occasionally weird to think that, despite over 20 years of preoccupation with Austen, I probably owe more of my academic career to Neil Jordan.

[tomorrowusa]

French public broadcaster France 24 has live English-language covered of the second round of the snap election for National Assembly.

The far right RN (National Rally - in English) is being opposed by a loose coalition of centrist and leftist parties.

The RN needs 289 seats for a majority.

EDIT: France 24 abruptly ended coverage on the previous YouTube link and continued it on the revised link above. zut alors!

But bien joué to the voters of France for apparently rejecting neo-Nazis!

[alexanderpearce]

many are saying this

this is my a tale of two labo(u)r governments manifesto concerning the respective governments of bob hawke and paul keating in australia and tony blair and gordon brown in the uk. i promise im still a communist im just obsessed with the psychodrama of the westminster system. the cycles.

both paul keating and gordon brown had been living labo(u)r politics since they were in their early/mid teens, where bob hawke and tony blair swept in and managed, a lot because of their sense of populism, to win a labo(u)r victory after years and years of liberal/tory rule. one of the insane things with hawke and keating is that at the point hawke entered politics, keating had been there for 13 years or so, and at this point keating was 36 and hawke was 50. keating was of course pissed off to have the premiership stolen by some 50 year old relative novice.

anyway in 1983 hawke becomes prime minister with keating as his treasurer in a landslide victory after years of liberal rule, and in 1997 blair becomes prime minister with brown as his chancellor in a landslide victory after years of tory rule (chancellor and treasurer are basically equivalent roles in their respective governments). both are pretty powerful treasurers/chancellors and see themselves as running the country more than the PM, though brown was way more proactive in uh. using his power to block money and fuck with the PM.

my understanding is that both labo(u)r parties got in and stayed in on ���modernising’ the labo(u)r party, which essentially meant becoming less labo(u)r-y. this was especially true for the hawke-keating government, which adopted policies and actions people saw as much more liberal, giving the government less power of some parts of money. who is up floating the australian dollar. who is up giving the bank of england operational independence. idk i wont compare economic or other policies between the two governments too much because i dont really feel like i know enough to do so. there were obviously at least as many differences as similarities between the two.

both sets of men had a deal that the prime minister would step down and let his treasurer/chancellor take his place after a few terms – the kirribilli agreement (confirmed, done before witnesses, solid) for hawke and keating, made at kirribilli house (after some informal agreements years before) and the granita pact (alleged, nebulous) for blair and brown, made at the granita restaurant (after some informal arguments and threats and agreements over years). i think the main difference between the two is that hawke and keating seemed more explicit and solid in all their dealings together, with a deal in front of witnesses, hawke explicitly reneging on the deal, and keating stabbing him in the back (or the front) openly with a vicious off-the-record speech and multiple spill attempts, where blair and brown's dealings seemed to me a lot more indefinite. this may have been purposeful on blair's part.

also blair and brown also LITERALLY WENT TO KIRRIBILLI HOUSE TOGETHER IN THE EARLY 1990S AND MET HAWKE AND KEATING THERE to talk to a successful labo(u)r government about getting into power. like what kind of Premiership Succession Deal Cinematic Universe is this. hawke and keating should've had dinner at granita together too.

another difference is that keating won himself a second term after his half one, making his premiership last from 1991 until 1996, while brown never served a full term, lasting from 2007 until 2010. imagine the sting. everyone was just sick of labo(u)r. i do also think (and this will be influenced by the end of the party being one of my main sources, so i say it with a pinch of salt) that keating was a better prime minister than brown was. he truly had a vision for australia, and worked to try and implement it, where the people around brown often said that he didn't seem to have an overarching plan once he got into power.

both couplets of men were successful precisely because of their partnership, with a populist, smiling frontman in hawke and blair, and an economic thinker propping them up on policy and desperate for power in keating and brown. keating and brown, when they finally got power, were tired already and felt they had gotten it too late. both pairs of men were described as brotherly, but the grip of their respective deals broke down their relationships into deep bitterness and antipathy. i will say that (despite keating acting like the lodge was haunted by hawke after he left and saying all that shit about how he should have been on his hands and knees about keating even being around him) hawke and keating’s relationship never seemed to reach the same heights (or depths) of homoeroticism and hatred that blair and brown’s did. i think this maybe also allowed hawke and keating to be more direct with each other than perhaps blair and brown were.

(all of this has happened before, and it will happen again)

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

Also in other Cavalcanti news, apparently he had relatives kicking around Hungary making mischief and getting arrested for (allegedly) dodgy business dealings (allegedly because the guy doing the accusing also owed Gianozzo Cavalcanti money, so…)

Regardless, this family is so chaotic and I love them