Talk:Francesco Guicciardini

The Invasions of Italy 1494-1527 Machiavelli and Guicciardini

http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/gilbert/04.html

In 1530 he wrote his unfinished Considerations on the Discourses of Machiavelli, in which he took Machiavelli to task for exaggeration and overstatement and for his tendency to derive general laws from specific instances. Guicciardini preferred to examine carefully each case, being more distrustful of large generalizations. This insistence on the specific, particular, and individual is one of the qualities that make him a great historian. In this field he is even superior to Machiavelli and deserves to be called the first modern historian. His historical writings, particularly the History of Italy, opened a new era in historiography. No earlier historian had based his account so thoroughly on documentary sources. He strove always for the highest possible accuracy. But this alone was not enough; he also searched for underlying causes. These he found in human motivations, and he was skilled in examining the motives of his narrative's principal actors. Leaders100 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV of the article

This article seems to lack NPOV. It makes strong claims about the moral values of Guicciardini, which do not seems appropriate to me for a NPOV article. Am I correct ? pibizza 08:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this arises because the article is based on the 1911 Britannica, which is full of personal opinions and lacks NPOV. Charles Matthews 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To start with all citations from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article must be removed. Leezk (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The personal judgements passed by the author of this article seem wholly innapropriate - much of the evaluation section should be edited in the interst of objectivity

perhaps some mention should be made of the fortuna/virtu dialectic? Guiciardini's view of fortuna as implacable and ruthless is worthy of note - 'how mutable are human affairs; not unlike a sea whipped by winds'

The article, as it is, based on EB1911, should be linked in the External Links section to the original along with an attribution of who wrote it. The Wikipedia article should be started over from scratch written with a modern perspective and original content. -- 71.191.36.194 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but that's no easy task. The article is not only POV, it's also incomplete. For example it does not it even mention the detailed, rabidly critical Oratio accusatoria ("Maggiore sono le tue sceleratezze che si possino scusare o negare", en: "Your crimes are so big that they can neither be denied nor excused") and the uncompromisingly apologetic Oratio defensoria that Guicciardini wrote about himself. I'd say that the guy's sheer intelligence makes him hard to assess. Felix Gilbert's excellent Machiavelli and Guicciardini : Politics and History in Sixteenth-Century Florence may provide the starting point for a rewrite . L'omo del batocio (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It may or may not be NPOV. It is most certainly the best prose on Wikipedia. 74.184.5.4 (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was about to add that I also found the evaluations rediculously biased, and request that someone re-write the page from more modern - and accurate - scholarship. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.30.37 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd add my voice to those who say that this article is "flowery". WP should not be a place for taking sides and giving non-neutral commentary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I too add my voice to the need for a strong revision for this article. For instance, the quoting of a very-much dated "editorial" from the Britannica is the only thing of substance we read about Guicciardini's Storia D'Italia, his most important work and a seminal (and still valid) piece of Renaissance historiography. Tom Leoni (2/7/2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.9.215 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

copyviol?

While looking for more particulars about Francesco Guicciardini, I found this site http://www.informationdelight.info/encyclopedia/entry/Francesco_Guicciardini which looks remarkably similar to the text in wikipedia. Can somebody control, please?--Broletto (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of copies of Wikipedia on the internet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation

The article contained the following mannered prose, flagged for more than a year: Guicciardini was the product of a cynical and selfish age, and his life illustrated its sordid influences. Of a cold and worldly temperament, devoid of passion, blameless in his conduct as the father of a family, faithful as the servant of his papal patrons, severe in the administration of the provinces committed to his charge, and indisputably able in his conduct of affairs, he was at the same time, and in spite of these qualities, a man whose moral nature inspires a sentiment of liveliest repugnance. It is not merely that he was ambitious, cruel, revengeful and avaricious, for these vices have existed in men far less antipathetic than Guicciardini. Over and above those faults, which made him odious to his fellow-citizens, we trace in him a meanness that our century is less willing to condone. His phlegmatic and persistent egotism, his sacrifice of truth and honor to self-interest, his acquiescence in the worst conditions of the world, if only he could use them for his own advantage, combined with the glaring discord between his opinions and his practice, form a character which would be contemptible in our eyes were it not so sinister. The social and political decrepitude of Italy, where patriotism was unknown, and only selfishness survived of all the motives that rouse men to action, found its representative and exponent in Guicciardini. When we turn from the man to the author, the decadence of the age and race that could develop a political philosophy so arid in its cynical despair of any good in human nature forces itself vividly upon our notice. Guicciardini seems to glory in his disillusionment, and uses his vast intellectual ability for the analysis of the corruption he had helped to make incurable.

If one single treatise of that century should be chosen to represent the spirit of the Italian people in the last phase of the Renaissance, the historian might hesitate between the Principe of Machiavelli and the Ricordi politici of Guicciardini. The latter is perhaps preferable to the former on the score of comprehensiveness. It is, moreover, more exactly adequate to the actual situation, for the Principe has a divine spark of patriotism yet lingering in the cinders of its frigid science, an idealistic enthusiasm surviving in its moral aberrations; whereas a great Italian critic of this decade has justly described the Ricordi as Italian corruption codified and elevated to a rule of life.

It looks point of view and is likely copied from a source that has not been named. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zickzack (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely an article calling out for someone to improve it in one fairly easy to define direction. Any takers?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about doing a complete rewrite for grammar and style. Much of the article is in fair shape, but parts of it read like a grade ten book report bwmcmaste (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. There seems to be consensus something like this is needed. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)