Machiavelli and A Song of Ice and Fire [SPOILER ALERT]

The multiple rules that Machiavelli lays down in The Prince and the advice that he gave reminded me immensely of George R. R. Martin's a song of ice and fire. Many of the rules and consequences of not following these rules can be seen displayed in the unfolding of fictional events which take place in Martin's immense epic. Here are but a few of the connections that can be made.

"When you see a minister thinking more of himself than of you, and in all his actions seeking his own ends, that man can never be a good Minister or one that you can trust" (Machiavelli, 62).

This rule is unfortunately ignored by a multitude of characters throughout the series. Petyr Baelish, a.k.a. Littlefinger, was notoriously self serving and served as master of coin on the small council. Working for himself, Baelish held power over the entire city guard through his commandeer over the King's wealth. Instead of helping Ned Stark overthrow Joffrey, he paid off the guard to capture Ned and help execute him as a traitor, breaking his word. In analyzing Ned Stark's faults we can find that he breaks one of Machiavelli's Rules as well:

"Thus, it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, religious, and upright, and also to be so; but the mind should remain so balanced that were it needful not to be so, you should be able and know how to change to the contrary" (Machiavelli, 46). 

Ned Stark, to his demise, did not "know how to change to the contrary" and in his grasp to maintain what was upright and faithful to his kingdom, Ned was betrayed and executed. Petyr Baelish on the other hand executed this rule flawlessly. He would play the role of an honest and caring honorable gentleman and when it served him would pursue the course of action which would lead to the greatest personal gain. In his own words, Machiavelli would doubtlessly describe Baelish as more fox than lion and "he who was best known to play the fox has had the best success" (Machiavelli, 46).

Cersei Lannister and her son, Joffrey, are at fault for abusing the privilege of a fortress. The Red Keep separates them from their citizens and, as a result, leads them down a path that would make Machiavelli roll over in his grave. The citizens of King's Landing, living in the poverty caused by the their isolation from the rest of the kingdom and the use of taxes upon luxury for the elites and war, began to hate the lords and ladies residing in the Red Keep. As machiavelli says it is never good to have your own subjects hate you and indeed he goes as far as to say

"...I shall applaud him who builds fortresses, and him who does not; but I shall blame him who, trusting in them, reckons it a light thing to be held in hatred by his people" (Machiavelli, 58).

Cersei and Joffrey are completely oblivious to the the words of Machiavelli and ignore the hatred of their subjects thinking that their fortress will protect them. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he Machiavelli preaches and they pay the consequences. Cersei is eventually imprisoned by her people (in the form of the church) and is completely shamed in front of her people. Machiavelli would be furious of their decisions, but would probably rest easy knowing they got what was coming to them.

Week Two: The Renaissance and the Power of the Medicis

In the years following the black plague a new period began that pulled humanity from its dark middle ages. The Renaissance completely shifted the culture of western civilization from its god and church fearing mindset to a new logical and nostalgic mentality that wished to bring back the achievements and knowledge of the classical era that had been forgotten throughout the middle ages. In Florence, Italy this movement was catalyzed by the power of wealthy merchant families acting as patrons of the arts: People who would sponsor certain individuals to pursue a profession. One family in particular stood out as a powerful patron and as the most powerful family in Italy at the time. This family was called the Medici. The ideas from this era that served as most interesting to me was this idea of patronage and the way it helped both society and the family serving as a patron.

The Medici served as patrons to numerous craftsman and artists throughout Florence. By acting as patrons they were able to increase their honor and assist in progressing the arts. One example of a craftsman the Medici were patrons of is Brunelleschi. This architectural genius was obsessed with the genius of roman architecture, in particular the pantheon. By the medici's patronage Brunelleschi was able to design and construct a dome for the unfinished cathedral of florence and by doing so created a wonder of architecture by building the largest unsupported dome in the world and increased the honor of the Medici family by having completed the centerpiece of Florence's city. This relationship between patron and artist repeated itself throughout the renaissance. A patron would sponsor an artist who would then have the money and time to perfect his craft and innovate, which would then create innovative new techniques, which would bring honor to the patron family. It was this mutually beneficial relationship that ultimately created the great rebirth in art and knowledge that came to be known as the Renaissance.

Week One: The Plague Strikes Europe

In the mid fourteenth century Europe fell victim to a devastating illness that came to be known as the Black Plague. Originating in china, this plague found its way to Europe through trade routes that carried it to the city of Kaffa, and through Genoese sailors to Messina, a major trading port in Italy. This plague then spread from Sicily to the rest of Europe infecting everyone from peasants to the nobility. Death had no bias; it took lives from everyone which resulted in the deadliest natural disaster of all time. The plague took the lives of an estimated 50 million people; about half of the population of Europe at the time. Something that I found interesting as a result of the plague was people's view of death and how they represented it. More specifically through the portrayal of death in paintings and art. In class we looked at a series of paintings by the german artist Hans Holbein which were made after the black death.   

One of the themes in these prints was that death can strike anyone, anywhere, at any time, and struck quickly. This themes are obviously similar to the way the black plague struck. Without any knowledge of modern medicine the way the plague spread and its cause was a mystery so it appeared to strike for no reason. In addition, the plague would kill quickly, usually within 2-4 days. This caused death to go from being a rarer occurrence in which one would be ceremoniously passed on to the afterlife. I was curious however to see how this new portrayal of death was different from pre-plague artistic representations. As I searched for about forty five minutes I found that it was difficult to find paintings from before the plague with death as a subject at all. The closest I could come to a difference was this painting.

This painting, called The Procession of Saint Gregory (c. 1300) shows death as the angel in the top right corner. The sheathing of its blade is a depiction of Saint Gregory's procession successfully stopping the effects of the plague. Due to the scarcity of paintings portraying death, it seems as though the Black Plague could have created an obsession with death once it struck. The constant dying of people and the retched atmosphere appears to have created a new movement of art in which death was consistently portrayed as a skeleton.