Timeline for What's an eponymous adjective that is an antonym of Machiavellian?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 30, 2017 at 22:38 | comment | added | terdon | Hmm yes, that makes sense, thanks. It certainly seems to be treated as a normal thing. And don't apologize, that's a great find! | |
| May 30, 2017 at 22:16 | comment | added | Sven Yargs | @terdon: The U.S. entered the Great War in April 1917 (the month of publication of the cited issue of Our Navy) and it may be that, as the country slid toward open warfare with Germany and its allies, it began to lend its sailors to the British Navy. The article is quite casual about U.S. sailors "serving under the Union Jack," which indicates to me that the phenomenon was so familiar to U.S. sailors at the time that it didn't require explanation or background. The article seems to focus on the boxing fortunes of U.S. sailors stationed in California. I'm sorry the link doesn't work for you. | |
| May 30, 2017 at 22:05 | history | edited | Sven Yargs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected the date of the cited issue of 'Our Navy'.
|
| May 30, 2017 at 19:33 | comment | added | terdon | Sadly, the quote I could find in Google Books from Our Navy is even more abridged than what you offered so I am still wondering what business U.S. sailors had sailing under the British flag. I don't suppose the rest of the text gives any clarification? | |
| May 30, 2017 at 18:22 | comment | added | ab2 | +1, although I question that "....you could easily repurpose..." if by that you mean get "Queensberrian" to be as popular as, say, "selfie". :) | |
| May 30, 2017 at 18:17 | history | edited | Sven Yargs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Deleted a "not" that misstated my definition of 'anti-Machivellian' in the final paragraph.
|
| May 30, 2017 at 18:11 | comment | added | Sven Yargs | @Fattie: My initial reason for responding to this question was that I think Machiavelli is utterly misunderstood in popular culture. The idea that he is a royalist who idolizes Cesare Borgia will seem untenable to anyone who has read his History of Florence or Discourses on Livy. In my opinion, his central motive for writing his various books on politics and history was to counteract what he viewed as the pernicious effects of books predicated on human behavior as it should be rather than human behavior as it is. Only in his respectful recognition of the real world is he an anti-moralist. | |
| May 30, 2017 at 16:32 | comment | added | Fattie | "we need to nail down what people mean by that term" but you cannot, Sven. Especially for an "antonym". Quite simply, as I mentioned by way of example above ........ state whether you think the "opposite of Hitler" is Gandi, or, Lincoln? It's unanswerable. BTW Queensberrian is a fantastic solution and I like it! | |
| May 30, 2017 at 3:09 | comment | added | user227547 | This is the sort of interesting and well-reasoned response I wanted in asking the question, Thank you, Sven Yargs. Your discussion sharpened my sense of what it is I'm contrasting. Queensberrian is definitely and interesting answer and illuminating. The contrast that interests me is idealistic and altruistic, so Mandela is the best fit so far. | |
| May 30, 2017 at 2:14 | history | answered | Sven Yargs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |