The "And Ratio" in Machiavelli's "Il Principe"
Apprentice Tyler
April 26, 2014
Master's conclusion in his paper examining the the used of the conjunction "and" in the writings of Saint Paul proved inconclusive. Perhaps the reasons why the paper was unable to provide evidence on the authenticity of the epistles are twofold. First, Master did not use the original Greek text which can distort the text when translated and, secondly, it is possible that an individual's writing style can not be reduced to a simple concept as an "And Ratio".
Although Master used the authorized canon in his analysis of the Pauline epistles, it is possible that some of the epistles should be excluded. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine which epistles, if any, should be excluded a priori. To demonstrate the vague results of the use of the "And Ratio", we will examine a text whose authorship is not in doubt and those work is divided into chapters. The work we will use is Machiavelli's "Il Principe". I have not used an English translation, or a modern Italian translation, but the original Italian found here. Leo Strauss is clear that the dedication is not part of "The Prince", therefore it has not been analysed.
The following table shows the initial results of the inquiry.
Although Master used the authorized canon in his analysis of the Pauline epistles, it is possible that some of the epistles should be excluded. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine which epistles, if any, should be excluded a priori. To demonstrate the vague results of the use of the "And Ratio", we will examine a text whose authorship is not in doubt and those work is divided into chapters. The work we will use is Machiavelli's "Il Principe". I have not used an English translation, or a modern Italian translation, but the original Italian found here. Leo Strauss is clear that the dedication is not part of "The Prince", therefore it has not been analysed.
The following table shows the initial results of the inquiry.
Chapter
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |
Words
114 216 2,591 847 369 1,062 2,279 1,370 1,123 629 783 1,521 1,121 795 452 727 959 850 3,192 1,387 1,144 394 609 471 1,042 1,230 27,277 |
And
5 9 128 38 16 43 125 61 45 35 51 78 52 39 18 32 37 52 149 58 49 18 20 21 50 54 1,283 |
"And Ratio"
22.800 24.000 20.242 22.289 23.063 24.698 18.232 22.459 24.956 17.971 15.353 19.500 21.558 20.385 25.111 22.719 25.919 16.346 21.423 23.914 23.347 21.889 30.450 22.429 20.840 22.778 21.260 |
The below table shows the above information rearranged by the "And Ratio" from highest to lowest. The standard deviation is a very low 3.13. The data outside the range is in bold.
Chapter
23 17 15 9 6 2 20 21 5 1 26 16 8 24 4 22 13 19 Average 25 14 3 12 7 10 18 11 |
Words
609 959 452 1,123 1,062 216 1,387 1,144 369 114 1,230 727 1,370 471 847 394 1,121 3,192 27,277 1,042 795 2,591 1,521 2,279 629 850 783 |
And
20 37 18 45 43 9 58 49 16 5 54 32 61 21 38 18 52 149 1,283 50 39 128 78 125 35 52 51 |
"And Ratio"
30.450 25.919 25.111 24.956 24.698 24.000 23.914 23.347 23.063 22.800 22.778 22.719 22.459 22.429 22.289 21.889 21.558 21.423 21.260 20.840 20.385 20.242 19.500 18.232 17.971 16.346 15.353 |
As we can see from the above table, the vast majority of the text is within an acceptable range, with only a few chapters outside this range. These extremes are not significant and could be described as "statistical noise." Therefore, we can conclude for Machiavelli, specifically (if not for all authors, generally) that he does not change his writing style to any significant degree within a work or a collection of works. We are tempted to conclude that an individual's use of words and phrasing are unique to their time and place.
Additionally, grave doubt is placed upon any use of the "And Ratio" for a specific author. The value of the "And Ratio" may have some use, such as determining the general period of work, but even that value is highly questionable and more research will be required.
Additionally, grave doubt is placed upon any use of the "And Ratio" for a specific author. The value of the "And Ratio" may have some use, such as determining the general period of work, but even that value is highly questionable and more research will be required.
Addendum by G.D.O'Bradovich III
Apprentice Tyler has supplied a quality work and I am impressed with the amount of date, but not his conclusions. Apprentice Tyler is correct when he states that Leo Strauss says the Dedication is not part of "The Prince". If Apprentice Tyler is correct when he says that an individual's writing styles does not change to any significant degree, then I am curious to see the results of adding not only the Dedication to the work, but also the letter that accompanied the Dedication.
The statistical deviation remains a low 3.318 and the ratios outside the new range are again in bold.
The statistical deviation remains a low 3.318 and the ratios outside the new range are again in bold.
Chapter
23 Dedication 17 15 9 6 2 20 21 5 1 26 16 8 24 4 22 13 19 Average 25 14 3 12 7 10 Letter 18 11 |
Words
609 403 959 452 1,123 1,062 216 1,387 1,144 369 114 1,230 727 1,370 471 847 394 1,121 3,192 29,067 1042 795 2,591 1,521 2,279 629 1,387 850 783 |
And
20 15 37 18 45 43 9 58 49 16 5 54 32 61 21 38 18 52 149 1,381 50 39 128 78 125 35 83 52 51 |
"And Ratio"
30.450 26.867 25.919 25.111 24.956 24.698 24.000 23.914 23.347 23.063 22.800 22.778 22.719 22.459 22.429 22.289 21.889 21.558 21.423 21.048 20.840 20.385 20.242 19.500 18.232 17.971 16.711 16.346 15.353 |
Our expectations, per Apprentice Tyler's reasoning, is that both the Dedication and the Letter should be near the average ratio. We are disappointed to find that both examples are outside the average, and not only are they outside the average, but the Letter is in the lower ratio while the Dedication is in the higher ratio.
From these extremes we can reasonably conclude that Machiavelli intentionally wrote to two individuals, a friend and a Pope, in two distinct styles. The common style of writing utilizes more "ands" and the refined or educated style uses fewer "ands". Therefore, Apprentice Tyler is incorrect when he states that a person does not intentionally change his writing style.
Since Apprentice Tyler questions the validity of my "And Ratio", it might prove informative if he would analyse the Pauline epistles for the newly created "We Ratio" (we, us, our, ours, ourselves), the "You Ratio" (thou, thee, thy,thine, thyself) and the "I Ratio" (I, me, my, mine, myself).
I look forward to the results.
From these extremes we can reasonably conclude that Machiavelli intentionally wrote to two individuals, a friend and a Pope, in two distinct styles. The common style of writing utilizes more "ands" and the refined or educated style uses fewer "ands". Therefore, Apprentice Tyler is incorrect when he states that a person does not intentionally change his writing style.
Since Apprentice Tyler questions the validity of my "And Ratio", it might prove informative if he would analyse the Pauline epistles for the newly created "We Ratio" (we, us, our, ours, ourselves), the "You Ratio" (thou, thee, thy,thine, thyself) and the "I Ratio" (I, me, my, mine, myself).
I look forward to the results.