| What is this ridiculous trend of making up past standards how it suits us? Why cant we admit past successful people ever did something wrong or immoral by whatever standard. > he picked up a pretty lad and, after he has had his way in the darkness, explains that he has no money, but states that he is called Filippo Casavecchia—and if he calls at his shop tomorrow, the boy will get his money. A surprised Filippo, a buddy of Machiavelli’s, denies it was him, The falsely accused friend would not think it is ok and nor did prostitute boy. > and the boy threatens him with prosecution for sodomy. Apparently, the act was illegal. > Filippo asks if the boy would recognise the man’s voice? The boy says yes, so he is taken to a spot near the Porta Romana where Machiavelli regularly holds court. The boy creeps up behind the bench where the great man is telling an anecdote. He sees the boy and runs off. If that was ok by past standards, why did he run? "Past" is not universal excuse. Easy example is that I wont excuse Nazi leadership for just being men of their time. "It was in the past therefore it was ok" is ridiculous standard. |
> Apparently, the act was illegal.
Oh no, and he went anyway and fucked a man, despite being illegal.
> If that was ok by past standards, why did he run?
Dont be dense, it is not OK, it was not OK then and it is even less OK now.The point is that for his times this was not more than a prank.Hell, the trope of running away from a check/bill and left your friends to manage is a classic in old and modern fiction. The only thing than could be considered really outrageous is if the boy was underage, but yet again the age of consent in medieval Florence was probably different than ours.