Changing Interpretations of The Prince and Niccolo Machiavelli

Machiavelli writes the ‘Prince’ while away in exile which by most people, is interpreted as his manual or guide on how to rule. It is quite clear that he demonstrates political interest and advocacy in his work through the many stories of past rulers he shares as examples of what to do and what not to do. An example of a ruler who came from a lower position, meaning no riches or status, was Agathocles (son of a potter, who became the King of Syracuse) (Machiavelli [1532] 2006) which is similar to the status of the man Plato speaks of, Socrates. However, Machiavelli speaks for power politics and the importance of the ruler being in total control since “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others” ([1532]

The Oxford Dictionary defines the term “Machiavellian” as someone who is cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, especially in politics or in advancing one’s career. These principles, as well as others, were established in Niccolo Machiavelli’s book, The Prince. The Prince dwelves on what a person needs to do to obtain and maintain power in a principality. Although it was written nearly 500 years ago, it has influenced countless rulers over time. A great example of one of these rulers is Joseph Stalin, dictator of the U.S.S.R (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) from 1929 - 1953.

What’s better than the sweet taste of power? According to Machiavelli, nothing seems to compare to the high power brings. Many leaders throughout history perfectly embodied some of his truths and remained in power. Though their tactics were questionable and brought plenty of tragedies one could argue that they produced great leaders.But are Machiavelli’s ideas still relevant? Yes, they’re arguably more relevant than they've ever been. Machiavelli’s tactic, though extreme, are relevant in the modern age because they appear in foreign nations, early age influences, and American politics.

Before Machiavelli wrote The Prince, he was a respected Florentine diplomat. When Machiavelli lost his title, he wrote this work for Lorenzo de’ Medici, the governor of Florence at the time in hopes of obtaining his stature again. Machiavelli’s sole purpose was for Lorenzo de’ Medici to accept his ‘offering’ and give him back his title. Machiavelli says, “I have not sought to adorn my work with long phrases or high-sounding words or any of those superficial attractions and ornaments with which many writers seek to embellish their material, as I desire no honour for my work but such as the novelty and gravity or its subject may justly deserve” (4). Machiavelli clearly states that he in no way was writing this for anyone but Lorenzo nor did he intend on receiving any literary acknowledgment. This proves that The Prince could also have been an informative writing because he was not telling Lorenzo how to run a government or treat his people. However, when he did present the information in his work, he backed up his arguments and had many examples to show that his tactics had been proven to work or would work in future

While some other great political thinkers sat around and dreamed about their perfect little utopias in the clouds, notably Socrates and Plato, Machiavelli was analyzing the most powerful men of his day. He observed and recorded how men flocked the sheep to exactly where they were wanted by their shepherd. He watched as the wolves preyed on the sheep and noticed that there was no philosopher king around to prevent it. He accepted that we as humans are corrupt and that we can’t all be Marcus Aurelius, king of

Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx developed theories concerning wealth and poverty in our society, as well as different types of governments. For instance, Machiavelli supported a capitalist economic system, unlike Marx, who embraced socialism in the society. Machiavelli wrote a book "The Prince" that explained how to be an effective leader. The theme of the book is "the end justifies the means." A person could or should do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired goal. According to Machiavelli, there is no concept of a perfect ruler, but only effective or ineffective leaders. Therefore, he claims that there are no fair fighters, but only losers and winners. Contrary, Marx embraced democracy as good practice for the government. This paper will analyze whether Marx would buy Machiavelli 's thought that states "desired ends justify undesirable means" (Weng 1).

Niccolo Machiavelli is a very pragmatic political theorist. His political theories are directly related to the current bad state of affairs in Italy that is in dire need of a new ruler to help bring order to the country. Some of his philosophies may sound extreme and many people may call him evil, but the truth is that Niccolo Machiavelli’s writings are only aimed at fixing the current corruptions and cruelties that filled the Italian community, and has written what he believed to be the most practical and efficient way to deal with it. Three points that Machiavelli illustrates in his book The Prince is first, that “it is better to be feared then loved,”# the second

Sullivan, Vickie B. The Tragedy And Comedy of Machiavelli. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Print.

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince examines the nature of power and his views of power are still somewhat in existence today. I'll discuss this in this essay, emphasizing the following theses. Machiavelli discusses power over the people, dictatorial power, and power with people, shared power. While it is possible for power with to attain greater prevalence in society, it will not completely eliminate power over. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two distinct groups of people, the political elite, including nobles and other princes, and the general public. Today in the United States, the first group, the political elite, includes political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders and the leaders of

Carl Schmitt referred to Machiavelli as an engineer as a way to personify the type of political action he would prescribe. This comparison perfectly reflects Machiavelli’s political thinking: political actions and choices are for him solely technical devices, or means to achieve a desired end. Therefore, the political analysis here focusses exclusively on the skill with which the ends are pursued, and the actor maintains a technical relationship with the means. It is true Machiavelli appears detached and neutral to external factors which might change his objective view of political science. This detachment to what one may call humanity is the reason some claim Machiavelli teaches wickedness and cruelty in his work, and especially in The Prince, his guide to successful ruling in sixteenth century Europe.

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli presents a detailed analysis of how to acquire political power and maintain it. The author discusses how great men should conduct themselves and the desired principles of a princely government. Utopia by Sir Thomas More illustrates what the character Raphael Hythloday, its narrator, suggests to be the perfect human society found in the island of Utopia. This essay looks at why Machiavelli thinks a prince needs to have virtù in order to rule well, and whether Fortuna can actually foster the prince’s virtù. It will also look at the extent to which Utopia provides an argument that a leader has to have virtù in order to govern well. The essay will explore if there is any proof in Utopia that Fortuna plays a role in fostering virtù.

Machiavelli desired and had a talent for government work ever since childhood. His intelligence and passionate political interests were powerful reasons for the attention from Florentine politicians. For this reason, he was once known as “Machia,” a pun on

Those private citizens who become princes through fortune alone do so with little effort, but they maintain their position only with a great deal; they meet no obstacle along their way since they fly to success, but all their problems arise when they have arrives…such men depend solely upon two very uncertain an unstable things: the will and the fortune of him who granted them