Machiavelli and the Use of Antiquity in The Prince and The Discourses

The shift from the medieval era to early modernity in the political sphere is notably exemplified in the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli. Two of Machiavelli’s works, The Prince (1532) and Discourses (1531)

On the heels of the Peloponnesian war, Socrates was blamed for corrupting the youth and disrespecting the Athenian gods and Athenian values. His defense or “Apology” and reaction after he was sentenced to death in “Crito” demonstrate his most basic philosophy and ideals of what a government should truly be like. Yet in a vastly different situation, Machiavelli, who lived during the renaissance of Italy experienced constant shifts of power which he wrote his book, “The Prince”. Machiavelli writes about how a leader or prince should conduct himself in order to keep and efficiently run a republic or principality. Although Socrates’ texts on the surface deal with his accusations, the texts give great insight as to how he thinks a government

Niccoló Machiavelli’s The Prince is very harsh and opinionated. It is chalk full of information regarding multiple empires and leaders and their ways of governing their subjects. He bases his ideas off of their rulers and adds to their thought processes as well. Another one of his tactics when presenting this information is using analogies and thinking of theoretical circumstances such as, “ A prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as a beast must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves” (72-73). This is why The Prince leans more towards a persuasive argument rather than an informative essay. However, because Machiavelli did not write this specifically

Machiavelli argued, as Hegel would later, that one must look to history and the accounts of previous nations' events in order to "sense...that flavor that they have in themselves" in common with those from the past (Discourses 6). This seems to follow the adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, yet for Machiavelli he seems more concerned with actually emulating history in order to repeat success than looking out for particular things to avoid. For this reason, he pulls examples from an eclectic range of histories in order to demonstrate how his principles in both The Prince and the Discourses on Livy, when followed, will lead to a successful state. In particular, he refers to the Roman Republic

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

“Machiavelli wrote The Prince to serve as a handbook for rulers, and he claims explicitly throughout the work that he is not interested in talking about the ideal republics or imaginary utopias, as many of his predecessors had done” (Harrison). There is an ongoing debate about which philosopher’s ideas are most correct on the subject of leadership. Two main philosophers come to mind when thinking of this topic and they are Machiavelli with his book The Prince and Plato’s dialogue The Republic. The Republic takes a very theoretical point of view on leadership and portrays life as it should be in an ideal state, whereas Machiavelli’s The Prince, takes a more realistic point of view. Machiavelli is less interested with what things should be

Nowadays, it is politically impossible to commit to paper a "training guide" for leaders. There are innumerable detractors to any possible stance or strategy a leader might adopt. As a result of this, all "training" must take place behind closed doors, far from the prying eyes and ears of the news media or the public. But this has not always been the case.

For centuries, periods of history have been defined by their distinct values, their tastes in art, music, literature, and politics. If you hear the term "Romantic Era" your mind is immediately transported to hear the soft music of Lizt, Schubert, or Chopin, and your eyes begin to see waves of the soft colours found in the paintings of Turner, Goya, and Blake. You might even begin reciting a line from a poem by Lord Byron or a quote from one of Jane Austen 's beloved novels. Even if we do not know specific names of people from that era, we will get a feeling, or a sense of what it must have been like, simply from the things we have heard about it. Sometimes, phrases we commonly use today are even named after periods of time in history, which characterize an aspect of this time periods values and ideals. An example of this is the modern term "Renaissance Man".

Niccolò Machiavelli is very well known as an important and influential Italian historian, politician, philosopher, and writer during the Renaissance. His book, Discourses on Livy, is a discussion regarding the classical history of early Ancient Rome, although it uses contemporary political examples and strays far away from the subject of Rome at times. It is presented as a series of lessons on how a republic should be started and structured. Most importantly, it constantly brings up the idea of corruption and corrupt people, which is not surprising because we all desire things and search for the simplest way to obtain it, even though the easiest way to obtain something might be a corrupt way.

Niccolo Machiavelli was a unique politician, philosopher, and writer who lived in Florence, Italy during the European Renaissance period of the late 15th and early 16th centuries. He is most famously known for writing his ruthless handbook for rulers, The Prince, during his time in exile in 1513. This contentious piece of literature has been fondly referred to as “the guidebook for tyrants and totalitarians,” according to the documentary, Machiavelli: The Prince by director Jett Rink. However, the document has also been credited with positively paving the way for ethnic and religious toleration, individual rights, and modern democracies all throughout history; and it inevitably set the stage for future governments to come. In this way, it is

Niccolò Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli’s analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli’s thought.

In The Morals of the Prince Machiavelli expresses his presumption on how a prince should act. He expresses that a prince should be feared, merciful, stingy, etc. He is right because if a prince is loved and too generous then people will take advantage of him and that will lead to his down fall. A prince must act appropriately to remain in power. Machiavelli gives his best ideas to keep a prince in power.

It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.

Niccolo Machiavelli is considered the father of modern political science. Living in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth-century's, Machiavelli was a citizen of the city-state of Florence where he served as a secretary to the city council and as a diplomatic envoy for 14 years. The Prince was published five years after his death and is regarded as his most famous work. The Prince is an articulate and precise explanation of the way to use the lesson of history in politics as an example to learn and build ideas from. The Prince can be broken up into four parts. Firstly, Machiavelli explains how a prince gets a state. Secondly, he explains how a prince holds on to a state. Thirdly, he