Machiavelli’s the Prince is a 16th-century extended analysis of how to acquire and maintain political power. While many are cynical of Machiavelli’s intention when writing The Prince, the works of earlier writers seem to indicate that his piece was indeed a reflection on how a ruler ought to govern. The dedication declares Machiavelli's intention to discuss in plain language the conduct of great men and the principles of princely government. He states that he does so in hope of pleasing and enlightening the Medici family and offers it as a “some token of his devotion.” (Skinner) Italy was struggling with its limits on power and Machiavelli responded accordingly. His advice corresponds with his time and appears to be given in a genuine way.
In The Prince, Machiavelli believes that the key to power is a combination of fear and love; in the Discourses on Livy, he writes that knowledge of the past is important, and Bacon seems to think that being a private man while knowing much about others is most vital. Machiavelli’s The Prince shows how to gain political power in anyway possible. He is almost completely pragmatic in the book with little regard to morals. He states at the outset of the book that he is not dealing with republics but with princes and the best ways for them to rule over the people (1). Machiavelli believes that one of the most needed traits in a prince is that he be both feared and loved.
It’s original intention was simply to influence Lorenzo The Magnificent son of Piero Di Medici in the hope for possible appointment within public office. The Prince is therefore merely suggestions on possible theories in terms of a governing policy.He does not infer that this account is the be all and end all of successful rule and acknowledges himself as a humble man who has taken the time to study the deeds of great men to form an ideology that can be taken by the reader, in this case Lorenzo Medici as he interprets it.He does not claim to have the answer to politics just a different perspective by way of analyses of the past and present. I have been unable to find among my possessions anything, which I hold so dear or esteem so highly as that knowledge of the deeds of great men, which I have acquired through a long experience of modern events and a constant study of the past. (Social and Political Philosophy. Somerville and Santoni p.101) It is from this initial examination of politics from a purely scientific and rational perspective that Machiavelli has been named the founder of analysing politics as a science.
Many earlier thinkers had constructed hypothetical notions of ideal or natural states, but Machiavelli treated historical evidence pragmatically to ground The Prince in real situations. The book is dedicated to the current ruler of Florence, and it is readily apparent that Machiavelli intends for his advice. He formulated his own theory of effective government and famously asserted that good rulers sometimes have to learn "not to be good," they have to be willing to set aside ethical concerns of justice, honesty, and kindness in order to maintain the stability of the state. The idea was shocking to contemporaries, who had inherited medieval ideas about divine kingship, in which the king was appointed by God for the express purpose of serving as a sort of celestial deputy on earth, upholding law and justice. In popular medieval belief, the king was thought to be a "primate," an avatar of human virtue with innate authority over lesser beings in the cosmological hierarchy.
In it, Machiavelli analysis’s the various types of monarchies, analysis’s of the different types of states, how they may be obtained, and how they should be ruled. He also describes how power is seized and retained, how to rule the military forces and, the essence of his work, how a prince should act in all circumstances in order to accomplish these tasks. The first philosopher who did not try to lecture or preach on how to reach the ‘ideal state’ was Machiavelli. He saw society differently: Since it is my intention to write something of use..., I deem it best to stick to the practical truth of things rather than to fancies. Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never existed at all.
The Prince is written with dictatorial type regimes, and not with republican regimes. Niccolò seems to ignore the republican regimes which must mean that, at the time, he did not think that this would get very far or would not help anybody. Machiavelli goes onto explain the various principalities and princes. He creates an outline for the rest of the book during this explanation. To become a prince, he says that there is no way any normal person can become one, as the way this is acquired is either by hereditary means or is appointed to by the stat... ... middle of paper ... ...an be understood by just any person, but it also targets the history student's perspective as well.
The only way to prevent or lessening conspiracies is trustworthy companion and obtain the best weapons. The Prince reveals the uncommon truth and unorthodox tradition about being a magnificence ruler. Niccolo Machiavelli changes the old moral ways of medieval political. The people of Machiavelli’s era made a definition for his methods called Machiavellianism and it’s considered negative represents such as be cunning or deceitful. Machiavelli methods recovered the power of an arising ruler.
Machiavelli’s book The Prince redefines virtue in order to allow rulers to keep their power; he lowered the standards of politics with this action. While Machiavelli’s writings meant to influence rulers, Hobbes’ book the Leviathan focused on appealing to the people. Hobbes placed political philosophy on a scientific basis; as a result human life was reduced to only self-preservation and commodious living. This essay will examine the innovations Machiavelli and Hobbes created especially with their views on virtue, necessity, and liberty. Machiavelli redefined the term virtue from the classical understanding.
Its main theme is that princes should retain absolute control of their territories, and they should use any means of expediency to accomplish this end, including deceit. Scholars struggle over interpreting Machiavelli's precise point. In several section Machiavelli praises Caesar Borgia, a Spanish aristocrat who became a notorious and much despised tyrant of the Romagna region of northern Italy. During Machiavelli's early years as a diplomat, he was in contact with Borgia and witnessed Borgia's rule first hand. Some believe that Machiaveli saw Borgia as the model prince.
Machiavelli then presents his thesis, that a ruler must use both good and evil in order to maintain his power over the state. The reader has almost no choice but to accept this idea before any proof has been given. With the reader in the palm of his hand, Machiavelli needs only to make a very general argument of his point to convince the reader of its validity. The author states that there are actions for which a prince is either praised or blamed. He lists many examples of good qualities and their opposing attitudes.