Both, William Shakespeares’ classic play Julius Caesar and Machiavelli’s prosaic essay the Prince explore the overarching notion of power. Machiavelli, lived in a time of corruption and political instability, in Florentine state. His work, is a reflection of his social and political context and his primary aim, to gain in favour with the medici’s, a highly influential family in rule. Due to the political turmoil, Machiavelli, in his work, writes on how to gain and remain in power. The sixteenth chapter of his work, clearly accentuates that, “a ruler in power and a man seeking power are two different things.” This suggests that during the time he lived in, it was quintessential to gain power and maintain it because of the political turmoil,
Overall Machiavelli’s perspective does seem harsh and cold at times, but he proves to be an avid supporter of popular rule throughout his writings. He believes in popular rule so strongly that he states it is acceptable to use immoral means to achieve a peaceful government. If the citizens are not happy and feel their ruler disregards their wishes then the populace could become enraged and therefore, the ruler would not be executing his power of indirect popular rule. Machiavelli states that in order to achieve the necessity of popular rule, a leader will have to step outside a moral sphere and do whatever it takes to achieve popular rule. Machiavelli puts clear and strict limits on acts of immorality in leadership. The use of immorality is only acceptable in order to achieve overall good for a government. Engaging in immorality for the sake of popular rule is justified because it is done to serve the people and the state successfully.
In Machiavelli, The Prince, the underlying theme of obtaining political status by means of invasion, coercion, heredity and luck is portrayed throughout the text in various chapters. The main emphasis in a stable, self-governing society or state is to obtain a higher political status by any means necessary. There are many political strategies of obtaining fortune but the outcome solely depends on the circumstances and the approach towards this goal. The decisions made by man incorporated with favourable uncontrollable events and the foresight of catastrophes once combined or on its own would aid in the protection of a successful political authority.
The meaning of “power” to Machiavelli is the ability to eliminate threats and opposition to that power effectively. Machiavelli’s Prince demands power in the sense that it represents absolute authority over the state. Socrates gained significant influence over the community by teaching the youth his questioning methods, which he used to question authority. The political figures ended up exposing themselves, which proved Socrates’ argument. By doing so, Socrates gained followers of the community and continued to expose the political corruption resulting in hatred by the political elite (Plato, 2003
First, Machiavelli’s method attempts to discard discussion of the “imaginary” political world and instead focuses on “real life” (Machiavelli 48). His end goal is to construct rubric for leaders to follow either to rule and unite (in this case Italy) in the Prince or create a powerful republic in the Discourses. His method is derived from comparing contemporary and historical events to illustrate and substantiate his argument. He is critical of how people interpret history (Machiavelli 83). He still believes that his ability to interpret and compare history is superior. Arguing that his methodological approach doesn’t just “chew” on history but actually “tastes” it (Machiavelli 83). Therefore we can understand that he justifies his method approach as not being akin to most because he possesses a much deeper understanding of history. Throughout his two books using ...
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
...f a nod at the difficulty the ruler encounters in administering a state because of the uncertainty of present circumstances. Both the former and the latter are involved in subtle arts, one of translation and the other of statecraft, and only by closely examining the context in which they find themselves are they able to fulfill their duties more skillfully. The many historical examples in The Prince try to demonstrate that there is no better guide to understanding the context of Italy’s condition during Machiavelli’s lifetime than knowing the past. The last chapter of The Prince is unequivocal with its message, as it shows in closing with Petrarch’s words from Italia mia. For Machiavelli, his nation is the direct inheritor of the Roman legacy, and that legacy, one which virtù is all-important, is one the Italians, and especially the Medicis, would do well to emulate.
Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.
Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in 1469 (Encarta). Not much else is known about his early years. He was appointed secretary of the second highest governing body in the Florentine republic in 1498 (Encarta). His duties consisted of mainly of conducting diplomatic missions (Encarta). He also organized a militia for the republic (Encarta). In 1512, the republic collapsed (Encarta). The Medici family, which had ruled Florence earlier, was then restored to power (Encarta). Machiavelli was arrested, tortured, and imprisoned on suspicion of plotting against the Medici rule, but he was released after less than a year (Encarta). In 1513, he wrote The Prince and in 1532, it was published (Encarta). This book describes the methods by which a strong ruler might gain power and keep power. The experience he acquired as a government official and his study of history led him to view politics in a new way. The political writers of the Middle Ages treated politics plainly, within the framework of religion. However, Machiavelli sought to explain politics realistically, based on his view of human nature within the framework of history. Machiavelli died in Florence on June 21, 1527 (Encarta). His political writings became more widely known in the second half of the 16th century (Encarta). Ultimately considered dangerous, in 1564 they were placed on the Church Index of officially banned books (Encarta).
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.
strong prince. Machiavelli’s higher political morality is to pursue the means to gain and hold
...ver, according to Machiavelli, these short-comings are justified since they preserve the state’s overall goal. In addition, if administrators at both local and national levels act in accordance with the state, this preserves the functionality of society as a whole. Not acting in accordance with the will of the state causes turmoil to erupt and a chink within the everyday businesses of life. Thus, it is consideration of these points that Machiavelli’s philosophy would purport that the tyrannical grip of the state ought to reign supreme in contemporary society.
“The Prince”, by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a series of letters written to the current ruler of Italy, Lorenzo de’ Medici. These letters are a “how-to” guide on what to do and what not to do. He uses examples to further express his views on the subject. The main purpose was to inform the reader how to effectively rule and be an acceptable Prince. Any ruler who wishes to keep absolute control of his principality must use not only wisdom and skill, but cunning and cruelness through fear rather than love. Machiavelli writes this book as his summary of all the deeds of great men.
While the word Machiavellian has become part of our lexicon as a term for the ruthless execution of political will glorifying the “ends justify the means” mentality, Machiavelli’s true legacy should be found in his belief that the state was more than a contract as Bacon or John Locke would later explain. Machiavelli was shrewd enough to understand that the state was an entity in and of itself which needed to be protected from all dangers both external and internal. In Machiavelli’s belief, it is the enlightened prince who must act on behalf of his subject’s best interests. As such, a prince should not find himself beholden to the same rules of morality and ethics that govern individuals. To the casual observer this outlook could be described as cynical at best and immoral at worst. But to the student of history and politics it is remarkably prescient. Machiavelli’s ideas would go on to mold political thought well into the modern era.
Aristotle and Niccolò Machiavelli were two great minds from completely different times, both having rather different views on the world, that touched on many similar points throughout their respective works Politics and Machiavelli’s various writings. This occurred because Machiavelli was illustrating his positions directly against Aristotle’s theories, which allows for an interesting comparison between the two’s opinions on a variety of issues. While Politics is more of a discussion for the populous and The Prince was specifically made as a sort of guidebook for the future ruling class, they can still be compared based upon their similar topics of discussion regarding political goals and the opposing points that need to be avoided. This combined with The Discourses, which was an analysis of the Roman republic and why it was so successful, provide a rather comprehensive view of Machiavelli’s core beliefs. The concept of differing worldviews is key to understanding the similarities and differences between the two as they come from very different basic places of opinion when regarding the overall goal of politics. Aristotle came from a position of lofty, boarding on impractical, goals with the effort of creating the concept of the good life for its citizens, in which they could expand and flourish. Machiavelli on the other hand worked on a much more practical scale of thought, focusing on concepts of gaining power, and control, while maintaining stability as the main goals of participating in politics. Both however stated a vast array of necessary requirements for achieving the best political scenario along with opposing points to avoid, and in turn theories on how to distinguish between the two. In this paper, these two great poli...
Niccolo Machiavelli was a philosopher, statesman and the leading political theorist in the late 1400s early 1500s. He is often referred to as the “father of modern political theory” (Nederman, 2009). His book The Prince (2011) had such an influence its’ theories are still in practice today. This paper will prove Machiavelli is not a Visionary leader nor is he ethical through his theory as written in his book the Prince, and its relevance through personal experience. Let’s begin by discussing Machiavelli’s visionary leadership.