Abstract This paper looks at Machievelli's "The Prince," and the affect it's mass publication had on the world's impression of European society. The author examines why this work had such an affect, what actually happened, and also looks at the world's fascination with this particular work. The author presents some of the radical ideas presented, including that for the first time, instead of idealizing the prince and his position, Machiavelli looked for what made for effective governance.
From the Paper "To begin with, it would seem necessary that an attempt be made to present a basic definition of what 'idealizing'. The concept of an ideal is contestable to be sure, as there are various definitions of what constitutes an ideal determined depending upon whom the question is being asked. It is also possible though, that people may share the same or similar ideals. The ideal may refer to a maxim, an idea, or the qualities of a leader. When an ideal or idealization is mentioned therefore, it is in reference to the assigning of properties of merit or worth to one of the items mentioned above. In regards to Machiavelli, part of the argument of this paper is that what makes him unique as a political writer is that he does not idealize the role of 'prince' in society. With this very general idea of what an ideal or what idealization is, it is now possible to move on to an examination of what the 'ideal' of the prince was prior to Machiavelli's period."
An evaluation of some of the principles stated in "The Prince", and their relation to two leaders of the past: Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire, and Adolf Hitler.
7,350 words (approx. 29.4 pages), 17 sources, 2000, $ 162.95
Abstract This detailed paper provides history on Machiavelli, Hitler, and Charles V. Hitler and Charles V are held to five of Machiavelli's core principles, and for each are measured by how Machiavellian their acts were. Further comparisons are drawn between the teachings of Locke and Rousseau. Machiavelli set forth ideas on how a leader should rule, this paper addresses whether or not leaders should follow his advice.
From the Paper "Through the ages, Machiavelli has been remembered in mostly a negative sense. His book, The Prince, has many controversial opinions in it about how a leader should rule, and it has even been called a book inspired by the devil. The Prince is considered by many to be the Bible of realpolitik, a belief that politics is based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives. This paper will evaluate some of the principles stated in The Prince, and their relation to two leaders of the past: Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire, and Adolf Hitler. Charles V lived at a time of change, during the pinnacle of the Protestant Reformation. He spent his life trying to deal with this problem, before ultimately reaching a conclusion shortly before his death. Adolf Hitler is perhaps the most well-known ruler in history. He was a German Dictator whose need for power and glory spawned World War II. He is remembered not only for his excellent leadership skills, but also for the atrocities he committed against his fellow man during the Holocaust. By comparing these leaders to the Prince, one can assess to what degree they are Machiavellian. "
Abstract This paper compares and also contrasts the qualities associated with Machiavelli's "Prince" and Castiglione's "Courtier", in the events that took place in the Renaissance period. The paper studies Machiavelli's views of power and control as opposed to Castiglione's view of what characteristics the ideal Prince should possess.
From the Paper "The Renaissance was a period during which significant creative and intellectual energies were being put forth across a range of different enterprises, from the visual arts and literature to the sciences, politics and social interactions. In Castiglione's "The Courtier" and Machiavelli's "The Prince" we find two disparate treatises; the former on courtiers and the latter on princes."
Abstract Machiavelli in "The Prince" provides detailed instruction to a teenaged ruler, one who has already received the childhood moral education from fairy tales and folk parables and is ready for actual, direct instruction in his official duties. This work was a specific guide, written on the model of historic rulers and societies. Based, in no small part, upon the life of Caesar Borgia, a heavy-handed dictatorial ruler, Machiavelli sought to describe the perfect state, one that, if it must have a Prince, should be run in the manner described. The work, however, would meet with a great deal of dismay and horror by the people he intended to "get in" with. In his need to become part of the political life of Italy (in which he had, at one time, been as influential and significant as Sir Thomas More had been in England) created "The Prince", a tract that did not truly reflect his own philosophies of political life, but one, he vainly hoped, would be received well by the ruling family. The purpose of "The Prince" also encompasses a trade-school-like approach, where the intricacies of policy, management and behavior are spelled out directly, in clear, plain language. It is the intent of this paper to examine the role of the Prince in relation to the people from the framework of political function as outlined in Machiavelli's work.
Abstract "This paper claims that "The Education of a Christian Prince" by Erasmus of Rotterdam and "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli provide sharply contrasting views regarding the conduct and purpose of princely rulers. It explains that due to the influence of Christian principles and doctrines, Erasmus took a strongly pacifist view which emphasized that a prince must govern justly and benevolently, while Machiavelli viewed Christianity with contempt and advocated the ruthless pursuit of princely self-interest.
From the Paper "The Education of a Christian Prince by Erasmus of Rotterdam, and The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli provide sharply contrasting views regarding the conduct and purpose of princely rulers. Influenced by Christian principles and doctrine, Erasmus took a strongly pacifist view which emphasized that a prince must govern justly and benevolently, while Machiavelli viewed Christianity with contempt and advocated the ruthless pursuit of princely self-interest. The Education of a Christian Prince was published in the early sixteenth century and was written for the primary benefit of Prince Charles, who later became the Emperor Charles V. Like Machiavelli's The Prince, it became one of the most influential books published during the Renaissance. Both books were widely read by ruling ..."
Abstract The basic premise in Machiavelli's ?The Qualities of a Prince? states that as long as a prince is not hated, his subjects will be loyal and his reign successful. Therefore, the abuses outlined in "The Declaration of Independence" coincide with the attributes listed by Machiavelli of an unsuccessful prince. One can tell by the tone in which "The Declaration of Independence" is written that King George III is hated by the colonists. On more than one occasion, Thomas Jefferson refers to the King as a tyrant. This paper discusses how King George III's actions support Machiavelli's claim that a prince is most hated when he, among other things, disrespects the land and women of his subjects, deprives men of their honor, and shows excessive cruelty.
From the Paper "Machiavelli states, ?so long as you do not deprive them of "their honor, the majority of men live happily" (Machiavelli, "The Qualities of a Prince", 48). Comparatively, Thomas Jefferson also lists grievances that pertain to men being deprived of their honor "By [constraining] our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their County, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands" (Thomas Jefferson, "The Declaration of Independence", 80). King George III stripped men taken captive of all honor and dignity by making them choose to either murder their family or take their own life. King George III also deprived the colonists "the benefits of Trial by Jury" (80). The fact that King George III repeatedly "called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures" (79) is quite demeaning in a society governed by Representation."
Abstract The paper looks at Machiavelli's "The Prince" and discusses what was written as a handbook for political leaders. The paper explains Machiavelli's conceptions of political effectiveness, including what makes for a strong or weak leader and examines its continuing relevance today.
From the Paper "Machiavelli's "The Prince" Introduction: Machiavelli's "The Prince" is often regarded as the beginning of political science as we now understand the term. Political theory is much older, at least as old as Plato, but it was static, seeking an ideal of the state based for example on a conception of happiness. Machiavelli introduced a way of thinking about political dynamics, how political leaders can respond to ever-changing circumstances in the real world."
Abstract This paper agrees with Machiavelli's idea that the only distinction between the prince and tyrant is the latter's improper motivation in self-gain. The author uses examples pertaining to World War II such as Churchill and Hitler and to Idi Amin. The paper presents quotations from both "The Prince" and "The Discourses" and commentary on Machiavelli's times and career, which shaped his political thought."
From the Paper "This paper discusses the distinction made between a prince and a tyrant by Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), a figure often referred to as the father of modern political theory. In his well-known "The Prince" (1513) and the manuscript known as "The Discourses" (1531) which seem to further develop many of the ideas found in "The Prince", Machiavelli made clear the important distinction that he saw. Machiavelli's manner of thinking continues to be visible in the contemporary world, in distinctions that can be made between leaders and ordinary tyrants to have achieved political power."
Abstract In this paper, Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Boccaccio's "Decameron" are compared and contrasted on several different levels. Both works are considered in terms of their historical contexts. Questions of leadership and social change are also analyzed in terms of the authors' works. The paper also compares Machiavelli's philosophy to that of Christine de Pizan. Finally, the author examines both works in terms of their gender roles.
Morality and Virtue in the Society: Social and Political Perspectives from Niccolo Machiavelli and Christine de Pizan
Machiavelli and De Pizan on Gender Role Differences
From the Paper "De Pizan, on the other hand, offered a different way of looking into a political issue, especially if this issue involves an important sector in the society: women. In her discourse, "The Treasure of the City of Ladies," De Pizan contemplated how human society had developed the psyche and perception that females are inherently inferior to males. This issue was borne out of the author's observation how literary and scholarly works portray a common stereotype of women as subversive to men, depicted as uneducated and not able to create decisions for themselves. In the words of Pizan, "learned men" tend depict women through 'wicked insults" about their behavior. This drove her to investigate and know the origin of this perception and wrong portrayal of women in Western societies."
Tags: The Prince, Decameron, Italy, social, change, Enlightenment, Machiavelli, Boccaccio, De, Pizan
Abstract This paper discusses concepts from Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince." The paper compares the leadership in the United States to Machiavelli's prince and suggests that America has been able to retain Machiavellian-style leadership on the world's stage. The paper discusses international relations in terms of Machiavelli's views and specifically focuses on economic or political power.
From the Paper "The prime targets of trans-state terrorist organizations include powerful nation-states like the US and Great Britain. However, traditional nation-states with powerful militaries will continue to have an advantage over trans-national terrorism. Military might has proliferated among non-state entities such as terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, whose population is not situated within any geo-political boundaries. The terrorist network serves as an alternative military body to supplement that of the nation-state. Yet because the trans-state terrorist group does not exhibit other key features of Machiavellian statehood, such as land, non-state entities can never become powerful in the Machiavellian sense."
Abstract This paper looks at the similarities between Shakespeare's "Henry V" and Machiavelli's "The Prince", and the concept of the perfect king. The two plays are discussed, and the concept that either Shakespeare is drawing his inspiration for his dramatization from Machiavelli or that both Machiavelli and Shakespeare have similar ideas of what the ideal ruler would be.
From the Paper "In Henry V, Shakespeare presents Henry as the ultimate ideal of kingship. The only question is where does this idea of a perfect king come from, and after reading Machiavelli's Prince and Henry V one begins to note similarities. Not the least of which is the passage quoted above, a true Machiavellian manoeuvre. In this passage, the governor of Harfleur, the French city under siege by Henry's troops, has refused entrance to the army of Henry. As Machiavelli says, "it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality". Therefore, Henry, following this advice of Machiavelli, does exactly that, and frightens the innocent people of Harfleur into opening their city gates through the sheer grotesqueness of his command. We frequently see these similarities between the actions of Henry, at least through Shakespeare's portrayal, and the recommended actions of a good prince, as documented in Machiavelli's The Prince. Therefore, one might draw the conclusion that either Shakespeare is drawing his inspiration for his dramatisation from Machiavelli or that both Machiavelli and Shakespeare have similar ideas of what the ideal ruler would be."
Abstract This paper analyzes "The Prince" by Nicolo Machiavelli focusing on the how the author addressed the duty of a prince to win the allegiance of his subjects.
Abstract In four of Machiavelli's best known works, "Discourses on Livy", "The Art of War", "The History of Florence", and "The Prince", we can see a clear influence from such Machiavellian contemporizes as Cesare Borgia, Francesco Vettori, the Medici Family, and general public opinion, which should be a cause for caution in relaying on Machiavelli's writings as an accurate discussion of history or an ethical discussion of politics. The author discusses how the ideas that Machiavelli placed on paper over five hundred years ago still have meaning in the 21st Century.
From the paper:
"While Machiavelli's works lack the modern day standards of documentations, he was ahead of his time in historical philosophy and approach. He was the first historian to acknowledge that the need to explain events leading up a specific event to understand why that event occurred and to understand the results of that event. As for is external influences, they need to be taken into consideration, so we can accurately understand his writings, the period in which he was writing, and the periods in which he was writing about. He may contradict himself in his political belief, but considering the pressures that he was under he manages to give a pretty good analysis of events and history. Machiavelli's works has managed to sustain its ideas from the 1500's to the 21st Century and will continue to be a source of knowledge and debate for centuries to come."
Abstract This paper discusses Machiavelli's political outlooks and specifically the roles of chance and necessity in politics. While necessity is paramount in Machiavelli's political ideology, his life and writings are consistently troubled by the presence of the "supernatural" force of "Fortuna". Although in his writings, especially ?The Prince? he attempts to instruct would-be rulers on how to prepare for, accommodate and tame fortune in order to turn it to their advantage, he concedes that the will of the goddess is sometimes unavoidable. However, Machiavelli's works were written during violent times. Times of conflict and instability. His work principally concedes that the world and society is inherently flawed, and he attempts to devise measures and procedures to somewhat remedy the ills that they experienced.Machiavelli received lots of critisicm and stigma because of his profound ideals with with the author agrees.
From the Paper " Almost all commentators on Machiavelli say that his principal innovation, and the essence of this method, was to "divorce politics from ethics". Thereby he broke sharply with the Aristotelian tradition, which had dominated medieval political thought. His method, they grant, freed politics to become more scientific and objective in its study of human behavior; but it was most dangerous because, through it, politics was released from "control" by ethical conceptions of what is right and good."
Abstract Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) was a Florentine historian and political advisor, who has come to be regarded by many as the first political theorist. The paper shows that although he has written many books and papers, on a wide range of topics, the two publications that contribute most to political science are "The Prince" (1532) and "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius" (1519). The paper discusses the fact that for centuries, the apparently inconsistent and contradictory ideas and arguments presented in these two works have created discussion and debate amongst academics and political scientists. However, when both texts are studied and read within the context of time and place, and taking account of Machiavelli's objectives and aims, it can be argued that the theoretical differences are merely the author's attempt to address two different political situations with the same political philosophy.
From the Paper "It is true that, if studied in isolation, the ideas presented by Machiavelli in The Prince and Discourses appear to contradict and oppose one another. However, if examined as a logical progression, or cycle, of a state's development from chaotic corruption and decay, to one of stability and republicanism, then a link can be constructed between both works. When taking account of the context, in which the two books were written, it can be seen that, in Machiavelli's opinion, a strong state with a strong leader is essential before liberty or democracy is possible. Such was his belief in liberty and republicanism that Machiavelli believed, in order to achieve them, the use of unjust, deceptive, and oppressive means were justified. When viewed separately The Prince and Discourses appear as two completely isolated theories, but when viewed as a single work they support the old proverb of "the end justifies the means"."
Tags: Lorenzo, de', Medici, Rennaissance, Italy, Florence, Republic, The, Prince
