Analysis of Machiavelli’s Ideas in The Prince

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Why are Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince often described as a ‘handbook for tyrants’? Are they compatible with his republican views in the Discourses on Livy?

Machiavelli was born in Florence in the year 1469. At this point Italy was not a unified state, Florence was a city state and a republic. Machiavelli was not from a noble rich family, still he worked his way up and by 1498 age 29 he became the Second Chancellor of the Florentine Republic. This opportunity gave Machiavelli access to become a diplomat in the powerful courts of Europe. However, in 1531 he was exiled by the most powerful family in Florence the Medici. The Medici’s believed that Machiavelli wanted to overthrow them after took over due to the Florentine Republic falling. In Machiavelli’s life span Italy was extremely different with shifting alliances, and betrayals between cities and powerful families. The world was also highly religious with the powerful Catholic Church being the dominant force. Machiavelli saw the ancient world as a more noble and less corrupt world than his own. During his time in Exile Machiavelli wrote his book “the Prince. This was a way of him seeking a return to politics in power. The book was written to Lorenzo de Medici explaining how he could help him the book was also a guide for rulers on how to obtain power and sustain that power as well. In the time of Renaissance, which has been characterized by the age of reawakening of humanism. The prince plays one of the most important role in the dramatic development of politics in the Renaissance period and still hold a universal impact on today’s politicians. However, its views points have been debated over time. Machiavelli maintains that thoughts which is essential for the cruel to a successful leader. To those of viewpoints according to Machiavelli’s thoughts are the arguments that a prince is to be clement or cruel, to be feared or loved. Those significances are appeared in his written and plays the main role in his viewpoints. Machiavelli not only wrote the Prince during his time in exile but also wrote the Discourse on Livy which will be the comparison book in this essay to his devious views written in the Prince.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s gift to Lorenzo de Medici, The Prince, is a dialogue discussing politics and how a prince should rule his state. The discourse is often described as a handbook for tyrants. This is firstly because of the way Machiavelli goes on to describes his beliefs on the most efficient way for a prince to rule and remain in power he “I want to give two examples from living memory: namely Francesco and Cersare. Francesco, using the rights of means and by his own great prowess, form being a private citizen became Duke of Milan” (Machiavelli 1532). Machiavelli validates his arguments by referencing historical examples. This shows how the Prince can be labelled as a handbook for tyrants as by using factual examples it makes it more accessible to the reader and their desire to rule and to sustain that ruler ship more achievable as they have historical evidence to show them how they should or shouldn’t go about something.

Furthermore, another way the Prince is described as a handbook for Tyrants is due to a One of the most prominent themes of the text, fortune. When describing the theme of fortune, Machiavelli is referring to fate, chance or luck. He applies this concept to princes and principalities. Fortune can be either useful or advantageous, or it can be harmful or dangerous. believes that fortune controls half of one’s life and the other half is controlled by one’s own talent. Machiavelli argues that someone can gain power through his own ability or by good fortune. ’This is the case with men who either buy their way into power or are granted it by the favour of someone else. (Machiavelli 1532) Machiavelli also put across the idea of good fortune possibly coming in the form of being born into power, buying power, or being assigned a governmental position. Similar to the way Machiavelli using historical examples to make his ideas more achievable and accessible to the reader, it can be argued that Machiavelli also does this with the concept of man coming into power, describing it as a fairly simple factor. believes that it is very easy to come into power with fortune but very difficult to come into power with one’s own ability. Machiavelli compares fortune to a powerful and flooding river that inflicts destruction of plants, houses, and valuable resources. Although there is nothing that can be done to stop a raging river already in progress, preventable measures can be taken to ensure that such a river inflicts little to no harm by building dams and barriers

Machiavelli believes that staying in power after acquiring it through fortune is highly difficult.’ just as the one who is born a prince and loses his state through incompetence (Machiavelli 1532). Machiavelli supposes this because people who have come into power with fortune “rest simply on the will and fortune of whoever has given a state to them, which are two very inconstant and unstable things. It can be argued that the way Machiavelli argue how man especially one born into fortune can withheld the power is one of the main reason why the prince is termed as ‘the handbook for tyrants’. Machiavelli is cynical and cruel in his approach of maintaining power. One of his biggest argument in the discourse of the Prince is the theme of being loved or feared. ‘The answer is that one would like to be both the one or the other but because it it’s difficult to combine them, it is far better to be feared than love. ‘(Machiavelli 1532)This approach can be seen as quite heartless and human less as it is focusing on human emotion or the lack of it. Machiavelli reasons for this argument is that people are less hesitant about injuring someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared. According to Machiavelli, people will always fear punishment regardless of the circumstances. On the other hand, if a prince is loved rather than hated, people will be more willing to disregard a connection of love for their personal benefit. However, as mentioned before, Machiavelli believes that a prince cannot be hated by the public. Therefore, a prince must ensure that he is feared but not hated. He is pessimistic in his regards to his opinion on human nature believing that natural human is out to work against each other and be the enemy to one another especially when it come to power. Therefore, highlighting another reason why, The Prince is called the handbook for Tyrants as by saying it is better to be feared than loved describing human nature this a take away the moral consciousness of the leader/person in power making it easier for the leader to make decision such as going to war far easier because Machiavelli the Prince strips them of compassion and empathy as he focuses on being feared over love.

Throughout the prince Machiavelli has two central and interrelated concepts. This being Fortune which has been previously mentioned and explain but also Virtu (virtue). Virtue is the set off skills required for successful political leadership arguing that to achieve this it may require man learning how not to be good. Highlighting another reason why the text is frequently deemed as the handbook for Tyrants. Machiavelli compares the most successful way to gaining and keeping leadership to animals. This is because animals are more inclined towards force, Machiavelli asserts that a truly effective ruler will become like animals. He draws attention to the fox and the lion. A fox is unable to protect itself from wolves and the lion is unable to protect itself from traps whereas a fox can detect traps and a lion can fight off wolves. Thus, leading to Machiavelli’s conclusion; if a prince became like a lion and a fox then he would truly be a great ruler. A prince should appear virtuous where possible but use beastly methods when necessary. It is therefore necessary to be a fox in ore to recognize the traps, and a lion in to frighten the wolves. (Machiavelli 1532) The animal the fox is often described as a cunning and sly animal and therefore by writing that a leader should be like a fox Machiavelli is insinuating that a leader should be sly and not really care about others in getting what he wants. As well as comparing them to a lion which is a very powerful intimidating animal which again shows the argument of it is better being feared than loved but also showing how the text is regard as the handbook for tyrants in the way Machiavelli compares to leadership to the lion and the fox.

Another reason why The Prince is often regarded as the handbook for Tyrants is due to the writings of Leo Strauss. Strauss was a German political philosopher and wrote the book Thoughts on Machiavelli in 1958, within the text Strauss argues that the most visible fact about Machiavelli’s doctrine is also the most useful one: Machiavelli seems to be a teacher of wickedness. Strauss sought to incorporate this idea in his interpretation without permitting it to overwhelm or exhaust his exegesis of The Prince and the Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy. Strauss looks at Machiavelli through a modern eye. Believing that Machiavelli political thoughts could not perform a good function any more as it did in the past centuries. Strauss also compares both Machiavelli’s work in The Prince and also the Discourse of Livy distinguishing their similarities and differences’ the two books are not clearly distinguished from each other by subject matter, we have to consider whether they are clearly distinguished from each other by their point of view.” (McShea 1963)

The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy was published in 1531,but was written 1517, It is often referred to simply as the ‘Discourses’ or Discourse, and is a discussion regarding the classical history of early Ancient Rome although it strays very far from this subject matter and also uses contemporary political examples to illustrate points. Machiavelli presents it as a series of lessons on how a republic should be started and structured. The discourse is far larger than The Prince, and while it more openly explains the advantages of republics, it does also contain many similar themes. [75] It includes early versions of the concept of checks and balances and asserts the superiority of a republic over a principality. It became one of the central texts of republicanism, and has often been argued to be a superior work to The Prince. Both books comprehend Machiavelli’s understandings of politics and explicit analysis on the various methods of government with respect to principalities and republics. There is large evidence that Machiavelli wrote both text at the same time this is due to the fact that there is no essential argument in the Prince that is not repeated in Discourse of Livy. An example of this is that the first sentence in The Prince is “All states all the powers, that have held and hold rule over men have been are either republics or principalities. (Machiavelli 1532)Then in the second chapter of the Discourse of Livy Machiavelli writes ‘I will leave out all discussion on republics inasmuch as in another place I have written them at length. (Machiavelli 1531).The second part of this quote clearly refers to Machiavelli’s work in the Prince therefore showing a connection with the two books but also insinuates that someone should read both works of Machiavelli to truly understand the point of view of the philosopher. In both his pieces of work, Machiavelli starts with a generalization rather than a value of judgement. It can be argued that there are two types of government in the prince he discusses one of these and in The Discourse of Livy he discusses the other. However, the difference in his writings is that in the Discourse of Livy there is a transparent discussion on when it is appropriate have personal rule and when there needs to be a broader base of republic

A large difference between Machiavelli’s two texts is the role of the people. In the Prince, Machiavelli focuses primarily on how one can become a leader and preserve this role making the life of his inhabitants satisfactory. By focusing on power and fortune which will help the prince come to power Machiavelli doesn’t describe the role of the people in a comprehensive way although he does imply it as if there is no one to rule there is no need for a ruler However the use of the public in the Discourse on Livy is far different to the one in the Prince as Machiavelli pays a great attention to the general people he talks more about the role of the people in each kind of government: principality, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and little bit in anarchy. if we compare the faults of a people with those of princes, as well as their respective good qualities, we shall find the people vastly superior in all that is good and glorious. Although it doesn’t mean that his view on that concern has changed. Consequently, showing that even though Machiavelli has slightly different use of the populism in both his text his view point on leadership and democracy is equal in both The Prince and the Discourse of Livy.

A similarity between both text is Machiavelli uses of factual example to explain his theory. For example, in the Prince he writes about previous leader in Rome on how they downfall came. Machiavelli also does this in the Discourse of Livy giving the reader an example from Ancient Rome: In book 3 of the text Machiavelli focuses on whether everything has a natural ending and to validate his theory uses the example of when the Gaul’s, referring to them as the French, sacked Rome in 387 BC. He believes that the Gaul’s’ aggression was necessary, ‘if one wished that that it be reborn and, by being reborn, regain new life and new virtue, and regain the observance of religion and justice, which were beginning to be tainted in it.'(Machiavelli 1531).As well as using real situation in both Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses of Livy. 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 Prince If anyone ask me how it is that the church has attained such great temporal power’ It can be argued Machiavelli’s view on religion stems from his famous argument of whether it is better to be feared or loved as a leader of a state. Machiavelli feels that it is safer to be feared than loved, but a great leader would hope to be both even though it is rather difficult. His reasoning behind this is that he feels the nature of man is to be fickle and greedy and man will turn against the political leaders in difficult times despite his loyalty during prosperous times. Machiavelli Prince has a clear theory on why it is better to be feared than love which this assignment has already touched upon, but he also repeats this theory in his work The Discourse of Livy Men are driven by two principal impulses, either by love or by fear.”(Machiavelli 1531) This therefore shows how Machiavelli republican viewpoint is apparent throughout both his works.

In conclusion, it is clear to see why Machiavelli text the Prince is regard as the handbook of Tyrant due to his The Prince, by Machiavelli, is often considered a handbook for tyrants because it offers a series of blunt arguments about how a prince should behave in order to stay in power. He seemingly abandons the ancient concern with virtue by explicitly appealing to the self-interest of the prince. It is also transparent that even though the Prince is more well-known are more explicit than the discourse of Livy the two texts have the same view point. This being the behaviour of rulers and the story of expansion of Rome, Machiavelli also contributes a large portion of his books to discuss about the types of roles that the populace should be entrusted with in a republican government. Additionally, The Prince and Discourses on Livy discuss the significance of history, and how modern states have grown weaker because of their lack of historical understanding, ranging from the point of religion to the relationship between fortune as well as power.

Bibliography

Machiavelli (1961). The Prince. Sullfolk: Penguin
Machiavelli (1970). The Discourses. Sullfolk: Penguin. all.
McAleer, S. (2016). Machiavelli: Prince or Republic – An Examination of the Theorist’s Two Most Famous Works. The Corinthian. 17 (9), 1-11.
Robert J. McShea. (1963). Leo Strauss on Machiavelli. The Western Political Quarterly. Vol. 16 (4), 782-797.
Strauss, L. (2019). Full text of ‘Leo Strauss ‘Thoughts On Machiavelli”. [online] Archive.org. Available at: https://archive.org/stream/LeoStraussThoughtsOnMachiavelli_201411/%5BLeo_Strauss%5D_Thoughts_on_Machiavelli_djvu.txt [Accessed 25 Mar. 2019].
Unger,M (2012). Machiavelli: A Biography. london: simon and schuster.

Click Here To Order Now!

Analysis of Machiavelli’s Ideas in The Prince

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)