Dante and Machiavelli: What About Middle Ground?

Dante Alighieri’s Inferno and Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince are both works which rose out of the religiously-minded culture of Italy; but other than that, the two, in terms of message, seem to be as different as night and day, for each is distinct from the other in the how it presents the nature of morality to its readers. To Dante, morality is set-in-stone, something that is absolute in nature and directly correlated with the maintenance of public order; Machiavelli, on the other hand, presents morality as being flexible in nature, a mere institution that is, ultimately, in the eyes of the beholder, as well as one that has no real weight in real world affairs, except for when it can be used to one’s benefit. But while on the surface these two moral guidelines seem so different from one another, they are, in essence, similar for one reason: both of them, despite sprouting from different time periods, highlight how morality is problematic. So, in short, despite the differences in how the two works treat the issue of morality, they both raise questions on the best—or wisest—way in which to live one’s life.

In order to fully understand how these two pieces of literature differ in terms of the moral lessons they provide their readers, it is necessary to have a solid grasp of the cultural happenings surrounding the two works. To start, although the areas that Dante and Machiavelli wrote from are relatively close in proximity, the times in which the two writers lived differ by some two hundred years. A lot can change in two centuries, and it most certainly did in this case. For example, the Catholic Church played an active role in political affairs at the time in which Dante was writing his Inferno, whereas the secular powers of Eu...

... middle of paper ...

...lem with morality today as, I am sure, it was in both Alighieri and Machiavelli’s times. So, although they may seem vastly different, the two philosophies—one by a religiously devout man and the other by a man who cared nothing whatsoever about religion—are essentially haunted by the same question, despite being separated by two centuries and countless changes in the way in which people view religion and morality: is it possible for a person to seek happiness and security on earth and remain morally upright? In consideration of all this, then, I suppose each of us has been given an ultimatum from on high—that is, either sacrifice worldly happiness and security for the sake of righteousness as Alighieri suggests, or follow Machiavelli’s plan of action and sacrifice righteousness for the sake happiness and security on earth. For now, though, there is no middle ground.