Essay one – The Prince
Ferdinand the II of Aragon ruled over a plethora of countries, including Spain, Italy and France. Besides being notably famous for driving the Moors out of Granada, he was arguably the most reputable prince of his time, and Niccolò Machiavelli, author of The Prince, uses Ferdinand as a prime example when describing how a Prince gains and maintains his reputation, and public image. To Machiavelli, Ferdinand is an excellent exemplar as he both developed a reputation through harsh measures while managing to keep a respectable public image. However, Machiavelli does in fact criticize Ferdinand for some of his actions and makes subtle references to events that took place with another character in his book, César Borgia.
…show more content…
Machiavelli uses Ferdinand in order to further his argument of what an ideal Prince should be and how they should act. Ferdinand is properly introduced in chapter 21 (What a Prince Should Do to Be held in Esteem), which is one of the later chapters of The Prince. It is apparent that in Machiavelli’s eyes, Ferdinand is seen as one of the most important and significant princes, as Machiavelli only thought it necessary to bring him in towards the concluding chapters of his book. Although Ferdinand is mentioned ambiguously and is only used for the first part of chapter 21, Machiavelli makes it clear to the readers that Ferdinand is an essential part of The Prince as he is a more relevant example than all his other previous examples in the earlier chapters. Machiavelli uses numerous examples throughout The Prince in order to solidify his argument of what a true leader possesses, the most common being Moses, Cyrus, Romulus and Theseus.
The major issues with theses examples are that they are extremely outdated and therefore hold less significance, and gives less substance than if he had used a current example during his time period of the renaissance. This may be a factor as to why Machiavelli brought in Ferdinand, as opposed to using his previous examples in an attempt to make The Prince more relatable to the target audience – essentially those who are aspiring to become future princes. Furthermore, when Machiavelli first introduces Ferdinand, he presents him as a new prince, due to his transition from a weak king into one of fame and glory (P 21). His argument continues to develop into a praise of Ferdinand and the various acts he did to achieve his mighty image and reputation. However, Machiavelli is always contradicting himself and as a result, towards the end of his argument, begins to mention the negative acts that Ferdinand performed. These acts may lead some to believe that he was not entirely as great a prince as Machiavelli initially set him up to …show more content…
be. Additionally, Machiavelli indirectly compares Ferdinand to a previous example, César Borgia, because of the similar traits that both princes possess.
The similarities stem from the fact that both princes had to be relatively cruel and hateful in order to fulfill their duties as a prince and attain greatness. In César’s case, his ordering of a public execution that many saw as an act of pure cruelty was what ‘restored the Romagna, united it and reduced it to peace and to faith’ (P 17). Similarly,
Ferdinand resorted to pious cruelty when he expelled the Marranos from his kingdom (P 21). Therefore, Machiavelli cleverly ties both an older example as well as a current one, to highlight his point that cruelty has lead to the development of two highly respected princes. This may not be the sole reason that he mentions the two princes; however, it helps to extend Machiavelli’s argument of the necessity of cruelty within a prince. Moreover, in chapter 18 Machiavelli refers to Ferdinand’s fondness for trickery, which mildly foreshadows a few of the traits that Ferdinand possesses that we learn in more detail in chapter 21. Machiavelli’s entire argument and guidelines rely on the examples he uses. His style of writing in which he urges people to follow by example is assumed to be intentional in his writing of this book. This is a contributing factor towards why chapter 21 focuses on Ferdinand’s boldness and ability to lead a country in a great way, albeit Machiavelli does not approve of the actions that Ferdinand took to accomplish these incredible things. Chapter 21 further discusses the fact that Machiavelli believes princes should be able to make clear, concise and practical decisions when it comes to ruling over the state and having the ability to further yourself in terms of leading fellow countrymen into participating in acts that will benefit the prince in the long run. He reiterates the point that a prince should be extremely decisive, and he completely disapproves the fact that princes should remain neutral when in disputes, as it could seriously hinder their power. He continues to claim that maintaining a good relationship with ones subjects - always keeping them content, rewarding them for their achievements and persistently promoting prosperity, will lead to a noble and virtuous relationship with them. However Machiavelli doesn’t fail to mention that there still needs to be distance between ones subjects so that there is no compromising in terms of knowing the hierarchy. Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a dedication to Lorenzo de’Medici, who was the ruler of Florence, making it evident from the beginning that he always intended the book to be a foundation of guidelines to lead people in the right direction towards becoming an ideal ‘prince’. He does it meticulously through each chapter signifying a different aspect of essential characterizations that an idyllic prince should have, and in chapter 21 Machiavelli draws in an important person who is Ferdinand the II of Aragon. As previously stated, Ferdinand is essentially brought in to provide the readers with a relevant example during Machiavelli’s time, in order to discuss a current prince who fulfilled the criteria of a great prince. This chapter builds off the past ones to showcase the differences between examples and Machiavelli does this to portray himself as someone who would know the ideal characteristics of an excellent prince.
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
In his work The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli explores the complex relationship between a ruler and his people, but ultimately comes to the conclusion that the people, because they are crucial to the well being of the country, are to be manipulated in order for a country to thrive. In order to manipulate effectively one must keep the people oppressed, but not to the point of inspiring hate, and only when that balance is achieved is when a ruler can successfully manipulate their people.
By the turn of the sixteenth century, the Italian Renaissance had produced writers such as Danté, Petrarch, Boccaccio and Castiglione, each with ideas rooted in the revival of Greek and Roman Classics, localization of the Christian traditions, idealistic opinions of women and individualism. From these authors spread the growth of the humanistic movement which encompassed the entirety of the Italian rebirth of arts and literature. One among many skeptics, including Lorenzo Valla, who had challenged the Catholic Church fifty years earlier in proving the falsity of the Donation of Constantine, Niccolò Machiavelli projected his ideas of fraudulence into sixteenth century Italian society by suggesting that rulers could only maintain power through propaganda, as seen with the success of Ferdinand of Aragon in Spain circa 1490. Today, the coined term Machiavellian refers to duplicity in either politics or self-advancement. Unlike most philosophers of the sixteenth century, Machiavelli wrote from the perspective of an anti-Humanist; he criticized not only the Classics and the Catholic Church, but also encouraged the deceitful use of religion and hated the humanist concepts of liberty, peace and individualism.1
In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli considers Cesare Borgia to be perfect example for princes or whomever, to follow if they wish to apprehend how to secure and strengthen their principalities. Cesare Borgia, for Machiavelli, is an ideal lesson of a prince who had great prowess, gained his principality through good fortune by his father Pope Alexander VI, showed continuous actions by his efforts to secure his state quickly, and then lost it to adverse fortune, which led to his fall and death. Machiavelli uses many events of Cesare Borgia’s to show how and why he was successful, and should me imitated as a model of prudence by ambitious princes.
Although Machiavelli gives numerous points on what it takes to excel as a prince, he also shows some raw examples of how he feels a prince should act in order to achieve maximum supremacy. First, when he says, "ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern" proves Machiavelli feels mighty adamant about his view that being mean will help a prince achieve success (332). It is absurd to imagine the meanest prince as the most successful. Also, when Machiavelli states, "our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft" revealing his attitude to manipulate people into fearing and respecting the prince (335). Also, Machiavelli shows that for a prince to be successful, he must not think about good faith.
Machiavelli?s model for his ideal prince was Cesare Borgia, also known as Duke Valentino and son of Pope Alexander VI. He believed Cesare Borgia possessed all the qualities of a prince destined to rule and maintain power in his state. He believed that politics has a morality of its own. There is no regard of justness or unjustness, of cruelty or mercy, of approval or humiliation, which should interfere with the decision of defending the state and preserving its freedom. Therefore, the ruler/prince's single responsibilit...
The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.
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 is undisputedly one of the most influential political philosophers of all time. In The Prince, his most well-known work, he relates clearly and precisely how a decisive, intelligent man can gain and maintain power in a region. This work is revolutionary because it flies in the face of the Christian morality which let the Roman Catholic Church hold onto Europe for centuries. Machiavelli's work not only ignores the medieval world's ethics: The Prince suggests actions which oppose the four most basic of Christianity's Ten Commandments.
Machiavelli discusses assertive and bold ideas in “The Prince,” revealing his radical and courageous nature. His treatise is deceptively self-soliciting, because he disguises his extreme notions behind a veil of feigned expertise. His frank approach makes him appear confident and deserving of the utmost respect; however, he cautiously humbles himself by pouring immense flattery for the ruling prince into his work and, in doing so, assures protection for himself and his notorious ideas.
Possibly the most controversial book ever written, The Prince by Machiavelli, focuses on how a Prince or leader should rule. Many of the techniques that are stated in the text have caused many debates ever since it’s publication. When Machiavelli composed the Prince, his contemporaries were shocked at the ideas and themes presented. The Prince introduced a whole new way of thinking that was almost completely contrary to present beliefs. For that reason, in 1559 the Pope banned the printing of the Prince and the rest of Machiavelli’s writings. What makes the Prince so controversial? The ideas presented in the book, such as the end justifies the means, makes it so controversial. Machiavelli’s influence can be seen through out history and literature. Because of his massive influence, Machiavelli acquired the word Machiavellian, meaning anyone characterized by the political principles and methods that Machiavelli recommended in The Prince. There are many examples of past and present Machiavellian leaders, such as King Henry VIII, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler. Machiavelli’s The Prince makes an easy guide for any dictator or leader to rule and sustain power.
Machiavelli illustrates several key points in what it takes to be a "successful" Prince. In chapters 5-10, Machiavelli is giving us a true image of the coldhearted reputation he has carried throughout the years. He explains his ideas on taking over a "free" state or republic and how to conquer and rule with the peoples loyalty and respect.
In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern
Machiavelli uses classical sources to advise a prince on the best way to maintain power. He alludes to Plato’ Republic to illustrate how many men have attempted to advice princes “ A great many men have imagined states and princedoms such as nobody ever saw or knew in the real word, and there’s such a difference between the way we really live and the way we ought to live that the man who neglects the real to study the ideal will learn how to accomplish his ruin, not his salvation.” Machiavelli also makes various references to classical figures to demonstrate examples of princely leadership. Machiavelli’s classical allusions are indicative of the Renaissance as the renewed study of the ancient classics was an important element of the Renaissance. Machiavelli adopted classical ideas in the hopes that these examples could inspire improvements within Italy. Rafael Major supports this idea in “ A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients.” He argues, “ Even a cursory survey of classical literature reveals that very little of The Prince can properly be called original.” More also reflects the Renaissance through his classical allusions. He uses his classical sources to criticize certain practices within Europe, while also offering solutions to these problems through the example of the classics. For example, he also alludes to
The book The Prince was a book of advice to politicians regarding how gain power and keep that power. The title The Prince is not about someone who has inherited land and a decedent to a king. In Machiavelli’s perspective a prince was a man of the citizens....