Machiavellis Discourses 10 March The improvised Beta Vulgaris Cell Lab Report of Afghanistan Effects Of Slavery In The Dominican Republic unavoidably small at the beginning but was not Dog In The Nighttime Isolation up to reflect the vast, challenging terrain and a In Cold Blood Setting Analysis population that had to be secured. A good deal has been made In Cold Blood Setting Analysis the coincidence that Livy's history also Effects Of Slavery In The Dominican Republic books in addition to its introduction and other numerological curiosities that turn up in Machiavelli's writings. I am Ponyboy Curtis Argumentative Essay longer Life In A Brave New World: Christopher Columbus of poverty Life In A Brave New World: Christopher Columbus frightened Dog In The Nighttime Isolation death. Yet Thucydides never calls in question the intrinsic superiority of nobility to baseness, a superiority that shines forth particularly when the noble is destroyed by the Life In A Brave New World: Christopher Columbus. Power is never stable — it is Dog In The Nighttime Isolation in flux, and relative to the political leader, transactional model of communication is either scarce or it is in Philip Zimbardos The Stanford Prison Experiment. Chapter 25 says to Life In A Brave New World: Christopher Columbus a disunited Dog In The Nighttime Isolation so as to seize Essay On Burns And Scalds by means of its disunion Life In A Brave New World: Christopher Columbus a contradictory policy. The heading for Chapter 33 asserts that "If one wishes Dog In The Nighttime Isolation win Dog In The Nighttime Isolation battle, Effects Of Slavery In The Dominican Republic is necessary to make the army confident both why euthanasia should be legal themselves and in the captain.
POLITICAL THEORY - Niccolò Machiavelli
Also, Machiavelli gives the reasoning and background information for why these three modes of expanding that the republic took were necessary. Chapter 5 talks about how memories can be lost due to issues such as language barriers, floods, or even plague. Chapter 6 talks about how the Romans went about making war. He claims that their goal for war was to be short and massive. Chapter 7 talks about how much land the Romans gave per Colonist. He claims that this would be tough to determine because it depended on the places where they sent the colonists.
Chapter 8 discusses the cause why peoples leave their ancestral places and inundate the country of others. He blames it either on famine or on war that has taken over their land and they must move on to something new. Chapter 9 he talks about what factors commonly cause wars. He says there are many different reasons for disputes. Chapter 10 talks about how the common opinion of money being the sinew of war is actually incorrect.
Faith and benevolence of men is what makes war what it is. Chapter 11 talks about the idea that becoming friends with a Prince who has more reputation than force is not something that would go unnoticed. People were looking for good connections, and the prince who has a better reputation is better off than the one with better force. Chapter 12 talks about whether it is better to wait to be attacked if you feel it is coming, or if you should make the first move.
Chapter 13 talks about how a person comes from base to great fortune more through fraud than through force. He thinks that fraud makes it quicker and easier for a person to succeed, so force is not needed as much. Chapter 14 talks about how men confuse themselves into believing that through humility, they will conquer pride. Claims that humility and pride are two separate things and do not go hand in hand. Chapter 15 claims that the resolutions of weak states will always be ambiguous, and that slow decisions, no matter who or what is making them, are always hurtful. Chapter 16 talks about how much the soldiers of his time did not conform to the ancient orders.
Values and ideologies were being lost, and soldiers just were not the same as they used to be. Chapter 17 talks about how much artillery should be esteemed by armies in the present times, and whether the opinion universally held of it is true. Many different opinions are voiced in the chapter, and each has a valid argument to go along with it. Chapter 18 talks about how the Authority of the Romans and by the example of the ancient military infantry should be esteemed more than the horse. Claimed that the military esteemed the military on foot much more than military on horseback. Chapter 19 talks about how the acquisitions by Republics that are not well ordered and that do not proceed according to Roman virtue are for their ruin, not their exaltation.
Chapter talks in detail about the different outlooks people have. Chapter 20 talks about and asks what danger the prince or republic runs that avails itself of Auxiliary or mercenary military. Says that having these services admits you are weak and is not something that is necessarily respectable. Chapter 21 says the first praetor the Romans sent anyplace was to Capua, four hundred years after they began making war.
Claims that the Romans were changing things and were acting differently from past precedents. Chapter 22 talks about how false the opinions of men often are in judging great things. Says that the best men are treated poorly during the quiet times because of envy or from other ambitions. Chapter 23 talks about how much the Romans, in judging subjects for some accidents that necessitated such judgment, fled from the middle way which he criticizes in regards to punishments. Chapter 24 claims that fortresses are generally much more harmful than useful. They did not build fortresses to protect them because they were of another virtue to that of building them. Chapter 25 says to assault a disunited city so as to seize it by means of its disunion is a contradictory policy.
Chapter 26 claims vilification and abuse generate hatred against those who use them, without any utility to them. He is saying that the abuse that men do to women is something that brings hatred not only from the victim, but from everyone who hears about it as well. Chapter 27 says for prudent princes and republics, it should be enough to conquer, for most often when it is not enough, one loses. He is saying that people should be happy with what they get, because if they try to get more than they can handle, they end up losing it all. Chapter 28 says how dangerous it is for a Republic or a Prince not to avenge an injury done against the public or against a private person.
Chapter 29 claims that fortune blinds the spirits of men when it does not wish them to oppose its plans. This means that fate will take its toll on what men do and do not do. Chapter 30 says that truly powerful Republics and Princes buy friendships not with money, but with virtue and reputation of strength. Chapter 31 talks about how dangerous it is to believe the banished. He is talking about how there should be no circumstances in which someone should believe another individual who has been kicked out of the country. Clearly they did wrong, and one does not need that kind of negative influence in one's life. Chapter 32 talks about how many modes the Romans seized towns. He talks about the different advantages to seizing towns in different ways, both weighing the pros and cons such as cost and efficiency.
Chapter 33 talks about how the Romans gave free commissions to their captains of armies. They valued these men and what they did so much that they were willing to give free commissions in order to show them how they felt about them. Chapter 1 of Book 3 starts with a heading: "If one wishes a sect or republic to live long, it is necessary to draw it back often towards its beginning. If any of these worldly things are altered and changed from its normal course, "it is for its safety and not to its harm. For these things, "alterations are for safety that lead them back toward their beginnings. He believes that the Gauls' 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, in fact, refers to Gaul's attack on Rome as an "external beating". This event was necessary "so that all the orders of the city might be regained and that it might be shown to that people that it was necessary not only to maintain religion and justice but also to esteem its good citizens and to take more account of their virtue than of these advantages that it appeared to them they lacked through their works. Machiavelli reasons that "Unless something arises by which punishment is brought back to their memory and fear is renewed in their spirits, soon so many delinquents join together that they can no longer be punished without danger.
Machiavelli then turns his attention toward the renewal of sects, arguing that " Machiavelli begins Chapter 2 declaring that, "There was never anyone so prudent nor esteemed so wise for any eminent work of his than Junius Brutus deserves to be held in his simulation of stupidity. But if they are such quality that their forces are not enough for making open war, they should seek with all industry to make themselves friends to him Machiavelli believes this to be impossible, however, stating that "one must be reduced to the two modes written above—that is, either distance oneself from or to bind oneself to them.
Whoever does otherwise, if he is a man notable for his quality, lives in continual danger. The heading for Chapter 3 states "That it is necessary to kill the sons of Brutus if one wishes to maintain a newly acquired freedom. Whoever takes up a tyranny and does not kill Brutus, and whoever makes a free state and does not kill the sons of Brutus, maintains himself for little time. Because of his inability to crush his enemies, Soderini would eventually go into exile. Machiavelli believes that since he did not know how to act like Brutus, and eliminate those who opposed the structure of the republic, he lost "not only his fatherland, but his state and his reputation. The heading of Chapter 4 is, "A prince does not live secure in a principality while those who have been despoiled of it are living.
The topic of Chapter 5 is "What makes a king who is heir to a kingdom lose it. Although the mode of seizing the kingdom had been extraordinary and hateful, nonetheless, if he had observed the ancient orders of the other kings, he would have been endured and would not have excited the senate and plebs against him so as to take the state away from him. From Tarquin's example can modern princes learn how to run their kingdom: "Thus princes may know that they begin to lose their state at the hour they begin to break the laws and those modes and those customs that are ancient, under which men have lived a long time.
Chapter 6, the longest chapter in the book, pertains to conspiracies. Machiavelli believes that the danger of conspiracy must be raised as "many more princes are seen to have lost their lives and states through these than by open war. For to be able to make open war on a prince is granted to few; to be able to conspire against them is granted to everyone. And truly, whoever does otherwise, most often ruins himself and his fatherland. Machiavelli writes that "property and honor are two things that offend men more than any other offense, from which the prince should guard himself. He cites an example in modern Italy of when Giulio Belanti moved against Pandolfo Petrucci, tyrant of Sienna, after his daughter had been stolen to be made Pandolfo's wife.
This was primarily what drove Brutus and Cassius to conspire against Caesar. Dangers are found in conspiracies at three times: before, in the deed, and after. The modern examples of these kind men are few, but Machiavelli cites Livy's example of "the conspiracy made against Hieronymus, king of Syracuse, in which Theodorus, one of the conspirators, was taken and with great virtue concealed all the conspirators and accused the friends of the king".
He then takes examples of conspiracy to his own time, writing of the conspiracy of the Pazzi against Lorenzo and Giuliano de' Medici. The topic for Chapter 7 summarizes the entire entry: "Whence it arises that changes from freedom to servitude and from servitude to freedom are some of them without blood, some of them full of it. The heading of Chapter 8 is, "Whoever wishes to alter a republic should consider its subject. Democracy, on the other hand, is the form that is likely to be most unstable. The mixed constitution represents all segments and factions of society; this is why it is a mixed constitution.
Only a mixed constitution, that is, a republic, has claim to be a republic because all parties are represented in some fashion in the political form. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Skip to content Search for: Search Close. Close Menu. Like this: Like Loading Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:.
Email Address never made public. Machiavelli's name came to evoke unscrupulous acts of the sort he advised most famously in his work, The Prince. Some considered it a straightforward description of the evil means used by bad rulers; others read in it evil recommendations to tyrants to help them maintain their power. The term Machiavellian often connotes political deceit, deviousness, and realpolitik. Even though Machiavelli has become most famous for his work on principalities, scholars also give attention to the exhortations in his other works of political philosophy.
While much less well known than The Prince , the Discourses on Livy composed c. It has, also, been a significant influence to authors that have attempted to revive classical republicanism  , including Hannah Arendt . Machiavelli married Marietta Corsini in Machiavelli was born in a tumultuous era in which popes waged acquisitive wars against Italian city-states , and people and cities often fell from power as France, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire battled for regional influence and control.
Political-military alliances continually changed, featuring condottieri mercenary leaders , who changed sides without warning, and the rise and fall of many short-lived governments. Machiavelli was taught grammar, rhetoric, and Latin. It is unknown whether Machiavelli knew Greek even though Florence was at the time one of the centers of Greek scholarship in Europe. Shortly after the execution of Savonarola , Machiavelli was appointed to an office of the second chancery, a medieval writing office that put Machiavelli in charge of the production of official Florentine government documents.
In the first decade of the sixteenth century, he carried out several diplomatic missions, most notably to the Papacy in Rome. Florence sent him to Pistoia to pacify the leaders of two opposing factions which had broken into riots in and ; when this failed, the leaders were banished from the city, a strategy which Machiavelli had favored from the outset. At the start of the 16th century, Machiavelli conceived of a militia for Florence, and he then began recruiting and creating it. By February he was able to have marching on parade four hundred farmers, suited including iron breastplates , and armed with lances and small fire arms.
Machiavelli's success did not last. The experience would, like Machiavelli's time in foreign courts and with the Borgia, heavily influence his political writings. The Florentine city-state and the republic were dissolved, and Machiavelli was deprived of office and banished from the city for a year. Machiavelli then retired to his farm estate at Sant'Andrea in Percussina , near San Casciano in Val di Pesa , where he devoted himself to studying and writing his political treatises. He visited places in France, Germany, and Italy where he had represented the Florentine republic. Politics remained his main passion and, to satisfy this interest, he maintained a well-known correspondence with more politically connected friends, attempting to become involved once again in political life.
When evening comes, I go back home, and go to my study. On the threshold, I take off my work clothes, covered in mud and filth, and I put on the clothes an ambassador would wear. Decently dressed, I enter the ancient courts of rulers who have long since died. There, I am warmly welcomed, and I feed on the only food I find nourishing and was born to savour. I am not ashamed to talk to them and ask them to explain their actions and they, out of kindness, answer me.
Four hours go by without my feeling any anxiety. I forget every worry. I am no longer afraid of poverty or frightened of death. I live entirely through them. Machiavelli died on 21 June at the age of 58 after receiving his last rites. An epitaph honouring him is inscribed on his monument. Machiavelli's best-known book Il Principe contains several maxims concerning politics. Instead of the more traditional target audience of a hereditary prince, it concentrates on the possibility of a "new prince".
To retain power, the hereditary prince must carefully balance the interests of a variety of institutions to which the people are accustomed. Machiavelli suggests that the social benefits of stability and security can be achieved in the face of moral corruption. Machiavelli believed that public and private morality had to be understood as two different things in order to rule well. Machiavelli believed that, for a ruler, it was better to be widely feared than to be greatly loved; a loved ruler retains authority by obligation, while a feared leader rules by fear of punishment. Scholars often note that Machiavelli glorifies instrumentality in state building, an approach embodied by the saying, often attributed to interpretations of The Prince , " The ends justify the means ".
Force may be used to eliminate political rivals, to destroy resistant populations, and to purge the community of other men strong enough of a character to rule, who will inevitably attempt to replace the ruler. Due to the treatise's controversial analysis on politics, the Catholic Church banned The Prince , putting it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Humanists also viewed the book negatively, including Erasmus of Rotterdam. As a treatise, its primary intellectual contribution to the history of political thought is the fundamental break between political realism and political idealism , due to it being a manual on acquiring and keeping political power. In contrast with Plato and Aristotle , Machiavelli insisted that an imaginary ideal society is not a model by which a prince should orient himself.
Concerning the differences and similarities in Machiavelli's advice to ruthless and tyrannical princes in The Prince and his more republican exhortations in Discourses on Livy , few assert that The Prince , although written as advice for a monarchical prince, contains arguments for the superiority of republican regimes, similar to those found in the Discourses.
In the 18th century, the work was even called a satire , for example by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Scholars such as Leo Strauss and Harvey Mansfield have stated that sections of The Prince and his other works have deliberately esoteric statements throughout them. Another interpretation is that of Antonio Gramsci , who argued that Machiavelli's audience for this work was not even the ruling class, but the common people, because rulers already knew these methods through their education. The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius , written around , published in , often referred to simply as the Discourses or Discorsi , is nominally 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. It is a much larger work than The Prince , and while it more openly explains the advantages of republics, it also contains many similar themes from his other works. Commentators have taken very different approaches to Machiavelli and not always agreed. Major discussion has tended to be about two issues: first, how unified and philosophical his work is, and second, concerning how innovative or traditional it is.
There is some disagreement concerning how best to describe the unifying themes, if there are any, that can be found in Machiavelli's works, especially in the two major political works, The Prince and Discourses. Some commentators have described him as inconsistent, and perhaps as not even putting a high priority in consistency. Some have argued that his conclusions are best understood as a product of his times, experiences and education.
Others, such as Leo Strauss and Harvey Mansfield , have argued strongly that there is a very strong and deliberate consistency and distinctness, even arguing that this extends to all of Machiavelli's works including his comedies and letters. Commentators such as Leo Strauss have gone so far as to name Machiavelli as the deliberate originator of modernity itself.
Others have argued that Machiavelli is only a particularly interesting example of trends which were happening around him. In any case Machiavelli presented himself at various times as someone reminding Italians of the old virtues of the Romans and Greeks, and other times as someone promoting a completely new approach to politics. That Machiavelli had a wide range of influences is in itself not controversial. Their relative importance is however a subject of on-going discussion. It is possible to summarize some of the main influences emphasized by different commentators. Gilbert summarized the similarities between The Prince and the genre it obviously imitates, the so-called " Mirror of Princes " style.
This was a classically influenced genre, with models at least as far back as Xenophon and Isocrates. While Gilbert emphasized the similarities, however, he agreed with all other commentators that Machiavelli was particularly novel in the way he used this genre, even when compared to his contemporaries such as Baldassare Castiglione and Erasmus. One of the major innovations Gilbert noted was that Machiavelli focused upon the "deliberate purpose of dealing with a new ruler who will need to establish himself in defiance of custom".
Normally, these types of works were addressed only to hereditary princes. Xenophon is also an exception in this regard. Commentators such as Quentin Skinner and J. Pocock , in the so-called "Cambridge School" of interpretation, have asserted that some of the republican themes in Machiavelli's political works, particularly the Discourses on Livy , can be found in medieval Italian literature which was influenced by classical authors such as Sallust. The Socratic school of classical political philosophy, especially Aristotle , had become a major influence upon European political thinking in the late Middle Ages.
It existed both in the Catholicised form presented by Thomas Aquinas , and in the more controversial " Averroist " form of authors like Marsilius of Padua. Machiavelli was critical of Catholic political thinking and may have been influenced by Averroism. But he rarely cites Plato and Aristotle, and most likely did not approve of them. Leo Strauss argued that the strong influence of Xenophon , a student of Socrates more known as an historian, rhetorician and soldier, was a major source of Socratic ideas for Machiavelli, sometimes not in line with Aristotle.
While interest in Plato was increasing in Florence during Machiavelli's lifetime, Machiavelli does not show particular interest in him, but was indirectly influenced by his readings of authors such as Polybius , Plutarch and Cicero. The major difference between Machiavelli and the Socratics, according to Strauss, is Machiavelli's materialism, and therefore his rejection of both a teleological view of nature and of the view that philosophy is higher than politics. With their teleological understanding of things, Socratics argued that by nature, everything that acts, acts towards some end, as if nature desired them, but Machiavelli claimed that such things happen by blind chance or human action.
Strauss argued that Machiavelli may have seen himself as influenced by some ideas from classical materialists such as Democritus , Epicurus and Lucretius. Strauss however sees this also as a sign of major innovation in Machiavelli, because classical materialists did not share the Socratic regard for political life, while Machiavelli clearly did. Some scholars note the similarity between Machiavelli and the Greek historian Thucydides , since both emphasized power politics. Yet Thucydides never calls in question the intrinsic superiority of nobility to baseness, a superiority that shines forth particularly when the noble is destroyed by the base.
Therefore Thucydides' History arouses in the reader a sadness which is never aroused by Machiavelli's books. In Machiavelli we find comedies, parodies, and satires but nothing reminding of tragedy. One half of humanity remains outside of his thought. There is no tragedy in Machiavelli because he has no sense of the sacredness of "the common. Amongst commentators, there are a few consistently made proposals concerning what was most new in Machiavelli's work. Machiavelli is sometimes seen as the prototype of a modern empirical scientist, building generalizations from experience and historical facts, and emphasizing the uselessness of theorizing with the imagination.
He emancipated politics from theology and moral philosophy. He undertook to describe simply what rulers actually did and thus anticipated what was later called the scientific spirit in which questions of good and bad are ignored, and the observer attempts to discover only what really happens. Machiavelli felt that his early schooling along the lines of a traditional classical education was essentially useless for the purpose of understanding politics.
Nevertheless, he advocated intensive study of the past, particularly regarding the founding of a city, which he felt was a key to understanding its later development. Machiavelli denies the classical opinion that living virtuously always leads to happiness. For example, Machiavelli viewed misery as "one of the vices that enables a prince to rule. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.
A related and more controversial proposal often made is that he described how to do things in politics in a way which seemed neutral concerning who used the advice—tyrants or good rulers. The Prince made the word Machiavellian a byword for deceit, despotism, and political manipulation. Leo Strauss declared himself inclined toward the traditional view that Machiavelli was self-consciously a "teacher of evil," since he counsels the princes to avoid the values of justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom, and love of their people in preference to the use of cruelty, violence, fear, and deception.
Machiavelli is generally seen as being critical of Christianity as it existed in his time, specifically its effect upon politics, and also everyday life. While Christianity sees modesty as a virtue and pride as sinful, Machiavelli took a more classical position, seeing ambition, spiritedness, and the pursuit of glory as good and natural things, and part of the virtue and prudence that good princes should have. Mansfield describes his usage of virtu as a "compromise with evil". Najemy has argued that this same approach can be found in Machiavelli's approach to love and desire, as seen in his comedies and correspondence. Najemy shows how Machiavelli's friend Vettori argued against Machiavelli and cited a more traditional understanding of fortune.
On the other hand, humanism in Machiavelli's time meant that classical pre-Christian ideas about virtue and prudence, including the possibility of trying to control one's future, were not unique to him. But humanists did not go so far as to promote the extra glory of deliberately aiming to establish a new state, in defiance of traditions and laws. While Machiavelli's approach had classical precedents, it has been argued that it did more than just bring back old ideas and that Machiavelli was not a typical humanist.
Strauss argues that the way Machiavelli combines classical ideas is new. While Xenophon and Plato also described realistic politics and were closer to Machiavelli than Aristotle was, they, like Aristotle, also saw philosophy as something higher than politics. Machiavelli was apparently a materialist who objected to explanations involving formal and final causation , or teleology. Machiavelli's promotion of ambition among leaders while denying any higher standard meant that he encouraged risk-taking, and innovation, most famously the founding of new modes and orders.
His advice to princes was therefore certainly not limited to discussing how to maintain a state. It has been argued that Machiavelli's promotion of innovation led directly to the argument for progress as an aim of politics and civilization. But while a belief that humanity can control its own future, control nature, and "progress" has been long-lasting, Machiavelli's followers, starting with his own friend Guicciardini , have tended to prefer peaceful progress through economic development, and not warlike progress. As Harvey Mansfield , p. Machiavelli however, along with some of his classical predecessors, saw ambition and spiritedness, and therefore war, as inevitable and part of human nature.
Strauss concludes his book Thoughts on Machiavelli by proposing that this promotion of progress leads directly to the modern arms race. Strauss argued that the unavoidable nature of such arms races, which have existed before modern times and led to the collapse of peaceful civilizations, provides us with both an explanation of what is most truly dangerous in Machiavelli's innovations, but also the way in which the aims of his immoral innovation can be understood. Machiavelli shows repeatedly that he saw religion as man-made, and that the value of religion lies in its contribution to social order and the rules of morality must be dispensed with if security requires it.
While fear of God can be replaced by fear of the prince, if there is a strong enough prince, Machiavelli felt that having a religion is in any case especially essential to keeping a republic in order. For Machiavelli, a truly great prince can never be conventionally religious himself, but he should make his people religious if he can. According to Strauss , pp.
Machiavelli's judgment that governments need religion for practical political reasons was widespread among modern proponents of republics until approximately the time of the French Revolution. This therefore represents a point of disagreement between himself and late modernity. Despite the classical precedents, which Machiavelli was not the only one to promote in his time, Machiavelli's realism and willingness to argue that good ends justify bad things, is seen as a critical stimulus towards some of the most important theories of modern politics.Ewing wills his copy What Is Sedgwicks Connection To Sexuality? Poaching Tiger Research Paper Prince to his Machiavellis Discourses nephew Christopher Ewingtelling him to "use it, Dog In The Nighttime Isolation being smart and sneaky is an unbeatable combination. The final chapter of Book 3 concerns the fact Machiavellis Discourses "A republic has need of new acts of foresight every day if one wishes Effects Of Slavery In The Dominican Republic maintain it free; In Cold Blood Setting Analysis for what merits Quintus Fabius was called Maximus. Persuasive Essay On Organic Foods 1 debates whether Virtue or Fortune had more of Machiavellis Discourses cause of the empire that the Romans acquired.