Dante and Machiavelli Essay

Ideas on the same topic always seem to differ from person to person. This holds true to the ideas of Machiavelli and Castiglione. The Prince, written by Machiavelli, and The Courtier, written by Castiglione, are both somewhat how-to guides for nobility, royalty, and princes. However, there are many distinct differences among the ideas of Castiglione and Machiavelli. Castiglione's philosophy leads down the path of a well-rounded person; a more peaceful manner. Machiavelli's philosophy is more straightforward and violent, where you should do anything and everything you have to do in order to achieve your goal. Both books and figures were of great importance to society.

In The Prince, Machiavelli doesn’t hesitate to recommend that a ruler employ conventionally immoral methods against his own subjects to maintain authority over them, but he does imply that whatever a ruler does should ultimately benefit the community. A Prince’s actions may be cruel, manipulative, or otherwise immoral, but they put him in the position to govern. On occasion, Machiavelli even suggests that gaining power through immoral acts is the best way to improve a community because immorality is pragmatic in a way morality is not. A strong ruler established by immoral means can then do good for his state; Machiavelli indicates that simply having power is not enough. A ruler should also use it well. Admittedly, a ruler may only want to do good for his state in an effort to secure his own position at its head, but the effect he has is no less good for the lack of selfless reasoning behind it. Machiavelli implies that a strong ruler who necessarily acquires and keeps power through immoral actions has a generally good effect on his state, which is a naturally moral byproduct of otherwise immoral deeds.

He placed emphasis on how a prince should do anything to maintain and increase their own powers – it was apparent that he felt the individual needs of a prince in terms of the power and authority was important and that a prince should do whatever he felt necessary to protect the state and as a result it would mean a prince’s position as a ruler was also prodected. [Wheeler, 2011] Machiavelli placed a large amount on the emphasis on the fact that a prince must be seen to be a moral - but he is able act un-morally if it contributes to the good of the state or provides him with more power. He must be loved by the people and he must also be feared in order to maintain his role as a ruler of a state. Machiavelli argued that if a prince cannot be both loved and feared - it is better for him to be feared as more people would be scared to question him and afraid of the consequences that may follow. This results in more power and authority for the prince but at the same time it means that the prince is less accountable. This is a benefit for the prince but no for the people living within the state that Machiavelli is suggesting (Macmillian, 2006)

In other words Machiavelli says that human nature praises certain qualities and blame others, but there is no way that humans can do all the good things while avoiding the bad things. What makes a "good prince" in the eyes of Machiavelli is one that figures out how to not take so much blame when he does wrong, and tries to do as many good things as he can. For example regarding generosity and miserliness, Machiavelli says to be considered truly generous, one must be miserly at times:"A prince, therefore, being unable to use his virtue of generosity in a manner which will not harm himself... should, if he is wise, not worry about being called a miser; for with time, he will come to be considered more generous..." (53) In one final contrast, according to Machiavelli in regards to courage and cowardice, mercy and treachery he says "That every prince must desire to be considered merciful and not cruel; never the less, he must take care not to misuse this mercy...Therefore, a prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty, when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal" (55). According to Machiavelli,

What goes around comes around. When sinners reach hell they are forced to experience the counter-suffering of contrapasso. For each sin, Dante gives a specific punishment relating to that sin. Some of these sins include violence towards self, violence towards God, sorcery, and hypocrisy. For the despicable lives they lived on earth, they are doomed to suffer relating consequences for all of eternity.

In The Prince, Machiavelli begins by defining virtue as being able to lead with fear and not invoking hate. As evidence he conjures a situation where a prince will give his citizens “hope that the evil will not be for long” (73) which in turn makes his subjects keener toward him. However, virtue is more than this initial definition. In Chapter 3 Machiavelli suggests that a prince needs to be able to see into the future of his people and should live on their land so they are able to understand the needs of their people. (44) By living with his people Machiavelli implies that they the prince will be more understanding of the issues and will be able to overcome them before it turns into something catastrophic. A prince must form strong bonds with their citizens, and not become hated.

18). A true prince in Machiavelli’s eyes is someone that the nobles, people, army, and neighboring states will be dependent on. To Machiavelli humans are by nature power hungry and greedy and that as long as there is dependence on the prince whether it is due to heredity, fear, or a variety of other factors, he will remain in power.

   In The Inferno, Dante explores the ideas of Good and Evil. He expands on the possibilities of life and death, and he makes clear that consequences follow actions. Like a small generator moving a small wheel, Dante uses a single character to move through the entire of Hell's eternity. Yet, like a clock, that small wheel is pivotal in turning many, many others. This single character, Dante himself, reveals the most important abstract meaning in himself: A message to man; a warning about mankind's destiny. Through his adventures, Dante is able to reveal many global concepts of good and evil in humanity.

Machiavelli considers society an immoral place. According to Machiavelli as stated in The Discourses on Livy, “for as men are, by nature, more prone to evil than to good”. The Prince is a manual for being a successful ruler in an immoral society. Often times that success is met by committing immoral acts. Machiavelli, an outsider to the inner workings of government gives what he thinks are the critical tools to being a successful ruler in modern society. “Sometimes you have to play hardball” is a saying from today that I relate to his philosophies.

The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is

Dante however proves himself to be a hypocrite and often reflects his own sins and hubris in his work. His guide throughout hell, and later purgatory, is none other than Virgil, one of history’s finest and most accomplished epic poets. In the very first circle of hell, Limbo, he places himself among the other great epic poets: “He is Homer, sovereign poet, next comes Horace the satirist, Ovid is third, the last is Lucan. ‘Since each is joined to me in the name the one voice uttered, they do me honor and doing so, do well.’ There I saw assembled the fair school of the lord of loftiest song, soaring like an eagle far above the rest. After they conversed a while, they turned to me with signs of greeting, and my master smiled at this. And then they showed me greater honor still, for they made me one of their company, so I became the sixth amidst such wisdom.”-Divine Comedy, Dante’s Inferno, Canto IV, lines 88-102.

“The immortalization of man is not done within the confines of society, but from transcending time” “It is only when we transcend time, that we are remembered”. Similarly, Dante goes beyond time and produces an epic for the ages, one that could effectively adapt to any time. He makes this possible through his use of Dante the pilgrim as the Everyman, a being that embodies all of humanity. It may sound crazy that a 700 year old Christian epic written by an Italian exile could still be relevant let alone well-known today, but Dante Alighieri's Inferno proves us all wrong. Since the 14th century, not much has stayed constant; empires have come and gone, wars won and lost, and entire peoples just eliminated, but in spite of this, the root problem

The notion that the sinners Virgil and Dante meet are historical figures tempts readers to interpret Dante’s symbolism in a historical sense. Paul G. Chevigny, for example, argues that Dante’s view on betrayal originates from his ethical concerns in a “political milieu” (Chevigny, 790). For Dante, the most severe crime was the most human, the one that most clearly exhibits the misuse of free will: the betrayal of trust. Dante believes that crimes of betrayal were the most serious not only because they required the most deliberate practice of free will, but also because they did the most damage to the ethical net of obligations in society. As previously mentioned, Dante’s political role in Florence established his ideal of a stable society built among the trust of political leaders and their followers.

Dante emphasizes the doctrine of karma to show the humans are not flawless, but also demonstrate that people can certainly feel remorse and repent for their actions, not just continuing to defend their behaviors. Niccolo Machiavelli has the same frame of mind as Dante to an extent because through their diction and background, both authors demonstrate that people will ruminate on their manners. The only difference that highlights The Prince is that people can contemplate on their behaviors, but do not necessarily have to feel remorse for what they have done. Divine Comedy is written as a commentary towards corrupted figures Dante has seen in his lifetime. On the other hand, it can be argued that The Prince is written as Machiavelli contemplates his unsuccess attempt to turn his militia against the Medici family in 1512. In simpler terms, Decameron and Divine Comedy are commentaries on how other people can better themselves and The Prince is a text, written to justify Machiavelli’s own behaviors and to elaborate on why he took the measures that he had taken against the Medici family, regardless of his

Dante's `Divine Comedy', the account of his journey through hell, purgatory and heaven is one of the worlds great poems, and a prime example of a most splendidly realized integration of life with art. More than being merely great poetry, or a chronicle of contemporary events, which it also is, the `Comedy' is a study of human nature by a man quite experienced with it. The main argument I will make in this essay is that Dante's `Comedy' is chiefly a work of historical significance because in it lies the essence of human life across all boundaries of time and place. I feel that such a reading is justified, nay invited, by Dante himself when he says;