Leonardo Bruni, Niccol?? Machiavelli And Baldassare Castiglione

In between the 14th and 17th century, a time period known as the Renaissance occurred, in which modern literature, art, and music were revived and thrived throughout a large portion of Europe that founded several differentiating ideas and views throughout its time. From the mid-1400s to the mid-1500s several authors arose with varying views on how the government should act; however, views such as these were strictly prohibited by both members of the Catholic church and Protestant reformers, and were often viewed as heretical, which led to threats and attacks from these people as a result. The recorded writings of three Renaissance authors, Niccolò Machiavelli, Desiderius Erasmus, and Baldassare Castiglione, hold both similar and differing ideas, most notably on the politics and government in their time.

In the fourteenth century, the humanist philosopher Francesco Petrarch wrote a letter entitled How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate. Nearly a century later, another philosopher by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book about governing, The Prince. The two documents show many similarities in content and theme. While the two wrote in similar subject matter, it is clear that these philosophers possess distinctly different viewpoints on how a ruler should govern. In Petrarch’s How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate and Machiavelli’s The Prince, both philosophers possess different opinions on how a ruler ought to govern. In particular Machiavelli pays specific attention to the importance of

The Renaissance was a time of classical revival and a turning point from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern period in the course of history. Ancient texts and artifacts became sources of inspiration for intellectuals and artists alike, and the desire to emulate—or even surpass the achievements of the past prompted them to study antiquities closely and saw them as models and guidance. People were consciously distinguishing themselves from the medieval thoughts and using history to make something new for their own era. In the field of political philosophy there’s no exception. Niccolo Machiavelli is perhaps the most representative and groundbreaking figure of this trend in political philosophy. With his erudition in ancient literature, histories and political thoughts, Machiavelli draws various sources from antiquity to critic and response to the political environment of histime. While one may find seemingly discrepancies in The Prince and The Discourse on the First Ten Books of Tius Livy, the use of histories as guide to demonstrate or propose ideal rules is apparent in both works. We should note that synthesizing ancient philosophy or thoughts with contemporary thoughts is nothing new. Thomas Aquinas, for example, reconciled Aristotelianism and Christianity in his work Summa Theologica, using ancient antiquity to back up his Christian beliefs. What is so noteworthy in Machiavelli is his emphasis and

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

The humanist movement brought about the inspiration of both Niccolò Machiavelli and Baldassare Castiglione during the Italian Renaissance of the fifteenth century. Machiavelli and Castiglione shared their beliefs about society in their published writings. The most notorious of Machiavelli’s works was The Prince, a take on the political structure and successes of western civilization. Castiglione’s most known publication, The Courtier, was heavily influenced by the works of Plato and Cicero and contributed heavy sections of dialogue. The writings of these two writers was truly visionary for the time and expressed the various opinions on how a specific faction of people should behave during the time.

Machiavelli, sees this as an impractical and impossible way to lead. Machiavelli has the stance that “the conditions of human life make it impossible to exercise all those qualities” (Machiavelli 33). Machiavelli’s expresses his rational thought process on how government can be ruled. His experience working for the Florentine republic and then the Medici government allowed him to see what works and fails in effective leadership as both those governments saw failure. Machiavelli recognition that the leaders are only human and cannot be perfect.

Humanists like Machiavelli, Petrarch, and Boccaccio wrote their works focussing on the importance of individuals in society and the potential for human achievement. Machiavelli’s The Prince, for example, teaches authorities how to effectively lead and gain support among their citizens. Decentralized Italian city-states made it difficult for government officials to repress ideas, making Italy the perfect place for new philosophies to spread. The importance of the Church in

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity,

Introduction: The pursuit for power and political stability often challenges leaders on whether or not to adhere to traditional concepts of morality. This interplay between power and personal morality is a common idea shared by the works of Niccolo Machiavelli’s 1513 political treatise “The Prince” (translated by Tim Parks), and William Shakespeare's 1599 tragedy “Julius Caesar”. The Prince reflects the context of political turmoil in which the Florentine Republic was dominated by the Catholic Church and threatened by external powers. Shakespeare sets his drama in Queen Elizabeth’s regime where due to uncertainty of an heir, Englands’ future was insecure and as a result there was political and monarchical upheaval.

He believes that the knowledge and application of the good will lead to a perfect state. However, this cannot be said to be realistic, as despite the education of the good, one's desires will ultimately overcome the need to be good and the state will collapse. If the rulers are only thinking of the overall good of the state, their own needs will not be met, which can lead to unhappiness on the part of the rulers and ultimately to the downfall of the system. Machiavelli implies in his criticism that the needs of the ruler must be met in order to maintain a stable state, he must trust his instincts and base desires in order to remain true to himself. If he does not, as Plato states and does as he ought to, not as he wishes to, then he will be living a lie within himself and not rule as he should. Without being true to what human nature tells one to do, an uprising either within the ruler or of the subjects will take place and the state cannot stay afloat.

The policy that Machiavelli imposed were self-centered to lead a state or community with the idea that the people of the town should fear the ruler is disappointing. There were many ideas that die because the people feared the rulers and did not want to go against his teaching. The though of a government that thinks being moral displays weeks needs be reformed because the governor is the voice of the people. A leader that is ruthless, cold-blooded, and dishonest will divide a nation not only a state. There needs to a check and balance in place because when their is a leader who acts on impose or ego needs guidance. Machiavelli had it wrong with his leadership

The shift from the medieval era to early modernity in the political sphere is notably exemplified in the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli. Two of Machiavelli’s works, The Prince (1532) and Discourses (1531)

Machiavelli mentioned many elements in creating a successful government. Another idea of his was, the prince who best known to play the Fox has had the best success. It is necessary to put a good mask, and to be skillful in imitating and pretending. But men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes.

The sections that I will be presenting are 73, 74, and 75. I will discuss the political ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli, Francesco Guicciardini, and Thomas Hobbes during the time of Florence Republic. First, Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in 1469 at a time when the country was in political upheaval. Italy was divided between four dominant city-states, by which each of them was always at the mercy of the continual changing of princes and governments.