Machiavelli The Prince Chapter 1 Analysis

Niccolo Machiavelli was a unique politician, philosopher, and writer who lived in Florence, Italy during the European Renaissance period of the late 15th and early 16th centuries. He is most famously known for writing his ruthless handbook for rulers, The Prince, during his time in exile in 1513. This contentious piece of literature has been fondly referred to as “the guidebook for tyrants and totalitarians,” according to the documentary, Machiavelli: The Prince by director Jett Rink. However, the document has also been credited with positively paving the way for ethnic and religious toleration, individual rights, and modern democracies all throughout history; and it inevitably set the stage for future governments to come. In this way, it is

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses ways in which a ruler should obtain power and maintain power, emphasizing the concept of gaining power through virtue versus fortune. Virtue, or virtu in the original Italian, is defined as the masculine quality of power, and not necessarily tied to ideas of morality as it is in the English definition.

Chapter 12 speaks of the innovation and exploration between the time period of 1453-1533. Right off the bat the chapter speaks of the great changes that happened with the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg. Also how the printing press made book more excess able and helped the spread of humanism. It continues on to speak of Machiavelli (Machiavellianism), his philosophy , and the politics of Italy. It goes on the speak of how Baldassare Castiglione and writer who wrote a guide/manual speaking of how smart men like Machiavelli could become a courtier. A courtier being a man who attends a royal court as a companion or adviser to the king or queen. Then the chapter speaks of how art techniques advanced and for the artist to

“It is much safer to be feared than loved.” This quotation was just a specimen of the harsh and very practical political annotation of the legendary historian, Niccolò Machiavelli – philosopher, patriot, diplomat, advisor and statesman. He was born as the son of a poor lawyer in 1498, but he never let boundaries restrict him. He still received an excellent humanist education from the University of Florence and was soon after appointed as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence.2 His political importance to Florence would soon give him the opportunity to write what is disputed as one of the most significant works in history, The Prince.

To counteract talking about the easiness of governing a hereditary principality, Machiavelli explains why governing a new principality is so hard in his third chapter. In a new principality, people will willingly trade one ruler for another, hoping that the new one will be better than the last. They will take up arms against an unestablished prince, and they may come to realize a revolt is ineffective, but that won’t stop them from causing disorder. This new ruler must also make the people who put him into power realize that he cannot fulfill all of their expectations, but also not be too harsh with them, because he is in their debt. However, after having successfully suppressed a revolt, a prince may then harshly punish rebels and decimate

Citizens become princes by two means: either by skill of Fortune. Machiavelli suggests that those who become the prince through their own strength and skills, will maintain it fairly easily. In contrast, those who become the prince by the arms of others have both good and bad news. Good news is that they will find easy to acquire their states, but bad news is that it will not last too long, or in other words, any unexpected or little obstacle in their way can harm their position

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

In chapter 15 of The Prince, Machiavelli states that “the manner in which men live is so different from the way in which they ought to live, that he who leaves the common course for that which he ought to follow will find that it leads him to ruin rather than to safety. [...] A prince therefore who desires to maintain himself must learn to be not always good, but to be so or not as necessity may require.” (Primary Source Excerpt 6.4, P. 191) In my opinion, this quote from Machiavelli is somewhat straightforward. Machiavelli states that mankind lives in such a way that is different from the way that mankind was designed to live. Individuals that go against the status quo and take risks oftentimes find themselves in situations that are not ideal, whereas individuals that do everything as everyone else does and do not live a risky lifestyle usually find themselves in safe and more ideal situations. Machiavelli goes on to say that an individual, specifically a prince, that wishes to maintain their power should learn to do whatever it takes to maintain their power, even if it means doing things that are not necessarily considered good or just.

Niccolo Machiavelli, in Chapter fifteen of The Prince, offers advice on vices, reputation and reactions. He clearly states that he does not wish to sugarcoat or stroke anyone’s ego about how someone needs to act in order to rule, “I think it more effective to go back to the practical truth of the subject than to depend on my fancies about it.” (1632) Machiavelli expresses that advice must only be given if it is truly obtainable, “And many have imagined republics and principalities that never have been seen or known to exist in reality.”(1632) Basically, it is his desire to be upfront and frank with the reader, he does not want anyone to misunderstand what is being taught. Niccolo also does not want to build up a person’s character because

Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx developed theories concerning wealth and poverty in our society, as well as different types of governments. For instance, Machiavelli supported a capitalist economic system, unlike Marx, who embraced socialism in the society. Machiavelli wrote a book "The Prince" that explained how to be an effective leader. The theme of the book is "the end justifies the means." A person could or should do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired goal. According to Machiavelli, there is no concept of a perfect ruler, but only effective or ineffective leaders. Therefore, he claims that there are no fair fighters, but only losers and winners. Contrary, Marx embraced democracy as good practice for the government. This paper will analyze whether Marx would buy Machiavelli 's thought that states "desired ends justify undesirable means" (Weng 1).

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince examines the nature of power and his views of power are still somewhat in existence today. I'll discuss this in this essay, emphasizing the following theses. Machiavelli discusses power over the people, dictatorial power, and power with people, shared power. While it is possible for power with to attain greater prevalence in society, it will not completely eliminate power over. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two distinct groups of people, the political elite, including nobles and other princes, and the general public. Today in the United States, the first group, the political elite, includes political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders and the leaders of

First let us discuss the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli in is piece “The Prince”. Machiavelli has a very independent controversial way of thinking and portraying his ideal form of governance in this text. The ideal and most effective from of governance for him is not in that of a republic but instead he insists in an autocratic regime. He argues that republics and other forms of government are too weak because of the corruptness of human nature. This book is written as a guide on how a prince should run his state or nation based on how and when he would come into this power. One of his main concerns in which he has been criticized for is his disregard to follow moral values so as to properly run the state, as well as

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli presents a detailed analysis of how to acquire political power and maintain it. The author discusses how great men should conduct themselves and the desired principles of a princely government. Utopia by Sir Thomas More illustrates what the character Raphael Hythloday, its narrator, suggests to be the perfect human society found in the island of Utopia. This essay looks at why Machiavelli thinks a prince needs to have virtù in order to rule well, and whether Fortuna can actually foster the prince’s virtù. It will also look at the extent to which Utopia provides an argument that a leader has to have virtù in order to govern well. The essay will explore if there is any proof in Utopia that Fortuna plays a role in fostering virtù.

“Virtù” of a Prince in light of fortuna serves as one of the fundamental principles in Machiavelli’s The Prince. This virtù could be loosely translated as ingenuity or even machismo, however it is more of a Prince’s ability to master his fortuna: complications that arise because of varying languages, people, culture and time. Machiavelli touts the virtù of Cesare Borgia in dealing with Florentine fortuna as the ideal paragon: “I cannot think of any better example I could offer a new ruler that that of his actions” (The Prince, pg. 22). This is not to say that Borgia did not have his flaws. On these same principles, I hope to explain how Jerry John Rawlings, former president of Ghana, in light of Ghanaian fortuna exhibited in some way the virtuoso recommended by Machiavelli as he (Rawlings) staged two coup d’états and served two terms under democratic rule.