Machiavelli's Response To The Prince

He says that force is necessary when the law fails. A prince can use these interchangeable traits to deceive people and break promises.

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.

Cruel actions by the prince should be done at once, and quickly.  Then the prince should slowly reward his people with benefits so that the cruel actions may be forgotten.  "For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them last longer (Machiavelli 370)." Cruelty, therefore, will not seem like it is committed everyday and people will soon forget if they are reassured with benefits.

A prince is respected as well when he is a true friend and a true enemy, meaning that he sides with another prince against another with no reservation. A prince should show that he that he is a lover of talent and give recognition to men who have ability. He should encourage his subjects to be free in trade and reward them because they are benefiting his city or state by aggrandizing it.

A prince has plenty to worry about during times of war and everyone is out to get you so you must be greedy and heinous in times of war. The prince declares that the nation state comes first before individuals.

As such, it is very dangerous to impose a new order where one may face attack by hostile forces and have only “lukewarm” defenders of the new order. It is then necessary to examine how the prince will utilize his virtue. If he is to “beg” and ask others for help, he is then seen as week and cannot accomplish his goal. The alternative is to use “force”, to arm themselves, and to literally force those who do not believe in the new order to believe. After all, human nature is changeable and easily changed, but difficult to maintain in a certain persuasion, after which force is necessary to maintain it. And once created through great difficulty, it is then easy to maintain, as under the prince’s rule, the need for force will lessen, since those who would rebel are eliminated and the ruler gains reputation and respect from his subjects.

Both men mention that the leaders must have good reasons for what they are doing. Because the good reasons, ruler can dominate people easily. For example, if the prince had used punishment to people without any reasons,

The citizens would be more willing to try and defend the prince, especially if they follow the previous virtue of living with their citizens. Although a prince should maintain a relationship with their citizens, they must also try not to only do what their people want them to do. (87) A prince needs to be able to make decisions that their people do not want, if it benefits their kingdom. This goes back to the initial definition of how a prince must lead with fear and not allow their citizens to hate them. So a prince should make decisions that will benefit the people, even if it is not what is the general interest of the public. If a prince does not make unpopular decisions, their state will weaken. By making unpopular decisions, the prince shows that they are doing what they think is best for the other citizens and is thinking of the future of the

Machiavelli writes The Prince centuries after Plato documents Socrates in Crito and The Apology. Despite the different time periods, both Machiavelli and Socrates experience times of turmoil where the concept of democracy was questioned. However, the different time periods cause the views and purposes of Machiavelli’s writing to largely differ from Socrates. Machiavelli writes in a time of turmoil where Italy was a bunch of small, fragmented states and when the Medici’s struggled to regain power after being expelled. This causes his views to be more cynical and pessimistic in comparison to Socrates. If Socrates were to read The Prince, he would disagree with Machiavelli’s beliefs and deem his portrayal of a prince as immoral. Their

This analogy in The Prince also applies to modern rulers. This method is used by

society and the goal of The Prince is to instruct a prince, or ruler, on how to maintain his state.

The Prince could be described as a guide to obtain and keep your power as a ruler while Utopia is describes itself as the most suitable style of rule and government. The Prince talks about how a ruler should always be on top of everything when it

Answer the following essay questions with careful, concise (that means brief), and thoughtful responses demonstrating your understanding of the ideas. Include specific examples where possible. 1. What examples can you find in Richard II that help us understand the broad context of the Renaissance? Choose at least three and no more than five Renaissance ideas the play represents well.

power. A prince had to be tricky and should harm people to own his legacy and to

Machiavelli also goes to mentioning how a Prince can become a prince with four of the principles he has listed in the text. It is said that one “Cannot be called prowess to kill fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, irreligious. These ways can win a prince power but not glory,” (Pg.174) This statement was to show how a prince can come to power through the use of crime, the second one is hereditary. In most cases the prince is the next one for the throne and to lead so it’s an easier transition for a prince in this category. According to the text, those who fear, are the ones who are dependent on the prince who ultimately become the loyal ones, where as the enemies of the prince are always those who are dependent and have the aid of the army such as the nobles. The wealth, army and knowledge is all passed down. The third principle is by the constitutional principality, “A man who becomes prince by favor of the people finds himself standing alone, and he has near him either no one or very few not prepared to take orders,” (pg.175) here Machiavelli goes on to mentioning how becoming prince through popular vote is often a disaster because not every noble man is ready to take orders from a prince who got voted to be prince and has no skills to be one. Here we can see how the ignorance and selfish arrogance in man kind is revealed. Machiavelli is always brutally honest when describing men kind and their behaviors in politics. The forth principle is the honoring of the prince on his words. According to the text, Machiavelli insists that a prince should always stick to his words because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to the them. And no prince ever lacked good excuses to color his bad faith.” (pg.180) here we see how Machiavelli mentions the cunning games that go on in the minds of man kind. This shows how being “virtuous” is not significant for Machiavelli where as it is for Plato, since Machiavelli has seen it all happen before his eyes. Where as Plato has no experiences to relate all his theories with.