Analysis Of Machiavelli's The Prince And The Discourses

At face value, The Prince and the Discourses seem to have a conflicting nature, but both texts focus on the administration of a state and present textual similarities. Much of what Machiavelli writes in The Prince reinforces the Discourses, echoing both stylistically and thematically. Machiavelli uses pragmatic methods in both and accentuates the importance of historical studies. In The Prince, there is a significant amount of reference to Cesare Borgia, a man that Machiavelli admires, and he states, “I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions,” and his views on virtue and fortune come out of Borgia’s narrative . For Machiavelli, Borgia is the superlative example of a man who can compel any individual to do the distasteful …show more content…
Hans Baron makes and maintains assertions that The Prince and the Discourses are incompatible. He declares that we ought to face the blatant differences between the two texts. Baron questions the different regime types in the rule of tyrants in The Prince and the nascent Roman commonwealth in the Discourses. The mixed-constitution in the Discourses is problematic in synthesizing it with The Prince. In the Discourses, Machiavelli speaks of Aristotle’s constitutional cycle. The three good constitutions, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, can simply transition to their bad counterparts, tyranny, oligarchy, and anarchy. Machiavelli deviates away from Aristotle and Plato in proposing democracy as a good constitution. He believes that the good constitutions cannot last independently. Therefore, Machiavelli proposes a mixed constitution: a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. This is because in Rome, “the blending of these estates made a perfect commonwealth.” The Prince, in contrast, is a tyranny and bares tension with republicanism. A tyranny is exactly what is identified as a bad counterpart in the Discourses. This distinction does strain the potential relationship between the two texts, yet this is only validated if the two texts are read in mutual exclusion and without the consideration of external historical …show more content…
Thus, the coexistence of The Prince and the Discourses is conceivable. I elaborated on various positions in academia and the way in which these positions can be in conjunction. One position I argued was The Prince as a deceptive tool to bring the collapse of the leader so the republican regime in the Discourses could transpire. A further position views the regime in The Prince as a pre-condition for the final goal of a lasting republic from the Discourses. Moreover, direct textual comparison reveals parallels in writing styles and themes, which supports stronger co-existence. I also considered a potential counter to the co-existence of The Prince and the Discourses, primarily about the constitutional and regime differences. It should be clear, however, that tensions only arise when viewing the texts as independent and without the influence