It is rare when a book comes along that transcends its genre and elevates itself to seminal status. Books that have the power to impact entire fields of thought should be revered, but also healthily feared, because of their influential nature. Machiavelli’s distinguished classic, The Prince, is one of those thought defining works. Niccolò Machiavelli was a high-ranking Italian diplomat for the Florentine Republic. He was removed from office and exiled when the Medici family returned to power in 1512. In response, Machiavelli drafted a plea to the Florentine ruler, Lorenzo Medici, in the form of The Prince. He wrote it to impress Lorenzo Medici and to gain favor, in hopes of regaining his old position. The Prince was written in a tumultuous
…show more content…
Machiavelli first discusses violence as a tool when he addresses how to rule newly acquired. He says that to insure obedience in these types of states, a prince must either destroy the state, live there himself, or leave the current laws intact and establish an oligarchy that reports to him. After evaluating these three different methods, Machiavelli concludes that “there is no surer way of keeping possession than by devastation” (Machiavelli 18). Destruction is the best means of possession because it removes any reminders of the freedoms and political structures that once existed, thus forcing the native people to move on: “cruelty is used well . . . when one’s safety depends on it, and . . . violence must be inflicted once and for all; people will then forget what it tastes like and so be less resentful” (Machiavelli 31-32). Sixteenth century political theorists and rulers considered this violent approach to ruling rash and …show more content…
Concepts and people are frequently called “Machiavellian.” Many pundits and scholars often quote that “it is better to be feared than loved,” or that “the ends justify the means.” These colloquialisms are ingrained in the general public’s consciousnesses largely due to their source, Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince. At the time of its publication, The Prince was the catalyst for a lot of debate and consternation. It was released in a turbulent political and religious climate, and was considered dangerous because it proposed radical methods of governance. Machiavelli recommended princes do whatever necessary to secure their rule, and he suggested they take certain corrupt, sinful measures to do so. Machiavelli is both pessimistic and pragmatic, and his approach to governing a state is cunning. Through its unorthodox and morally questionable stances on virtue, violence, and religion, The Prince challenged the political and religious status quo in
Machiavelli first discusses violence as a tool when he addresses how to rule newly acquired. He says that to insure obedience in these types of states, a prince must either destroy the state, live there himself, or leave the current laws intact and establish an oligarchy that reports to him. After evaluating these three different methods, Machiavelli concludes that “there is no surer way of keeping possession than by devastation” (Machiavelli 18). Destruction is the best means of possession because it removes any reminders of the freedoms and political structures that once existed, thus forcing the native people to move on: “cruelty is used well . . . when one’s safety depends on it, and . . . violence must be inflicted once and for all; people will then forget what it tastes like and so be less resentful” (Machiavelli 31-32). Sixteenth century political theorists and rulers considered this violent approach to ruling rash and …show more content…
Concepts and people are frequently called “Machiavellian.” Many pundits and scholars often quote that “it is better to be feared than loved,” or that “the ends justify the means.” These colloquialisms are ingrained in the general public’s consciousnesses largely due to their source, Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince. At the time of its publication, The Prince was the catalyst for a lot of debate and consternation. It was released in a turbulent political and religious climate, and was considered dangerous because it proposed radical methods of governance. Machiavelli recommended princes do whatever necessary to secure their rule, and he suggested they take certain corrupt, sinful measures to do so. Machiavelli is both pessimistic and pragmatic, and his approach to governing a state is cunning. Through its unorthodox and morally questionable stances on virtue, violence, and religion, The Prince challenged the political and religious status quo in