“The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present”
-Niccolo Maciavelli
Deeply disturbing. Machiavelli and ‘his prince’ are seen as synonym for evil. Machiavelli was a 16th century Italian diplomat, historian, philosopher and play write. His magnum opus “The Prince” created shock among the people. It was something new for them. A man who was giving advices to princes to be cruel, cunning, ruthless and deceitful created a sense of fear among people and his work was received with much indifference during that period. ‘The Prince’ which was printed in 1532 and published five years after Machiavelli’s death didn’t even make interest in Lorenzo de’ Medici, the person to whom the work was dedicated to. He was vilified even for the events that took place after his death. He was chased even in ‘hell’. His ideas are said to have inspired the massacre of a 50000 French Protestants in 1572. There is this idea that everything that is base, Italian, and catholic are somehow Machiavellian. The contrasting views expressed in ‘The Prince’ and ‘The Discourses’ raise doubts about the real political attitude of Machiavelli. Many see his work as a political satire mocking the church and the Medici. Some see it as a reflection of his period and some as an anti-Christian …show more content…
It is a text of statecraft. Machiavelli clearly draws distinction between morality and politics. As a true patriot, the ultimate goal he seeks is a well ordered and prosperous city of Florence. The nature of means is not an obstruction in his path to achieve the ends. End is what matters to him. Looking with this perspective we cannot say that he is an ‘evil’ man as considered by many. He is not insisting anyone to follow the path he recommends. He says that the people can choose the other way and lead a life of a private citizen or a monk. But in that case, he warns, ‘they will be ignored or
-Niccolo Maciavelli
Deeply disturbing. Machiavelli and ‘his prince’ are seen as synonym for evil. Machiavelli was a 16th century Italian diplomat, historian, philosopher and play write. His magnum opus “The Prince” created shock among the people. It was something new for them. A man who was giving advices to princes to be cruel, cunning, ruthless and deceitful created a sense of fear among people and his work was received with much indifference during that period. ‘The Prince’ which was printed in 1532 and published five years after Machiavelli’s death didn’t even make interest in Lorenzo de’ Medici, the person to whom the work was dedicated to. He was vilified even for the events that took place after his death. He was chased even in ‘hell’. His ideas are said to have inspired the massacre of a 50000 French Protestants in 1572. There is this idea that everything that is base, Italian, and catholic are somehow Machiavellian. The contrasting views expressed in ‘The Prince’ and ‘The Discourses’ raise doubts about the real political attitude of Machiavelli. Many see his work as a political satire mocking the church and the Medici. Some see it as a reflection of his period and some as an anti-Christian …show more content…
It is a text of statecraft. Machiavelli clearly draws distinction between morality and politics. As a true patriot, the ultimate goal he seeks is a well ordered and prosperous city of Florence. The nature of means is not an obstruction in his path to achieve the ends. End is what matters to him. Looking with this perspective we cannot say that he is an ‘evil’ man as considered by many. He is not insisting anyone to follow the path he recommends. He says that the people can choose the other way and lead a life of a private citizen or a monk. But in that case, he warns, ‘they will be ignored or