Filename: TGgilody. Filename: TGcompny. Bibliography lists 5 sources. Filename: BWpowrid. The premise of this paper is the comment that these two philosophers present a realistic view of human nature. This paper considers whether this comment is true, and how their perspectives had political and social impact.
Filename: Macniet. Filename: TGslaves.
Filename: Prinfren. Written in , it argues for an uncorrupted political culture and republican governance. No secondary sources listed. Filename: BWlivy. Bibliography lists 6 sources. Filename: Alprince. No additional sources are used. Filename: TGnmprin. Machiavelli vs. Plato [ send me THIS paper ] 8 pages in length. Bibliography lists 7 sources. Filename: Michiave. An analytical examination of this classic work in political theory. The writer pays particular attention to Chapter XXI in which Machiavelli discusses how The Prince will gain great esteem if he engages successfully in important enterprises.
Filename: Machiav2. These 4 men were responsible for many long held political philosophies. Filename: Dialock.
No additional sources cited. Filename: khkingmn. Filename: TGprince. The writer argues that these pairs of medieval scholars represented diametrically opposed positions on most issues. Bibliography lists 8 sources. Filename: 99mmel. Filename: Machi. Filename: Machperf. Bibliography lists 3 sources. Filename: Machhist. The Machiavelli an View of Women [ send me THIS paper ] This 10 page paper looks at Machiavelli 's life and works in order to arrive at a conclusion as to his view of women. How women are viewed in society, in a general sense, is discussed both in terms of contemporary times and medieval days.
Bibliography lists 9 sources. The Discourses certainly draw upon the same reservoir of language and concepts that flowed into The Prince , but the former treatise leads us to draw conclusions quite different from—many scholars have said contradictory to—the latter. A minimal constitutional order is one in which subjects live securely vivere sicuro , ruled by a strong government which holds in check the aspirations of both nobility and people, but is in turn balanced by other legal and institutional mechanisms.
In a fully constitutional regime, however, the goal of the political order is the freedom of the community vivere libero , created by the active participation of, and contention between, the nobility and the people.
As Quentin Skinner , — has argued, liberty forms a value that anchors Machiavelli's political theory and guides his evaluations of the worthiness of different types of regimes. Only in a republic, for which Machiavelli expresses a distinct preference, may this goal be attained. Machiavelli adopted this position on both pragmatic and principled grounds. Although Machiavelli makes relatively little comment about the French monarchy in The Prince , he devotes a great deal of attention to France in the Discourses.
Why would Machiavelli effusively praise let alone even analyze a hereditary monarchy in a work supposedly designed to promote the superiority of republics?
The answer stems from Machiavelli's aim to contrast the best case scenario of a monarchic regime with the institutions and organization of a republic. Even the most excellent monarchy, in Machiavelli's view, lacks certain salient qualities that are endemic to properly constituted republican government and that make the latter constitution more desirable than the former. Machiavelli asserts that the greatest virtue of the French kingdom and its king is the dedication to law.
The explanation for this situation Machiavelli refers to the function of the Parlement. These laws and orders are maintained by Parlements, notably that of Paris: by it they are renewed any time it acts against a prince of the kingdom or in its sentences condemns the king. And up to now it has maintained itself by having been a persistent executor against that nobility.
Discourses CW , translation revised. These passages of the Discourses seem to suggest that Machiavelli has great admiration for the institutional arrangements that obtain in France. Specifically, the French king and the nobles, whose power is such that they would be able to oppress the populace, are checked by the laws of the realm which are enforced by the independent authority of the Parlement.
Yet such a regime, no matter how well ordered and law-abiding, remains incompatible with vivere libero. Discussing the ability of a monarch to meet the people's wish for liberty, Machiavelli comments that. Discourses CW He concludes that a few individuals want freedom simply in order to command others; these, he believes, are of sufficiently small number that they can either be eradicated or bought off with honors.
Although the king cannot give such liberty to the masses, he can provide the security that they crave:. As for the rest, for whom it is enough to live securely vivere sicuro , they are easily satisfied by making orders and laws that, along with the power of the king, comprehend everyone's security. And once a prince does this, and the people see that he never breaks such laws, they will shortly begin to live securely vivere sicuro and contentedly Discourses CW The law-abiding character of the French regime ensures security, but that security, while desirable, ought never to be confused with liberty.
This is the limit of monarchic rule: even the best kingdom can do no better than to guarantee to its people tranquil and orderly government. Machiavelli holds that one of the consequences of such vivere sicuro is the disarmament of the people. This all comes from having disarmed his people and having preferred … to enjoy the immediate profit of being able to plunder the people and of avoiding an imaginary rather than a real danger, instead of doing things that would assure them and make their states perpetually happy.
This disorder, if it produces some quiet times, is in time the cause of straitened circumstances, damage and irreparable ruin Discourses CW A state that makes security a priority cannot afford to arm its populace, for fear that the masses will employ their weapons against the nobility or perhaps the crown. Yet at the same time, such a regime is weakened irredeemably, since it must depend upon foreigners to fight on its behalf. In this sense, any government that takes vivere sicuro as its goal generates a passive and impotent populace as an inescapable result.
By definition, such a society can never be free in Machiavelli's sense of vivere libero , and hence is only minimally, rather than completely, political or civil.
Confirmation of this interpretation of the limits of monarchy for Machiavelli may be found in his further discussion of the disarmament of the people, and its effects, in The Art of War. Addressing the question of whether a citizen army is to be preferred to a mercenary one, he insists that the liberty of a state is contingent upon the military preparedness of its subjects.
In his view, whatever benefits may accrue to a state by denying a military role to the people are of less importance than the absence of liberty that necessarily accompanies such disarmament. The problem is not merely that the ruler of a disarmed nation is in thrall to the military prowess of foreigners. Machiavelli is confident that citizens will always fight for their liberty—against internal as well as external oppressors. Indeed, this is precisely why successive French monarchs have left their people disarmed: they sought to maintain public security and order, which for them meant the elimination of any opportunities for their subjects to wield arms.
The French regime, because it seeks security above all else for the people as well as for their rulers , cannot permit what Machiavelli takes to be a primary means of promoting liberty. The case of disarmament is an illustration of a larger difference between minimally constitutional systems such as France and fully political communities such as the Roman Republic, namely, the status of the classes within the society.
In France, the people are entirely passive and the nobility is largely dependent upon the king, according to Machiavelli's own observations. By contrast, in a fully developed republic such as Rome's, where the actualization of liberty is paramount, both the people and the nobility take an active and sometimes clashing role in self-government McCormick ; Holman The liberty of the whole, for Machiavelli, depends upon the liberty of its component parts.
In his famous discussion of this subject in the Discourses , he remarks,. To me those who condemn the tumults between the Nobles and the Plebs seem to be caviling at the very thing that was the primary cause of Rome's retention of liberty…. And they do not realize that in every republic there are two different dispositions, that of the people and that of the great men, and that all legislation favoring liberty is brought about by their dissension Discourses CW — Machiavelli knows that he is adopting an unusual perspective here, since customarily the blame for the collapse of the Roman Republic has been assigned to warring factions that eventually ripped it apart.
Enmities between the people and the Senate should, therefore, be looked upon as an inconvenience which it is necessary to put up with in order to arrive at the greatness of Rome. Machiavelli thinks that other republican models such as those adopted by Sparta or Venice will produce weaker and less successful political systems, ones that are either stagnant or prone to decay when circumstances change.
Machiavelli evinces particular confidence in the capacity of the people to contribute to the promotion of communal liberty. This is not an arbitrary expression of personal preference on Machiavelli's part.
He maintains that the people are more concerned about, and more willing to defend, liberty than either princes or nobles Discourses CW — In turn, when they fear the onset of such oppression, ordinary citizens are more inclined to object and to defend the common liberty. Such an active role for the people, while necessary for the maintenance of vital public liberty, is fundamentally antithetical to the hierarchical structure of subordination-and-rule on which monarchic vivere sicuro rests.
The preconditions of vivere libero simply do not favor the security that is the aim of constitutional monarchy. Machiavelli clearly views speech as the method most appropriate to the resolution of conflict in the republican public sphere; throughout the Discourses , debate is elevated as the best means for the people to determine the wisest course of action and the most qualified leaders. The tradition of classical rhetoric, with which he was evidently familiar, directly associated public speaking with contention: the proper application of speech in the realms of forensic and deliberative genres of rhetoric is an adversarial setting, with each speaker seeking to convince his audience of the validity of his own position and the unworthiness of his opponents'.
It is important to have a working thesis before you begin writing your paper. “In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli puts forth a political philosophy that is far more. Thesis. The word “thesis” is central to college-level writing, to the point that it can trigger Consider this example: “In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli puts forth a.
This theme was taken up, in turn, by late medieval Italian practitioners and theorists of rhetoric, who emphasized that the subject matter of the art was lite conflict. Thus, Machiavelli's insistence upon contention as a prerequisite of liberty also reflects his rhetorical predilections Viroli By contrast, monarchic regimes—even the most secure constitutional monarchies such as France—exclude or limit public discourse, thereby placing themselves at a distinct disadvantage. It is far easier to convince a single ruler to undertake a disastrous or ill-conceived course of action than a multitude of people.
This connects to the claim in the Discourses that the popular elements within the community form the best safeguard of civic liberty as well as the most reliable source of decision-making about the public good. Machiavelli's praise for the role of the people in securing the republic is supported by his confidence in the generally illuminating effects of public speech upon the citizen body. Near the beginning of the first Discourses , he notes that some may object to the extensive freedom enjoyed by the Roman people to assemble, to protest, and to veto laws and policies.
But he responds that the Romans were able to. At times when ordinary Roman citizens wrongly supposed that a law or institution was designed to oppress them, they could be persuaded that their beliefs are mistaken … [through] the remedy of assemblies, in which some man of influence gets up and makes a speech showing them how they are deceiving themselves. And as Tully says, the people, although they may be ignorant, can grasp the truth, and yield easily when told what is true by a trustworthy man Discourses CW The reference to Cicero one of the few in the Discourses confirms that Machiavelli has in mind here a key feature of classical republicanism: the competence of the people to respond to and support the words of the gifted orator when he speaks truly about the public welfare.