Politics Essay 代写 他的话语中
Politics Essay 代写 他的话语中
While Machiavellis recommendations in The Prince and his Discourses differ on many points, he maintains a consistency of ideals that I believe were applied in the circumstances he faced which led him to this disparity of written opinion.
The Prince is Machiavelli’s most popular work and is often referred to as a guidebook for monarchies, either natural or imposed, to attain “the end which every man has before him, namely, glory and riches”. (Prince XXV) His Discourses on Livy on the other hand are an examination of the Roman Empire and his recommendations by drawing parallels with all he observed in Florence and other neighboring cities.
The most contradictory idea that needs addressing is whether Machiavelli truly endorses either principalities or the rule of a republic. I believe that though there seems to be contradiction, it is the same Machiavelli, and he believes in both equally but not at the same time. Machiavelli’s apparent change in belief makes sense if we see it as two parts of a continuum. The immorality of The Prince is first needed to redeem the liberty of Italy, after which an instituted infrastructure of nobles to facilitate transition of a united Italy to a republic can take place. Thus The Prince ought not to be read as a guide with its own ends but as a preview to what Machiavelli hoped to establish which he explored in greater detail through the Discourses.
For Machiavelli, the concept of being moral or there being differing systems of rule hardly matter. He is credit with the words “the ends justify the means” and it is precisely that which makes no distinction the structure these means take.
In both The Prince and his Discourses one thing is clear. Regardless whether power is vested in one man or many, Machiavelli’s belief that a strong state with rulers who serve the public good and exercise prudent use of violence where necessary stands. The main goal has and will always be for the survival of the state, which in this case would refer to the city or country and not to the position of power as often thought.
The reason is revealed when Machiavelli exposes himself as a fervent nationalist at the end of the Prince; he cannot stand Italy being under foreign rule and he wrote The Prince to guide the “illustrious house” of Medici to power (Prince XXVI). He again reiterates his nationalistic belief in the Discourses when he clearly puts the liberty of the country over “considerations of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, nor of glory or of shame, should be allowed to prevail. But putting all other considerations aside, the only question should be, what course will save the life and liberty of the country?” (Discourses book 3, XLI)
At the time of writing, Italy is scattered among the papal who were only interested in protecting themselves and their heirs, and the threat of invasion by other European powers like France and the Spanish were hanging overhead. Machiavelli wanted Italy to be free but recognized something was lacking, seen from the ineffectiveness of Florence’s leaders. Piero Medici was a coward and did not dare fight the French while Savonarola’s appeals on christian virtue lacked power to keep him in office. Thus when Machiavelli served as a diplomat he developed his pessimistic worldview on how a ruler should act to preserve his state, in terms of power, position and territory as an immediate step towards improvement.