<p align="LEFT">I shall attempt another picture upload when the site has less traffic!</p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT">Machiavelli's “The Prince” is, by many accounts, taken as one of the most essential pieces of literature that we retain access to. Initially published in 1532 (with some speculation about a previous version aside) “The Prince” immediately became the quintessential Machiavelli writing. Machiavelli(1469-1527) lived in an age of Renaissance philosophy and fancied himself a realist (Unger). Machiavelli's work was distributed amongst his friends and closer circles initially, but when it really exploded, a term was even coined in his “honor.” The idea of something being Machiavellian is something we have all come to know today, and this was in no small part due to “The Prince.” The nature of the work and how it has come to shape the way we govern and judge how to govern is incredibly important to our lives and thus, should be preserved.</p>
<p align="LEFT"><!--more--></p>
&nbsp;
<p align="LEFT">The Age of the Renaissance was one of brand new ways of thinking. People all over the world were exploring mathematics, art, music, literature and even philosophy in ways never before realized. One of the key elements that led to the work even being created was the new ideals for human perfection. The idea that man could achieve a status close to perfection through various pursuits began to take hold of many scholars of the time. Artists and scholars alike were beginning new adventures into the realms that they thought could make them better people. (Fiero)</p>
<p align="LEFT">Artists were starting to explore older ways of painting and sculpting, but at the same time driving a new life and spin into work. Mathematicians were starting to see their processes in a way that allowed the sculptors and architects newer and more efficient ways to create grand structures. (Fiero)</p>
<p align="LEFT">Several of these people also began to write. Many treatises were written, pleading and imploring varying ways of life, though it was the nature of things for these to conflict with one another. One element seemed to hold true though, in all these writings, these works were meant to be understood without fanfare or pomp. Most of these works lacked prose or literary devices.</p>
<p align="LEFT">But a concept was still unaddressed in many ways, and that was the realm of government. How could these new people be governed, and what was the correct way to do so? Machiavelli decided to address this matter with a very realistic focus. In “The Prince” he argues that in most cases, the ends justify the means when concerning governance. While it is often considered to be one of the first philosophical works after the era of Plato, “The Prince” was very much a practical work. It very seldom plays with metaphysics or the juxtapositions of a leader, but rather directs the leader on how to judge, work a military, how to retain a level of fear and respect and even how to retain a fortune. With these various aspects, Machiavelli defines the best version of a Prince and how they need to govern. Machiavelli also clarifies the contrast between good for the people and good for the nation, and how these two things do not necessarily jive with one another at all times. Specifically in the 18<sup>th</sup> chapter, he specifically states that a ruler “must make use of both the beast and the man in human nature.” (Adams 378)</p>
<p align="LEFT">In this age of self-enlightenment and advancement, a plainly worded document encouraging a viewpoint may seem as much of the same. Where “The Prince” truly stands out is in the ideas it presented. Instead of waning philosophic and metaphysical and never presenting a solution for consideration, Machiavelli sees a problem and attempts to address it. This was incredibly a-typical of the time, especially since it handled the ideas of ethics and politics in a way that opposed the Catholic church. The church had maintained control for ages, and was still considered by man to be the right way to rule. Machiavelli was immediately chastised for this work, though he had been dead for nearly 5 years upon its publication. This was even taken to the extent that the term, Machiavellian was coined to describe something or someone that was using others or shady ways to achieve their goals. (Adams 366)</p>
<p align="LEFT">In addition to this, there was actually an immediate division between what Machiavelli's work symbolized and what it actually stated. This was most evident in that the work was taken as pro and anti catholic and pro and anti protestant. There is actually a school of thought that follows that “The Prince” played a major role in Henry VIII shifting towards the Protestant faith. This led to many Catholics taking a stand against the work. At the same time, many of the principles of “The Prince” were used as justification for the events of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre against Protestants. This led many Protestants to take up arms against the work. On top of this, upon reading Machiavelli's theories of government, many of his fellow scholars also felt the need to refute this viewpoint. While some political advisers touted “The Prince” to their charges, most other free thinkers saw the issues it presented for the common folk. (Parel)</p>
<p align="LEFT">A very similar reaction to “The Prince” can be seen in today's world. While the coined pejorative sticks with us, the debate is ever present in society. Present someone with the ideas proposed in “The Prince” and you can conjure up images of lawyers, politicians, the Patriot Act, terrorism and even local government. Just as many people today who have power can look at Machiavelli's writings and declare themselves the ideal Prince. “The Prince” can provide justification for the actions people take to preserve what they view as a correct and good path for their society. Those in power often see themselves as protectors of the people, even if hurting the people now prevents a greater harm later. But who can decide what is good and what is bad, where does that definition lie? Regarding the subject, Adam's writes “All formulations about history, including those in The Prince, are therefore illusory and dangerous because no set of abstractions can encompass the infinite variability of changing Fortune.” Even in context, judging bad from good is a completely gray area.</p>
<p align="LEFT">This is one of the central arguments within one of the other important works of Machiavelli's chosen subject matter. It is important to note though, that the work very well may not exist without the publication of “The Prince” however. While it came some time later, the “Anti-Machiavel” by Frederick the Great published in 1740 was actually a chapter by chapter rebuttal of “The Prince.” The work is primarily a moral argument made by Frederick, in which he states that the duty of a ruler is the prosperity, happiness and health of all of their subjects. These two pieces differ in a few key ways, outside of the obvious claims for an ideal ruler. Machiavelli composed “The Prince” by himself and when it was published, in many ways it was an unrevised text. The “Anti-Machiavell” when published was revised by Voltaire and had an original manuscript attached. It came off as much more collaborative effort and people seemed to take that as a sign of its strength of argument, in addition to its natural appeal to the masses. Additionally, the two works take very different stances on the examples provided in “The Prince.” Machiavelli takes and makes up circumstances in which he creates backing for his stances on governance in a very specific manner. The “Anti-Machiavel” calls out to the larger view of things, bringing to light the deeper circumstances that were behind Machiavelli's examples. Frederick calls for a denial of the specifics and look at the whole of things in a few sections. The greatest difference however is that of how the arguments are made. Machiavelli makes a very practical argument citing specific examples and calling for very specific behaviors in a scientific manner almost. Frederick and Voltaire however use morality as their central standpoint, calling upon individual rulers to consider their own selves and how that relates to the generally accepted greater good.</p>
<p align="LEFT">The two works do share some similarities however. Both works take the same style of writing. A distinctive lack of frilly elements and getting right to the point. Both do acknowledge the necessity of a ruler as well. While they differ in how that ruler must behave, both authors see the downside of anarchy and an ungoverned population.</p>
<p align="LEFT">As I am sure it has become apparent through this writing, I am not the biggest fan of Machiavelli's government style. I do, however, completely believe “The Prince” is one of the most essential works to ever be published. The idea that the ends justify the means is not new, and will never leave humanity, but Machiavelli has taken that idea and showed how its application to something like governing a population can lead to some serious issues.</p>
<p align="LEFT">Without the preservation of this work, much of the other, important anti-Machiavellian works would lose frame of reference. It is very important for future generations to be able to read the argument for Machiavellian government from the source, without the bias in context from the works refuting it. While this not particularly how Machiavelli may have wanted the preservation of his work, it is still just as important for us to keep this piece, so that we can see that even “enlightened” individuals can find merit in what most consider a morally lacking stance.</p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>
<p align="CENTER">Works Cited</p>
<p align="LEFT"><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times">Adams, Robert M. "Machiavelli Now and Here." </span></span><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times"><em>American Scholar</em></span></span><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times"> Summer75 44.3: 365-</span></span><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"> 82. </span></span><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"><em>EbscoHost</em></span></span><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif">. Web. 2 Aug. 2011. </span></span></p>
<p align="LEFT"><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"><span style="font-size: small">Fiero, Gloria K. "Chapters 16,17,18." </span></span></span><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"><span style="font-size: small"><em>The Humanistic Tradition Vol. 2</em></span></span></span><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"><span style="font-size: small">. [s.l.]: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Print.</span></span></span></p>
<p align="LEFT"><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"><span style="font-size: small">Frederick, and Paul Sonnino. </span></span></span><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"><span style="font-size: small"><em>The Refutation of Machiavelli's Prince: Or, Anti-Machiavel</em></span></span></span><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"><span style="font-size: small">. Athens: Ohio UP, 1981. Print.</span></span></span></p>
<p align="LEFT"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif">Machiavelli, Niccolò. </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"><em>The Prince</em></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif">. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1998. Print.</span></p>
<p align="LEFT"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif">Parel, Anthony. "A Quincentennial Symposium on Machiavelli/Colloque Machiavel." </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"><em>Canadian Journal of Political Science</em></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"> 2.03 (1969): 395. </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"><em>EbscoHost</em></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif">. Web. 27 Aug. 2011.</span></p>
<p align="LEFT"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif">Unger, Miles. </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"><em>Machiavelli: a Biography</em></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif">. New York: Simon &amp; Schuster, 2011. </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif"><em>EbscoHost</em></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif">. Web. 27 Aug. 2011.</span></p>
<p align="LEFT"></p>