Critical+Analysis

Critical Analysis of the Prince

The Prince, by Machiavelli has been analyzed greatly over several hundreds of years and mean different ideas have come about from this book. Scholars believe that Machiavelli wrote this book for numerous reasons. It is thought to be a satire, a guide to rule a country, and a criticism of the ruling class. Politics

Although not completely agreed upon, many believe this book is satirical literature. It is thought to make fun of the struggles between a ruler and its subjects. This can be seen throughout the book as the prince has many troubles dealing with the people in his kingdom. For example, he wants to arm them but does not want them to use the weapons against him. This shows that the prince is forced to keep his authority through fear not through affection a ruler. This is not the main belief for Machiavelli's book.

This book was written to show the complex relationship between a ruler and subject and how one must rule. To successfully rule, Machiavelli argues that the ruler must be virtuous but must be strong enough to rule with force. The author argues that it is better to rule with love and affection from his subjects but that this is unrealistic. The prince must rule his subjects by keeping them in fear and this is how to hold authority. Machiavelli implies that ruling with both fear and affection is best but only one can be done.

Do you think that it is possible for a government to inspire fear in its subjects while also receiving approval and affection from the subjects?
 * ??Question??**

Authority

Machiavelli discusses throughout his book that authority and power are only legitimate if the ruler has moral causes and leads a virtuous lifestyle. Machiavelli saw authority, being the right to rule people and make decisions on their behalf, as unacceptable, even if the ruler rightfully gained power due to family succession or due to force and uprising. He believed that one person and one power could lead to the demise of a government which would lead to the demise of a nation. Machiavelli discusses that having power gives the right to command but one does not morally have the right to command, as it does not reflect virtue through the leader. Machiavelli believed that only upon the grounds of the leader having virtue allowed the leader have the right to lead. Power was to be used morally, not for causes of self conceit or personal doings. Machiavelli believed that the prince was only a righteous leader if he controlled his state with moral standards and held true to his own virtue.

Machiavelli shows that the prince's struggles throughout the novel show the prince's struggle to figure out how to virtuously use his authority and power. The prince must be a virtuous leader in order to maintain his state, or keep peace throughout his kingdom. Machiavelli believes that the only concern of political leaders is how to maintain their authority, which is unvirtuous. The legitimacy of the ruler is based on the ethical and moral decisions he has made.

The Prince by Machiavelli is also seen to be a representation of the Florentine government in Italy at the time. The goodness of the family is not enough to give them the authority to rule a country. Rather, because they have political authority, they concentrate on maintaining that authority by maintaining the state. Stability in the government brings about stability in the people and the nation, thus protecting the power of the government.