|
Author: Stacey Kniatt
Faculty Mentor:
Ken Rhon Johnson, Department of History, College of Arts and Sciences
Department:
Department of History, College of Arts and Sciences, & Honors College
Bio:
Stacey Kniatt is pursuing a bachelor’s degree at the University of North Texas, with a major in history and minors in French and archaeology. Kniatt presented research papers at University Scholars Day on March 29, 2007, and at the Great Plains Honors Council annual meeting in Oklahoma City, April 20–22, 2007. Her projected graduation date is spring 2009.
|
|
Abstract:
For centuries, scholars have viewed The Prince as a work representative of Machiavelli’s shift in political ideology; however, this work does not accurately reflect Machiavelli’s true opinions. In The Prince, Machiavelli expressed his views about how a ruler should act. For many years, scholars took Machiavelli at his word: malice, nastiness, insincerity, and a lack of gratitude are characteristics of princes. Later scholars reexamined the work and started to doubt the seriousness of Machiavelli’s message. In fact, several authors have suggested that Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a résumé to the Medici family in hopes of securing a government position.
Another point greatly debated, and supportive of The Prince as a satire, is the idea that Machiavelli wrote The Prince after he drafted the first part of The Discourses on Livy. His thinking and the theme of his works shift from republicanism in The Discourses to pragmatism and recognition of the need for a prince’s control in The Prince. Scholars believe that Machiavelli may have written The Prince before The Discourses on Livy and therefore always believed that a republic is the ideal government. The Prince challenges all of Machiavelli’s other works and what we know of his life. This inconsistency and the knowledge of Machiavelli’s opinions give evidence that perhaps The Prince is a satire.
|
