Machiavelli's The Prince and Erasmus's The Education of a Christian Prince - Book Report/Review Example

Comparative Essay between Machiavelli is The Prince and Erasmus’s The Education of a Christian Prince. The Prince is a book that systematically expounds ideas based on what a leader should do to withstand foreign political interference. In 1475, Machiavelli used to work in the council that dealt with diplomacy and affairs of the military. During his duties at work, he travelled on missions to various governments France, Germany and Italy. As a result, he acquired a lot of knowledge on government affairs and various state procedures. He also witnessed the callous diplomacies that politician Cesare Borgia used as a tool to seize and control cities. He was against the unprincipled and immoral policies enacted by the rulers in order to ensure control and expand the safety and well-being of his sphere. Consequently, this made him face a lot of opposition from those in power and was tortured, jailed and banished for a whole year. This motivated him to write The Prince. On the other hand, The Education of A Christian Prince was written in 1532.This reminiscence book was meant for Princes and particularly It was a dedication to Prince Charles who later became the Emperor of Habsburg. Erasmus emphasized that teachers should possess unimpeachable morals. He was against enforcement of corporal punishment to the unruly naughty students. Through his works he attempted to merge the critics of antiquity with those of the Christian principles during his time. This essay compares and contrasts Machiavelli is The Prince and Erasmus’s The Education of a Christian Prince. Machiavelli’s main aim in writing his book The Prince was twofold. First and foremost it was meant to show how a leader can best maintain his political power and prosperous nation amid political turmoil during the 16th Century in Italy. He based his governing methods in comparison to those used by Cesare. Secondly, It was meant to redeem himself to the eyes of the leader of Florence, Lorenzo di Piero de Medici (son of Medici and grandson of Lorenzo the Magnificent (Machiavelli 17). Erasmus’s main purpose of his book was to emphasis on the importance of moral principles and been virtuous .It was to be used as a directive and a manual of instruction to the future kings of Sweden. He emphasized that the ruler must be devoted to administration of justice and doing what is right at all times. He was against loss of human life and violence that was as a result of differences between Catholics and the Protestants during the Religious Reformation era. Machiavelli uses Classical Rhetoric styles in his writing which creates a big gap from traditional rhetoric styles. For example, In his introduction which stated that “I have not embellished or crammed this book with rounded periods or big, impressive words ,or with any blandishment or superfluous decoration of the kind which many are in the habit of using to describe or adorn what they have produced”(Machiavelli 37).He also sourced his information from Cicero’s rhetoric works.In Chapter 18, for instance, His use of a metaphor of a lion and a fox as examples of cunning and force (Machiavelli 56).. It offers a model of an ethical system that not only condones the practice of force and deception but appears to regard them as habitual and indeed germane to political activity(Machiavelli 62). Machiavelli was greatly influenced by the classical pre-Christian philosophers. He often referred to Xenophon who was a writer of the classic mirrors of princes, The Education of Cyrus. The experience at work in The Free Republic of Florence, which has created a firm base where his arguments are founded. He recapitulates his transactions with the soldiers and statements during his reign. This supplied sources of characters and the diverse experiences illustrated in The Prince. The missions he went in the line of duty helped in putting across some of the principles in his book. A good example is his very first mission in 1499 to Catherine Sforza, “my lady of Forli” of “The Prince,” from whose conduct and fate he drew the moral that it is far better to earn the confidence of the people than to rely on fortress (Machiavelli 46).He urges this principle in various ways an important matter to princes. His youthful life was highlighted in the history of Florence, which gives a clear picture of the young people at that time. This shows he sourced some information from his own life history. A good example is when he writes:” They were freer than their forefathers in dress and living, and spent more in other kinds of excesses, consuming their and money in idleness, gaming and women; their chief aim was to appear well dressed and to speak with and acuteness, whilst he could wound others cleverly was thought the wisest.”(Machiavelli 10).In a letter he had written to his son Guido, Machiavelli implies the need to study hard and be successful since help comes to those who help themselves. Out of this it was correct to infer that his own personal youth had been muchoccupied. He writes: ‘This will turn out well for you, but it is necessary for you to study; since you have no longer the excuse of illness, take pains to study letters and music, for you see what honor is done to me for the little skill I have.”(Machiavelli 45). On the other hand, Erasmus sourced his ideas from various classical teachings from Aristotle, Isocrates and Cicero. In the book, the Isocratic manner of setting himself apart from the potentially incompetent teachers, shows disdain against sophists.(Erasmus 23)In the preface addressing prince Charles, Erasmus stated that Isocrates “was a sophist, instructing some petty King or rather tyrant, and both were pagans.”(Erasmus 2) Erasmus invokes the wisdom and knowledge from great thinkers such as Plato, Plutarch and Seneca. He writes “wisdom in itself is a wonderful thing.., and no kind of wisdom is rated moreexcellent by Aristotle than that which teaches us to be a beneficentprince. “Pagan authors were disregarded as he sourced information since they lacked Christian principles.(Erasmus 45) He also employs epideictic procedures of rhetoric within the book this is because it is a conduct book. It serves as a guide for teachers, prince and also all court personnels.The use of bible illustrations that were linked to good leaders. For Instance, the illustrations of King Solomon who was granted wisdom by God so that to efficiently lead the people. The Prince outlined the competitive background of the states of Italy and links with problems in the cities and the administration of the Renaissance. Machiavelli states that the test of a good prince was whether or not they could provide justice and order to his citizenry and if the prince can increase his power and dominions (Machiavelli 35).He also insisted that any ruler should show his concerns to the way the situation is and not the way it is meant to be. There was a conviction that any political activity cannot be prevented by moral contemplations. As long as the outcome of a decision made is conducive then the end will justify the means that was used. This has precisely been seen in Chapter 18 of the book where the authorurges that a good prince should possess traits of a fox and a lion that is use of cunning and force depending on the situation at hand. More interestingly Machiavelli’s unorthodox choice to speak of cruel and destructive leaders as a complimentary source of leadership lessons (Machiavelli 24).This ended up augmenting the ideals of humanist which he extended their use through fruitful application of anti-humanist rulers whose brutality knew no limits. Ironically, he strengthened Renaissance humanism by affirming broad learning in history and free choice over a slim world outlook and fate. Erasmus gives a better gives a better statecraft as compared to Machiavelli. This is because he considered humanity and brings out the need of the King to be vitreous in all situations in the society. He portrays a leader as God’s representative and the father figure and thus he deserves unquestionable obedience. This leader, however, has an obligation to ensure protection of the society’s welfare, administration of justice and provision of moral leadership. The author emphasized on building of consensus to ensure correct and accurate decision making.Pacifism,for Erasmus was not only a belief sources from the Christian ideal for universal fellowoship,but also a political tool to ensure peace and concord.(Erasmus 54).The government does not enrich itself but is an outlet of unremitting devotion to morality and principle. Erasmus seriously condemned war and describes it as “something so monstrous that it befits wild beast rather than men, so crazy that the poets even imagine that it is let loose by the Furies. “He dint offer justification to use of all means in the defense of one’s dominion. “If you can’t defend your realm without violating justice, without wanton loss of human life. Give up and yield to the importunities of the age(Erasmus 34). All these werebecause of the bilateral cruelties present during the religious reformation era. It was later coupled with the execution of very many peasants who were rebellious against the rule of Martin Luthanism as opposed to pragmatism. Erasmus emphasizes on the need for those in power to be honest in all circumstances as opposed to Machiavelli who approves dishonesty in the extreme circumstances. He is also known of promoting intellectual tolerance and free expression in an age when such views were often perceived as dangerous and even heretical by both the Catholic establishment and the Protestant reformers (Erasmus 29).His works were meant to cultivate peaceful relations and intellectual exchange in comparison to violence and war. In conclusion, both Erasmus and Machiavelli contributed to shaping of the history of the Western world.Despite the fact that they had antagonistic ideas and nothing could merge their school of thought. All of them had very immense influence on the political and also ideological development of the Western governments. The toleration oriented of Erasmus was an inspiration and enlightened thinkers such as Voltaire and Locke. Their ideas were useful in formulation of the independence declaration and even the Constitution. On the other hand, Machiavelli also referred to as The Realpolitik, had greatly influenced figures such as Otto Von Bismarck, the Imperial Germany architect. This resulted to colossal intervention of the state to individual private affairs and a policy of military expansionism. Thus, both ideologies have contributed to the Western development in a way. Works Cited  Erasmus, Desiderius. The Education of a Christian Prince. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997. Print. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Print. Read More