Political Theory Comparison

10 Pages 2519 Words

g able to influence and win over the citizens of the respective principalities. His notions reflected the sign of the times. An advocate of physical power, as well as governmental power, Machiavelli stressed the need for virtu, a quality that has been translated to mean "...a union of force and ability...will"(Burckhardt quoted in Machiavelli 195). Princes cannot rely on the people to blindly succumb to their will, therefore it must be forced upon them. In doing so , the prince must take certain action to hold onto the state despite the nature of man.
The nature of man, as it was put forth by Machiavelli, was that "...all men are ready to change masters in the hope of bettering themselves. In this belief they will take up arms against their master..." (Machiavelli 5). A prince must therefore safeguard himself in regards to his foreign policy, but most importantly in domestic affairs. Machiavellian theory derives from the unrest of the citizens and the need for princes to squash rebellion by whatever means possible. Because of the changing moods of the people at the time and their barbaric nature, it became necessary to use violence and fear to gain the state. Eventually a prince would need an equal balance of virtu, benevolence, fear and, of course, a well-armed military to retain the state. The prince must develop a reputation of being a man of character. In other words, "His actions [must] bespeak greatness, courage, seriousness of purpose, and strength." (Machiavelli 50). A prince with these qualities could enjoy a good!
reputation and fear nothing from the citizens inhabiting his newly conquered principality.
3
Later in this same century, Martin Luther began publishing his own theories on how political systems should be constructed. His essay, Secular Authority: How Far Should It Be Obeyed was, in comparison to the other authors to be discussed herein, based more on the theological thinking of the 16th century. The question...