The author's inaugural dissertation, München. / "Literatur": 5th prelim. leaf.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Dept. of Political Science, August 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 241-248). Also available on the Internet.

This thesis compares Spanish Golden Age emblems on the education of the prince to Machiavelli’s Il principe to determine how Spanish emblem writers position themselves with respect to Machiavelli’s ideas on the topic. Keith David Howard’s The Reception of Machiavelli in Early Modern Spain serves as the theoretical and methodological basis for this study. Howard identifies three categories that historians have used to classify Spanish authors and their positions towards Machiavelli’s ideas: those who reject Machiavelli’s ideas, those who accept them almost completely, and those who attempt to blend Machiavelli’s ideas with Christian values. Howard believes that the first two categories are oversimplifications that lead to a misunderstanding of the Spanish reception of the works by the Florentine author. This research project aims to determine whether Howard is correct in stating that the first two groups are oversimplifications and explores how Spanish emblem writers position themselves vis-à-vis Machiavellian ideas. Three case studies provide an analysis and comparison of emblems to Machiavelli’s Il principe. Machiavelli’s Discorsi offer further material for analysis and comparison. / Graduate

No description available.

This work presented the question: to what extent did each period and its events have on the development of the various schools of thought concerning Niccolo Machiavelli. The age of Reformation in its quest for theological purity gave birth to the myth of the evil Machiavelli. The Enlightenment, a period which sought reason and science, founded the myth of the scientific Machiavelli. The eruption of nationalism in the nineteenth century created Machiavelli, the patriot, and this was quickly followed in the twentieth century, an age of unrest, by the rebirth of all previous interpretations. These schools of thought developed as much from the changing tide of events as from the scholarly research of the writers. One of the reasons for the diversity of the Machiavellian literature was that each writer sought his antecedents on the basis of myth rather than where it might realistically be found. Machiavelli and Machiavellianism were abused and misused because modern man did not know himself. He viewed his origin incorrectly and thus could rest on no one explanation for himself or -Machiavelli. Machiavellianism developed from a collection of myths, each started in an attempt to explain the unexplainable, man. Not Machiavelli's politics, but what man appeared to be in them, was the drawing power of Machiavelli's work. What Machiavelli meant to say or did not mean to say was unimportant when compared to what scholars believed him to have said.

No description available.

Thesis (doctoral)--Københavns Universitet,1984. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 354-364).

In 1513 the Florentine humanists Niccolò Machiavelli composed one of the most famous, but also ambiguously interpret, work in the history of politics, Il Principe. Machiavelli´s book The Prince revealed the true nature of politics in Italy in the beginning of the sixteenth century and gives very straightforward advice on how to act to become a successful and powerful political being. Machiavelli´s creation and insights in the reality of politics have be much discredited and condemned in its lack of moral consideration and violent nature. Still it has been read under the centuries with a fascination and eager to understand the structure of power and how to master it. My purpose with this study is to apply this Machiavellian idea of the capable prince on to the earlier research of the Swedish duke Karl, later on King Karl IX. My study falls therefore into the field of historiography. With this in mind the title of the study is: Will of Iron and Fists of steel. Karl´s way to power from a Machiavellian perspective of the prince. This study is focusing on the turbulent years of 1599 and 1600, a period of which great domestic tension in the Swedish kingdom exploded in an outburst of violence. In the midst of this political maelstrom stood Karl as the director and main participant of the events, with an iron will and fists of iron he defeated his opponents and took control over the state. The earlier research is on certain points concordant in their descriptions in how Karl obtained the ultimate political power in the Swedish kingdom. With a ruthless use of military means and a far-reaching moral pragmatism the duke’s most prominent political enemies systematically was persecuted and killed. The previous research is also, more or less, concurrent to the fact that Karl had a bad and unstable temper mixed with a burning desire for vengeance.  From the previous research I have drawn the conclusion that in some areas Karl did fulfil the requirements to be called a Machiavellian ideal prince, above all in his ability of exploit the opportunity to gain absolute power and how he effectively dominated the politic with military means. Although it cannot be stated that Karl fulfilled the Machiavellian ideal to its fullest. His bad temper and revengeful state of mind hindered him from be in charge of more delicate situations. The final judgement of Karl is illustrated very well with Machiavelli´s bestial metaphors; the duke was as strong and daring as a lion, both as a political being and in personality, what he lacked was the coolness and cunning of the fox.

Queen Kristina of Sweden (1626-1689) is a person who has been widely studied during the years. She is known as the monarch who left the Swedish throne and the protestant faith in favour of the catholic Rome. Even though Kristina left her powerful position as queen of Sweden she never gave up her dignity as a sovereign.   My purpose with this study is to analyse historians and other scholars different research concerning Kristina’s notorious execution of Monaldesco in 1657. This event took place during her time as a guest on Fontainebleau, the French king´s castle. In my literature study regarding this event I will apply the famous Italian humanist Niccolò Machiavelli’s advice on how to be a capable prince. With this mentioned my essay is named:  A Valiant Lion and a Cunning Fox. A Study on the Execution of Monaldesco from Machiavelli’s Theory of the Prince.   The Machiavellian theory of the prince is very complex. The demands to become an able prince according to Machiavelli are almost impossible to reach. However, in my study it becomes clear that Kristina was capable enough to capture Fortune when Jules Mazarin gave her the opportunity to join him in an alliance with the aim to conquer Naples. On the other hand, her choice did not only provide her with profits, it also put her in a position of dependence, a position which Machiavelli considers to be problematic. Furthermore, the literature claims that Kristina tried to use the cunning of a fox, the problem was that Mazarin was even more cunning the she was. Later the plans of conquering Napels was exposed by Kristina’s crown equerry Gian Rinaldo Monaldesco. The penalty for this crime he had to pay with his life, she executed him in Galerie des Cerfs on Fontainebleau. As a result of Kristina’s actions Europe got disturbed and a lot of rumours got spread which damaged her reputation badly. Nevertheless, Kristina took full responsibility of the execution. Machiavelli agrees on the fact that betrayal should be punished but the negative consequences gave Kristina a very bad reputation, and Machiavelli emphasizes that a capable prince should avoid being hated. My conclusion is that Kristina proves some minor signs of herself as a capable prince according to Machiavelli. However it should be pointed out that the capability that Machiavelli emphasizes is almost impossible to achieve. The study has also shown that, in contrast to Machiavelli’s capable prince, according to literature Queen Kristina´s foremost goal was nothing but her own independence and freedom.

Abstract Machiavelli creates his model of an ideal prince in his famous book The Prince. He abandons the Christian criteria set for a prince, such as generosity, morality, and piety. Instead, he claims that it is harmful for a prince to follow all the moral principles, and it is necessary for a prince to be well versed in the use of evil and treachery. Machiavelli¡¦s contemporaries, including the Tudors, are shocked by his vision of a prince unfettered by the constraints of traditional morality. Most of the Tudors regard his doctrines as atheism and immorality. Only some accept certain parts of his doctrines. This thesis intends to explore how Shakespeare deals with Machiavellianism in his two tetralogies. Does Shakespeare agree with Machiavelli in the definition of an ideal prince? How does Shakespeare think of the pragmatism Machiavelli advocates? Among the kings Shakespeare portrays in his two tetralogies, I choose King Richard III and Henry IV for my discussion, for these two kings correspond to the kinds of princes whom Machiavelli wants to offer advice to in his treaty, i.e., the new princes, or the princes who gain power recently. It is interesting that although both Richard III and Henry IV are usurpers and they both adopt Machiavellian statecraft, the way Shakespeare presents them proves very different. When portraying Richard III, Shakespeare follows the convention of the hero villain and makes him a stage Machiavelli. When portraying Bolingbroke, later Henry IV, he presents him as a man who revolts against the tyranny of his king, and a man who wins the crown with calmness, intelligence, and justice. Whenever Richard makes use of evil, he arouses detest and horror. When Henry adopts evil, it turns out to be necessary evil. However, the accounts and evidence recently found about Richard show us that the king, unlike what Shakespeare portrays, is not a hunchback, nor is he a murderous monster. On the contrary, he is a ruler of efficiency and responsibility. In my opinion, the reason why Shakespeare distorts Richard is that he intentionally portrays a king who fully demonstrates the dangerous teachings of Machiavelli in order to warn his contemporaries against the danger of accepting Machiavellianism. Obviously, he still cannot appreciate pragmatism and realism advocated by Machiavelli. Years after, when he composes the second tetralogy and writes about Henry IV, Shakespeare alters his attitude and comes to realize that it is not enough for a king to be good and virtuous; he has to be wise, active, resolute, and treacherous, if necessary¡Xto put it in another way: he has to be a Machiavellian prince. To sum up, as he grows older, a powerful and efficient monarch rather than a virtuous and pious prince becomes what Shakespeare longs for. We can say that Shakespeare matures in public affairs. Therefore, we see a Shakespeare crossing the boundaries of idealism and realism.