<p>In the genre of the-mirror-for-princes Erasmus Desiderius, <em>Institutio Principi Christiani</em> and Niccoló Machiavelli’s <em>Il Principe</em> are traditionally considered as a dichotomy. This thesis aims at comparing Erasmus against the norm of Machiavelli with emphasis on genre and rhetoric. A "reversed" comparative reading like this study shows that much of what is considered typical of the genre in Erasmus classic is in fact a result of the use of ethos and decorum. The study concentrates on the uses of normative language on the subjects of education, virtue, war, love, and hate to answer how the two texts differentiate in view of the legitimacy of rulers and how these differing views can be explained. This unorthodox reading of Erasmus mirror-for-princes reveals a less naïve and more pragmatic ideal prince. Though clearly separate from Machiavelli’s prince, formed by the roman discourse, the Erasmian ruler is hard to define as its antithesis. The differences in outlook constitute two different rhetorical stances in the face of the new political situation of the time and therefore share much common ground.</p>

In the genre of the-mirror-for-princes Erasmus Desiderius, Institutio Principi Christiani and Niccoló Machiavelli’s Il Principe are traditionally considered as a dichotomy. This thesis aims at comparing Erasmus against the norm of Machiavelli with emphasis on genre and rhetoric. A "reversed" comparative reading like this study shows that much of what is considered typical of the genre in Erasmus classic is in fact a result of the use of ethos and decorum. The study concentrates on the uses of normative language on the subjects of education, virtue, war, love, and hate to answer how the two texts differentiate in view of the legitimacy of rulers and how these differing views can be explained. This unorthodox reading of Erasmus mirror-for-princes reveals a less naïve and more pragmatic ideal prince. Though clearly separate from Machiavelli’s prince, formed by the roman discourse, the Erasmian ruler is hard to define as its antithesis. The differences in outlook constitute two different rhetorical stances in the face of the new political situation of the time and therefore share much common ground.

No description available.