Opposing Views Of Niccolo Machiavelli And James example essay topic

In Sources of the Western Tradition, by Marvin Perry, Joseph R. Peden, and Theodore H. Von Laue, many primary sources are provided, giving the ideas of historical figures with conflicting views. For instance, the sources from Niccolo Machiavelli and James I provide insights into their contrasting views on political authority. These selections give historians critical information on how political systems differed in the past according to the time and ruler of the state. When reading the sources, the opposing views of Niccolo Machiavelli and James I become very obvious. Niccolo Machiavelli was a prince who believed, contrary to Medieval times, that there was no divine origin to kingship.

He disagreed that kings should adhere to Christian moral teachings (Perry, Peden, and Von Laue 12). Instead he proposed the state resulted from pure human creation. He thought princes should ignore morality and use religion only to unite their subjects and foster obedience to law (Perry, Peden, and Von Laue 12). James I, on the other hand, had completely opposite ideas. He believed in the divine right of monarchy; that monarchs were chosen by and responsible to God only (Perry, Peden, and Von Laue 20). He described the role of parliament as a group who could merrily advise the king of laws to be implemented, while knowing the king had the final word on all creation of laws.

A king's relationship to God played a large role in the opposing views of Machiavelli and James I. The two excerpts from these rulers convey the same type of message, although the way they are demonstrated varies greatly. In The Prince, Machiavelli thoroughly describes many characteristics a prince should have, even going to the extent as to which ones he should display and disguise. The excerpt from James I is quite different in style; it is a concise, direct message clearly stating the high standing of a king and the role of parliament. Machiavelli's and James I's selections are both from a book, but James I's also includes a speech. While Machiavelli agreeably advises and provides suggestions, James I forcefully states his views, enforcing the way the system is and will remain under his rule. The variance of style in which each message is relayed is a result of the individual purpose of each author.

Machiavelli wrote to reveal his ideas to people capable of understanding, since they were new and contrary to public belief at the time. He wanted to address rulers and enforce his point that a successful ruler should not adhere to morality and religion (Perry, Peden, and Von Laue 13). Overall, he wanted to propose a new way of political thinking in contrast to the medieval political theory. Perhaps he thought The Prince, his particular work in question, might influence future leaders. James the first wanted to enforce the current political theory already in place, and justify his position of power. He made this clear by instilling that kings were like Gods and held the utmost authority.

They had power to make and break laws solely based on their opinion. He felt the need to enforce the place of the parliament and the common people; he told them they should avoid grievances and interfering with his ways. It was important for everyone to know that he had been in power for a long time, and it was inappropriate for people to question his authority. The authors' opinions, as well as the context they were situated in, give them unique purposes for writing their documents.

Historians can make inferences about the times of the authors based on the readings. Machiavelli notes that his opinions differ from most others, so it is clear he is writing in a time where most people do believe in the divine origin of kinship, such as in medieval times. Since James I refers to his many predecessors a historian would know the system of the divine right of kings had been in place for some time. Obviously Parliament had been established in his state since he addressed his speech to his subjects. The content of each source provides particular uses and restrictions for a modern historians' analysis.

Machiavelli's selection is very descriptive, making it useful in determining exactly what he envisioned a prince should be. This helps a historian know what qualities he believed were necessary for an effectively run state. It, again, instill the idea that Machiavelli did not believe the previous teachings that morality and responsibility to God were the keys to a successful prince. A historian learns with evidence as to why Machiavelli believed the medieval political theory was futile and why his theory was much more effective. A limiting factor for a historian could be that the passage does not go into detail about the origins of his thoughts. There is no explanation as to what inspired his rejection of divine origin to kinship and his new vision of politics.

Since the passage is very short, it is difficult to fully understand the basis for Machiavelli's claims. Perhaps more examples of the failures and successes according to the prince's characteristics would help provide a clearer picture. A historian might find the selection from James I to be very concise and informative, yet lacking in depth due to its length. It is effective in defining what he believes to be the role of Parliament and the power the head monarch has in a state.

It gives the reader a clear vision of what James I believed of his place and conveys his expectations for his government and subjects. The passage relays his association of God to kings well, with its discussion of divine origin. Since the source includes a short excerpt from a book and a speech, there is minimal background information. A historian might like to know the events preceding the speech, for instance. They might wonder what provoked James I to feel the need to enforce his powerful position. It might be helpful to know the reactions of the people in Parliament and the common people after the speech he gave and after reading True Law.

This source relates only the views of James I but not the issues leading up to and resulting from his words. Many factors of a primary source determine the obtainable information for a historian's analysis. These could include the format, the purpose of the selection, and the depth of information. Primary sources allow historians to analyze the opposing views of historical figures; their qualities determine the potential for investigation.

Bibliography

Perry, Peden, and Von Laue. Sources of the Western Tradition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003.