Policraticus By John Bishop Of Salisbury And Essay

Policraticus, By John, Bishop Of Salisbury, And The Prince, By Niccol Machiavelli Essay, Research Paper

Policraticus, by John, Bishop of Salisbury, and The Prince, by Niccol Machiavelli, show distinguishable differences in believing between the Middle Ages and the period of Renaissance. The two books were written in different epochs, and they both talk about the true significance of prince as a swayer and how he should carry on himself in order to keep his power. The most important differences between the two authors result from their differing positions sing faith, political power, and political ends.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The different thoughts about faith separate the Renaissance from the Middle Ages. By analyzing the sentiments of the two authors, it is clear that the church played a major function in the lives of those in Middle Ages than in those of the Renaissance. Bishop of Salisbury emphasizes that all power that the prince holds is from God and that He exercised it through a low-level manus to do all things teach His clemency or justness. In add-on, he says that the com

mandment for the prince is to fear the Lord his God and to follow God s words, which are prescribed in the jurisprudence. One the other manus, Machiavelli wholly ignores the issue of faith and does non even advert it in his authorship. He treats faith and authorities as two separate topics. He believes that the jurisprudence is made by the prince and non by God.

Another difference between the two authors is their differing positions on the involvements of the prince. Bishop of Salisbury believes that the prince s aim is to do his people wealthier and his community comfortable. In contrast, for Machiavelli, the end of the prince is to keep his power and to do his people satisfied every bit long as possible. Machiavelli teaches the prince how to be prudent and sometimes evil in order to last harmonizing to the state of affairs. It is about impossible to find what is good or evil, but it is clear that the people s thoughts had changed from theoretical to more realistic. At this point it is clear that, as times changed, the people became more interested in individuality more than groups.