When discussing Machiavelli’s The Prince and Castiglione’s The Courtier, the similarities they entail are that they were written in the same time frame, and that’s essentially it. Machiavelli’s The Prince served as a treaty to the understanding of government, how a state is able to maintain itself and the role of which a prince should involve himself in the maintenance and success of the state. Castiglione avoids talking about governmental affairs, and is simply interested in the behavior of the people of court.
When Castiglione writes The Courtier, it was to advise nobles of the qualities of an ideal courtier, and how to achieve those qualities. Machiavelli does admire some of the qualities that Castiglione describes, but what Machiavelli is concerned about is a completely different topic from Castiglione. Machiavelli says how human nature is the same for everyone and it doesn’t change throughout time. Therefore, the permanency of human nature allows politics to become a science. He argues how since human nature is the same, people are going to continue to do the same thing, always leading to the same outcome. Although nobles and commoners act…show more content… He begins defining how a republic is ruled by a syndicate of citizens and by a prince. Although Machiavelli does not discuss which form of state, whether principalities or republics, are more successful, through his writings, he shows a sympathetic side towards republics, even though Italy is rules by princes. Machiavelli emphasizes to look strictly at just the principalities when ruling, and to deviate from any sort of flattery or fantasy. This can been seen through his quote, “it appears to me more appropriate to follow the real truth of the matter than the imagination of it.” (Machiavelli, pg.