When Machiavelli originally wrote The Prince, in late 1513 and perhaps early 1514, it had been written quickly by an author who was, among other things, seeking to regain his position in the Florentine government. Since many of his colleagues in the republican government had been quickly rehabilitated and returned to service under the Medici, Machiavelli believed he needed a fair advantage to regain his former position. It was originally written to be presented to Giuliano de'Medici, who might have appreciated it. But the dedication was changed upon the death of Giulianos and was then rededicated to Lorenzo de'Medici who probably did not read it when it came into his hands in 1516. Then in 1515-16, when he wrote the Discourses (a much longer process) probably it was the result of many discussions he might have had previously with scholars versed in political theory. In any case, looking at these two books it becomes clear that The Prince was intended for an audience that would not take it completely seriously but would consider it a satirical reminder of what could be; and then with Speeches, about how it should be done. Machiavelli's political treatise, The Prince, has previously been seen as a departure from the traditional thinking of the time. Machiavelli wanted a new theory that was free from stagnant ideals and ethical codes. The way he described government was as if it were a practical, efficient machine that created its own rules to fit the situation at hand instead of abiding by culturally created laws, morals, or traditions. Every political thinker before Machiavelli viewed the use of power as a means to an end; their only differences lay in what they considered that end to be and how far…middle of the paper…when it related to the Discourses; it is a way for a ruler to compare the ideal and reality of his sovereignty. Since the Prince seems to be at the extreme but ideal end of the governmental spectrum, a ruler (with the right amount of intelligence) might rightly view the Prince as an end and the Speeches as a means to that end. Indeed, both books created a fully coherent philosophy, even if not outwardly. But with a little more introspection, a coherent line of thought begins to appear. Works Cited Wooton, David ed. “Modern political thought: readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche”. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2008. Nederman, Cary, “Niccolò Machiavelli,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.standford.edu/archives/ fall2009 /voices/machiavelli.