This paper examines the interplay between self and society in three major Renaissance-era works: Machiavelli's The Prince, Boccaccio's Decameron, and Christine de Pizan's The Treasure of the City of Ladies. It compares how each author proposed pathways to social change — whether through an authoritative individual ruler, collective civic virtue, or the moral strength of women — and explores their contrasting views on morality, human nature, and gender roles. The paper argues that while Machiavelli grounded morality in political outcomes, de Pizan rooted it in religious virtue, and Boccaccio located social power in the citizenry's capacity to expose institutional hypocrisy.
In the political treatise The Prince, political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli established his own standards and enumerated the qualities of a model, effective leader of civil society. In introducing the figure he identified as the Prince, he discussed the nature, character, and philosophy this ideal leader must possess in order to maintain a well-ordered civil society.
Meanwhile, in the literary work Decameron, author Giovanni Boccaccio delved into the social issues that plagued Italian society in the 14th century — a period of transition as the Western world prepared itself for the eventual development of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance movement. The dominant theme in this work was the continued tyranny and control of the Christian Church over Italian society, which curbed the nation's chance to develop not only intellectually, but most importantly, socially.
Both Machiavelli's and Boccaccio's works mirror the social landscape of their respective eras. Both were written during periods in which Western society was beset by socio-political conflict: Machiavelli's piece reflected a transition in Italian leadership, while Boccaccio's was created when the Church was considered the most powerful institution not only in Italy, but across the entire Western world.
Given these historical contexts, it is worth noting that Machiavelli and Boccaccio shared a common objective. Both authors proposed conditions under which unity, peace, and harmony could be achieved in civil society. While Machiavelli proposed the assertion of individual strength as the key to creating the ideal leader — embodied in the persona of the Prince — Boccaccio highlighted the capacity of civil society itself to resist and overcome oppressive institutions such as the Church.
For Machiavelli, his political discourse served as a critique of previous Italian leaderships over the centuries. The Prince provided readers with frank information about the desirable qualities and unpleasant realities essential to governing civil society. Rules must be set by the Prince, he argued, so that the ideal social order can be achieved. This means that the Prince, as an individual, must assert himself and enforce regulations that benefit his state's stability and security against enemies.
Such self-assertion on the Prince's part was not only acceptable but necessary, according to Machiavelli, because the Prince is the only individual qualified to govern civil society. As Machiavelli wrote, it is "necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity," primarily because "it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prudent that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would lose him his state." In Machiavelli's view, change must be induced by a capable individual for the welfare of the majority.
Although Boccaccio shared a similar objective, he proposed social change not through a powerful individual like the Prince, but through ordinary individuals — the citizenry and members of civil society themselves. In Decameron, he demonstrated how society is powerful enough to expose the corruption, hypocrisy, and tyranny that the Church had committed against Italian society. By portraying members of the clergy as more sinful than ordinary people, he laid bare the vulnerability of this powerful institution to criticism, showing its fragile structure as susceptible to collapse whenever society chose to challenge it.
For Boccaccio, empowerment required no strategy or trickery of the sort Machiavelli described. In Decameron, he made it clear that people could be empowered simply by adhering to the universal norms of morality and humanity — values that, unfortunately, the Church itself failed to uphold. The Church's hypocrisy and corruption, and the perceived weakness of the individual to resist them, were themes signaled in his introduction, wherein he stated: "Wherein is contained, how hard a thing is, to distinguish goodness from hypocrisy; and how (under the shadow of holiness) the wickedness of one man may deceive many."
Niccolò Machiavelli and Christine de Pizan were both proponents of the emerging socio-political thought that characterized the 15th and 16th centuries. This period was considered Western society's transition toward a new world order — one in which intellectual development was valued equally, or even more highly, than the teachings and principles of Christian doctrine. Both Machiavelli and de Pizan were prominent voices in this new intellectual movement.
Comparing the two, de Pizan was more orthodox in her discussion of feminist politics in her discourse The Treasure of the City of Ladies. Machiavelli grounded his political treatise in logical, philosophical, and political arguments alone, while de Pizan's reasoning drew not only on rational analysis but also on religious beliefs and teachings. In sum, Machiavelli's arguments operated within a political framework, while de Pizan's feminist analysis was primarily religious in its orientation.
"Consequentialist ethics versus religious morality compared"
"How both authors reproduce gendered stereotypes of authority"
They lived justly, but not because they did not appreciate the glory or rejected the honours that they were given. They considered that honour belonged not to their own persons, but to the status of their power and wealth, of which they were vicars of God on earth.
Machiavelli's and de Pizan's depictions of male and female social roles during their time reflect their deference to the status quo, despite the emergence of liberal thinking that was gradually developing in their society. Males were assigned decision-making and authoritarian roles, while women were consigned to service-oriented tasks requiring cooperation and diligence rather than authority. Both authors, each innovative in their own domain, ultimately reproduced the gender hierarchies that defined their era — Machiavelli through the unquestioned masculinity of ideal leadership, and de Pizan through a framework that valorized women's virtue while leaving their subordinate social position intact.
You’re 42% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.