Machiavelli’s The Prince does two things simultaneously: (1) it celebrates and even attempts to usher in the new, while (2) giving a great deal of thought to and even revering the old. This doubleness is in keeping with the doubleness of the Latin word princeps from which “prince” stems, which can mean both “to begin” and also “to rule”. So, in “The Prince,” one notices that Machiavelli presents himself as a new Moses when he lays down new rules for people to live by, while one also notices the heavy use Machiavelli makes of and the respect he gives to examples from both the Greco-Roman and the Judeo-Christian world, which at the time Machiavelli is writing are the parents of Western Culture. Machiavelli seems to have in mind a future that transcends these two worlds both of which culminated in empires, the former in the Roman Empire and the latter in the Holy Roman Empire. In so doing Machiavelli implies the worldviews that preceded him, despite or perhaps because of the empires they gave rise to, require correction. How does Machiavelli’s The Prince correct its parents, its Greco-Roman father, and its Judeo-Christian mother? According to The Prince, what did the parents get wrong? What does The Prince get right? Please use examples specifically from “The Prince” to convey your message.