You have to free Dante’s political discourse from the entire system previous, reducing the formulation to its exact historical meaning in context. That is, in terms of the significance Dante possesses as a fundamental basis of Italian culture, his thought and its philosophy come to have a practical capacity for subtle persuasiveness through prompting a political ideology on nationality as a question: But the need to exclude such precepts would have held its own specific value categorically, in native sense of order. Past solutions of the underlying situation in question help in finding the resolution of presently analogous problems by which the method of cultural critique is born in the discipline of intellectual activity, but is itself never able to state that the actual answer derives naturally from an origin of the prior solution: Creation of itself is from within its contextual reality and in that, solely. This condition is not absolute because its stipulation must not be carried out to absurdity—in which case it slips into empiricism: the highest materialism, extreme of sensed experience. It’s a need of knowing how to establish historical eras that in their totality take the place of specified problems, and up to now in their starting to come up have given no indication of what’s fundamental to an answer. So I would say that Dante closes the Medieval Era (a period of the middle ages), while Machiavelli designates an age of the Modern world successively takes place by pin-pointing its own questions and the contextual solutions in a manner already quite broadly clear in depth. Believing that Machiavelli derivatively depends on or may be, is linked to Dante—that’s a blatant historical mistep. So, it is purely a romantic fiction of the mind that the factual edifice of relations between State and Church (cf. F. Coppola); based on Dante’s model “in Croce and Aquila”. According to Machiavelli’s The Prince and Dante’s conclusion of De Monarchia there is no naturalistic connection, and even the less so as relates to the nation-state and medieval kingdom. The contingency locating an essential relation amongst the intellectual phenomena of Italian categories selected in various epochs comprises fixedly national “rhetoric”: The true story gets mixed up with the grubby shade of history. (At that, one would not say the fact fails to be meaningful; it does not have a scientific value, that’s it. It is a political precept; and still less, a secondary fundamental of weaker importance, than a structuring principle of politics—ideological for small groups that struggle with the overarching nature of culture and government).
Seems to me the political doctrine of Dante ought to be reduced to the basic element of Dante’s biography (that would in no way be able to express and act itself through Machiavelli), not in the general sense as though cognitive activity of the protagonist is the essence of all biography and what matters is not only what its subject does, but even that which it imagines and conceives of reality. But in the sense that such a doctrine lacks all power to produce the desired effects historically of cultural (i.e. Pragmatism), as it was unable to possess it also matters only as a basic part of the personal denouement of Dante after his faction’s defeat and exile from Florence. Dante submits to undergo an extreme process of transformation in his political convictions, in his opinions, his desires; in his modality of thinking in general. This proceeding holds as consequence his detachment from all. It is true that his re-alignment’s ability to be called “Ghibelline” awareness only by way of saying in every case there should be a “new Ghibelline” consciousness superior to the former factionalism, but also better than Guelph doctrine: The reality, its discourse is not that of a political theory, but one of a utopia colored politically by reflection on the past, and is above all a synthesis of contingency in heirarchizing as doctrine that which was only poetical subject in the process of formation, of changing state, nascent—a poetic appearance of spirit that had its crowning achievement in the Divine Commedy would be within its “structure” as a continuation of the contingent (put now in verse) organizing its feelings into a mathesis in “poetry” like a savage denunciation without passion and drama enacted. In addition to the common struggles internally, which were a turnabout from destruction to massacre, Dante dreams about a civilization better than “il Comune,” that would be superior to the Church that suppored the Black Guelphs, as well over the old Empire that maintained the Ghibellines; dreams of a pattern that imposes one law over all on every part, and more. It’s a victory in the war of class struggle that dreams its abolition of this war under the banner of an arbitrary power. But the victory, along with all the hostility, empassioned sufferings of winning it is also a “learned” precept that recognizes theoretical doctrines and the story of the past. What’s passed presents them with an Augustan blueprint of Rome and its own medieval reflection, the Holy empire of the Germanic country. It wants for them to supercede the present, but with their eyes turned anew to the past. Machiavelli too held his eyes to the passed, but in far an other way from Dante and the rest.