Oh, I recently had to do a report on Machiavelli's The Prince, for AP-European history. Great book, truly brilliant. I really enjoyed his discourse on politics and found a lot of it still aplicable today. It's far from the best essay I've ever written, but I thought I'd post here because, well, I hadn't posted anything in a while and perhaps some people will find it informative, while at the very least it will create discussion.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: Penguin Books, 2005.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. "Introduction By: Maurizio Viroli." The Prince. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, vii-xxxix.
The Prince
In 1513, Machiavelli was removed from power when the Medici family, backed by the Pope, retook Florence by force and overthrew the Republic of Piero Soderini. This represented the destruction of everything he worked for and had worked for nearly a decade and half; the best years of his life in other words.
So, he sat down, and began to pour all his boundless political and historical knowledge onto the page, into the written word. There has been much speculation and disagreement surrounding even the intentions Machiavelli had in writing the book. His letter to Francesco Vettori, dated December 10, 1513, made it clear he was seeking another position within the Florentine government now controlled by the Medici, as he said in his own words, "Besides, there is my desire that there Medici Princes should begin to engage my services, even if they should start out by having me roll along a stone."
His methods were not those of flattery, something he warns princes of in Chapter XXIII, titled, "How Flatterers Must be Shunned", and the nature of the book itself suggests that it was written to show off his great experience and knowledge of politics; to bolster his credibility and qualifications so to speak. If it were written to be flattery he would have stacked the book with praise for the glory of Medici family and containing histories of it, which it does not.
Machiavelli’s dealings in Renaissance Politics made him a very shrewd man, and The Prince is a very cynical book, and it is made very clear in the book. In Chapter XVIII, he states, "If all men were good, this precept would not be good, but because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them" Pg. 74. The statement is almost bitter even; censuring politicians for their actions.
Calling men wretched creatures is a repeated motif in the book, it is a phrase stated multiple times in different contexts. Machiavelli’s view of men is one of mistrust, and he sees them as morally corrupt figures. In Chapter XVII, he gives this nugget of advice to princes "But above all a prince must abstain from the property of others; because men sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony" Pg. 72.
Shrew yes, but it is not so far gone from the time period, the time period in which Machiavelli saw men like Oliverotto of Fermo murder their uncles for power, and Popes, supposedly the symbol of goodness and moral authority of the people, like Alexander VI who used his position and authority to attempt to make Italy a hereditary kingdom of his unscrupulous, rapacious son Cesare Borgia, whom Machiavelli finds a good model of prowess in a prince.
Shrewd, yes The Prince is shrewd, but so is politics and that is why is remains, even today, in a world completely different than Sixteenth Century Italy, a masterful work of politics. For example, it tells prospective princes, "A Prince, therefore, need not have all the good qualities I mentioned above, but he should certainly appear to have them" Pg. 75. In that he reads like a modern PR advisor, where everything is about image, whether it be John Kerry’s duck hunting photo-op, or George W. Bush’s landing on a Cruiser from an F-14. It is a focus on appearances that have wide appeal that Machiavelli himself would have approved of.
All of which brings me back to the beginning, "Why Write The Prince", and this is a question which has many answers. Few books have been as controversial as The Prince, it was on the Catholic Index, and some today have criticized it as the tool of dictators everywhere. Hitler supposedly kept a copy of it at his bedside so that he could refer to it constantly, and it is obvious, that, early on in his career he took much of its advise. Mussolini stated that the Prince was "The statesman’s supreme guide", though he later banned it from circulation.
Some even view it as a satire against the Medici, and authoritarianism in general. Indeed in the early revival beginning with Rousseau in Eighteenth Century France it was viewed as a satire on despots, written to inform the people. But, as Maurizio Viroli wrote in his introductory essay, "For this interpretation to be acceptable we would have to find in Machiavelli’s works or letters compelling evidence that his claims in The Prince are exaggerated in order to instill in the people feelings of hatred for princes. No such evidence exists, while abundant textual evidence confirms, on the contrary, that...Machiavelli was perfectly serious" Pg. XX.
No, The Prince was written to advise a prince on how to become strong enough to unify Italy. It is important to understand the motives behind writing The Prince in order to truly understand it and its instructions on government. Machiavelli makes it clear when writing "Those cruelties are well used...that are carried out in a single stroke, done out of necessity...and then are continued, but are instead converted in the greatest possible benefits for the subjects" Pg. 39.
This is an "Ends justifies the means" argument, which leads to further insight in his character and reasoning. Machiavelli was a Republican, he served the independent Republic of Florence in high office for 14 years, and even wrote a book on Republican Government, Discourses on Livy. The Prince was written for the greater good, as he gets into in his last chapter "An exhortation to seize Italy and free Her from the barbarians".
His own dealings with Republican government made him believe that it with its divisions was too weak to undertake a task such as uniting Italy’s fractured and war torn state, badly governed, (as he believes when he says "All this is because of the weakness of the leaders" Pg. 111). A strong central ruler was needed, so he set about writing The Prince to instruct such a ruler how to meet his end goal of a strong and united Italy.
This is what sets the shrewd tone of the book. The task is big, of monumentous importance, so the reference frame of the entire book is "Do what you gotta do". Machiavelli wanted a stable Italy, he instructed a prince on the degrees to which he would have to resort in order to meet this goal. Torture, cruelty, war, deception, these were all simply necessary steps, and I am sure that his model fits the time period and if that Lorenzo Medici, whom the book is addressed, had chosen to make the undertaking, following The Prince’s advice, he would have conquered and united Italy three and a half centuries early.
PS. Please vote in the poll, I use it as a counter to see how many people read something, I do really appreicate it. I also thought I'd give you one of my favosrite quote from The Prince: "Men are so simple, and so much creatures of circumstance, that the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived" Pg. 75.