Commentary on Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince

1039 Words3 Pages

Relatively little is known for certain about Niccolò Machiavelli's early life in comparison with many important figures of the Italian Renaissance. Machiavelli was born May 3, 1469 in Florence, Italy. He attended the University of Florence; even a quick glance at his works reveals that he received an excellent humanist education, as his speech and opinions are highly intelligent, well read, and as far as the reader can tell, correct. For years after graduating, Machiavelli passionately engaged in diplomatic activity for Florence, traveling to the major points in Italy as well as to the royal magistrates of France and to the imperial Vatican court. Historians have managed to collect his letters and occasional writings that testify to his amazing talent at analyzing the political world as well as the religious (given his well studied humanist background), and The Prince, being his most renowned work, still stands today as an in-disposable masterpiece that has stood the test of time.
Machiavelli begins The Prince with a letter to his friend Francesco Vettori, the Florentine Ambassador to the Pope in Rome. It is in this personal letter that the reader learns about Machiavelli’s current lifestyle, living in a small farm town outside of Florence. It is presumed that the two men exchange letters regularly, as Vettori was his confidant to whom he presented his ideas for the usage of this book and to whom he would present it. He writes to Vettori asking his opinion on the matter, after thoroughly explaining how it was that he was able to finish this work, why he was inspired, and what he did daily to ensure that it was an accurate depiction of his own educated and well supported ideals on what decisions any type of ruler should make and u...

... middle of paper ...

... honest, because he believed that it is truth that is the most pure and good, and to riddle his very own masterpiece with euphemisms and indirect expressions would have meant hypocrisy. However, the content about which he is so blatant is very unforgiving and immoral in and of itself — this can be argued. One could assume that Machiavelli’s blatant disregard for morality in the name of honesty meant that he believed in the necessity of evil. He says himself, “...he must stick to the good so long as he can, but, being compelled by necessity, he must be ready to take the way of evil.” (63) This does not mean that Machiavelli was more wrong than the next man; it was the fact that he chose to be open about these unspoken laws of politics. He was brave enough to address them, and even to break some rules as well. Machiavelli revealed all — more than some wanted to know.

Open Document