The Prince, published in 1532, was written by a former Italian senior official Niccolo Machiavelli to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the governor of Florence, in the hopes that Lorenzo would take his advice to heart, and invite him back to public service. Seeing as Lorenzo died in 1519, and The Prince was published 5 years after Machiavelli’s death during the 1530’s, it is doubtful that the titular Prince ever saw this piece of work. It is a great question of history, though, how the politics of Italy would have changed if Lorenzo had seen and followed Machiavelli’s advice. Assuming Machiavelli was trying to provide purely good advice for the Prince, does he succeed? Or does he fail? That is what will be discussed today. As one makes their way throughout …show more content…
In fact, much of The Prince is devoted to describing to Lorenzo what it means to conduct a successful war. Whole chapters are dedicated to the different kinds of militia (as discussed before in chapter 12), how to fortify a city, (chapter 20), how to avoid being despised and hated from within your own state, (chapter 19), and the duties of a prince in the militia, (chapter 14). Does Machiavelli’s hawkish viewpoint lend itself well to Lorenzo? I believe yes, but mainly in the context of the time. As one reads the book, it is apparent that Machiavelli has a vast amount of historical knowledge, and recites it to us whenever necessary. Within chapter 14: The Duties of a Prince with Regard to the Militia alone, Machiavelli gives the Prince provides several examples of why a prince should “have no other aim or thought...but war and its organization and discipline,” (page 60). He talks about Francesco Sforza of Milan, Philopoemen of Achaei, and Alexander the Great. It is apparent that Machiavelli knows his history and historical cycles, and through his own public service, how to get things done. In addition to this, at the time Machiavelli was writing, when cities all throughout Italy were constantly being threatened by outside states and civilizations, and the land had recently gone through an extreme power exchange, the mindset of militarization was one …show more content…
From our notes in class, it was stated that a prince must have two fears- one internal as regards his subjects, and one external as regards foreign powers. If a prince does not make his intentions clear from the beginning and starts to become cruel from his previous stance of being merciful, his subjects might become a fear to him. A prince can defend himself with good arms (as I discussed earlier in this essay), but it will not matter if he does not have good friends. Therefore, I believe that Machiavelli’s contrasting advice to The Prince on mercy and cruelty
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
Niccolò Machiavelli was known during much his life as a part of the republican government in Florence until 1512. At that time, the Medici family took over the city and ruled under a more monarchical system. From that point until his death in 1527, Machiavelli was always just on the outside of Florentine politics. He would occasionally get work from the Medici but his tasks were never as important as they had been under the republican government of the past. As he was trying to find his way back into a major role in Florentine government, Machiavelli wrote The Prince, a manual of sorts that explained how a monarch should rule his state and why. While Machiavelli had been a strong proponent of republican ideals in the past, in The Prince, his ideas are far from adhering to republicanism. The book seems to promote the ideal monarch as a cold, heartless person whose only goal in life should be to retain power, regardless of who or what he destroys. This includes killing enemies of the state, personal enemies of the Prince, and even, in some cases, friends or family. While The Prince was not the first book of this kind, it was the first to suggest a government that rules with no regard for religion or morality. Machiavelli did not particularly pay heed to religious law in the way he lived his life, but he also did not particularly care for the Catholic Church of the time because of the lack of morality demonstrated by the Pope's and other supposedly "religious men's" actions at the time. There are other works that Machiavelli wrote both before and after The Prince that survive today, as well as letters he wrote to his friends that demonstrate a different set of ideals than th...
Gauss, Christian. Introduction. The Prince. By Niccolo Machiavelli. Trans. Luigi Ricci, revised by E.R.P. Vincent. New York: Signet Classic, 1999:7-32
In fact, Machiavelli’s morals are as questionable as those of Ferdinand II. Because Machiavelli believed that “it [was] unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities [he had] enumerated, but it [was] very necessary to appear to have them” (62), Ferdinand II seemed to be an excellent example of the advice given in the book. However, Machiavelli fails to see that Ferdinand II’s actions opposed one of his primary beliefs. Machiavelli specified that princes did not have to avoid cruelty and dishonesty if and only if their actions benefited the state, and that a prince must consider every action he took based on its effect on his country. As previously stated, Ferdinand II’s actions exclusively benefited himself. Considering the fact that this was a principal theme throughout Machiavelli’s book, why he saw Ferdinand II as such a “great and extraordinary” ruler is baffling. His love of the king is as hypocritical as the King’s character. There is a strong possibility that Machiavelli had a bias towards Ferdinand, considering he was the ruler when he wrote The Prince, and Machiavelli did not see his rule’s final outcome. This presents the question of how Machiavelli’s partiality affects his credibility. Provided he did, in fact, have that bias, what does that say about the rest of his work? Since Machiavelli did not have a neutral stance on politics, he may have steered Prince De’ Medici and all other political leaders who read The Prince in the direction of his own opinions, thus singlehandedly shaping history into his
The fourteenth century was an exciting time in Italy. Liberation from old traditions brought about a new interest in the arts and literature. The church's doctrine was no longer the sole basis of scholarly work. New ideas and concepts started to emerge which were unlike anything heard since the fall of Rome. Amongst the great thinkers of this time was a man by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli. (C4. and Wood, p.510) His most famous work was entitled, The Prince. The book is a compilation of historical examples past and present ( present being the sixteenth century), that were intended to guide a prince on the correct way to control his state. It advocated the use of any means necessary to survive in the political world, even if they were not particularly pleasant. (Strathern, p.6)
Much of why Machiavelli wrote The Prince was to advise rulers of hereditary principalities, or principalities gained through birthright. This is something that doesn’t apply to those involved in politics in the modern day, especially those of the United States. Machiavelli states in Chapter II of The Prince regarding Hereditary Principalities that “Hereditary states accustomed to the family of their ruler are more easily kept than new ones, because it is sufficient if the prince does not abandon the methods of his ancestors and proves adaptable when unforeseen events occur.” Although the leaders and politicians of the United States must adapt to many unforeseen events, we elect our leaders unlike the leaders referred to by Machiavelli in The Prince. In Chapter XI of The Prince, Machiavelli discusses Ecclesiastical Principalities, or those ruled by the Catholic Church. This is another thing that doesn’t exist within the United States, although there exists a large emphasis on religion, never has the United States been controlled by the church or the pope. Machiavelli goes on to explain the way in which the church obtained such power and explains the military use under Popes Alexander VI and Julius
Team C believes that Machiavelli’s principal idea is demonstrated in politics, “the ends justify the means”. If a leader is vicious and effective it is better than being virtuous and ineffective. Machiavelli, however did not endorse vicious behavior in general, just whatever would not “allow disorders to arise”. To remain in power, a leader must avoid the hatred of his people. It is not necessary for a leader to be loved; in fact, it is often better for him to be feared. The author states, “It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be lacking” (p. 103). Machiavelli warns leaders against doing things that might result in hatred, such as the confiscation of property. Being hated, however, can result the downfall of a prince.
Machiavelli's writings dealt with many issues that had not been attacked in his time, and utilized his distinct brand of political philosophy to try and change the politics and government that shaped his era. The Prince, regarded as his most controversial and successful work, spelled out a method of amelioration; whether positive or negative, virtuous or severe, a prince was to uphold the strength of a nation and a government. The next few pages will take a closer look at the life that has followed Niccolo Machiavelli, the use of historical allusions and the explicitness used in The Prince.
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
Machiavelli's life was very interesting. He lived a nondescript childhood in Florence, and his main political experience in his youth was watching Savanarola from afar. Soon after Savanarola was executed, Machiavelli entered the Florentine government as a secretary. His position quickly rose, however, and was soon engaging in diplomatic missions. He met many of the important politicians of the day, such as the Pope and the King of France, but none had more impact on him than a prince of the Papal States, Cesare Borgia. Borgia was a cunning, cruel man, very much like the one portrayed in The Prince. Machiavelli did not truly like Borgia's policies, but he thought that with a ruler like Borgia the Florentines could unite Italy, which was Machiavelli's goal throughout his life. Unfortunately for Machiavelli, he was dismissed from office when the Medici came to rule Florence and the Republic was overthrown. The lack of a job forced him to switch to writing about politics instead of being active. His diplomatic missions were his last official government positions.
In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern
In The Prince he writes to a ruler about how to keep power and that word – Prince – is used on purpose as a representation of a political system. The Discourses is a little less about power and a little more about behavior in politics and more of Machiavelli’s ideas’ themselves are talked about. This is where one of his most famous quotes comes from: “It is best to be both feared and loved. But if you have to choose between the two, it is better to be feared than loved.” This is a pretty good generalization in one sentence of his overall ideas on politics. He didn’t care about how things SHOULD work, he focused on how to be successful with how things DID work. He was a
In chapter 14, he discusses that the only thing a prince should think about was the art of war. In chapter 16 he explains the virtues and vices on whether or not to be generous or cruel. Last in the chapter 19, he discusses that main topic throughout the reading, which was that it was important for a prince to not be hated by his people. The main interpretation that I agree with overall would have to be chapter 16, because Machiavelli makes an important statement. Although being generous is morally right, being mean can also serve its purpose in protecting the people. Machiavelli advices throughout the reading could have been ethical or unethical to anyone, because of the fact that everyone thinks
Although Machiavelli gives numerous points on what it takes to excel as a prince, he also shows some raw examples of how he feels a prince should act in order to achieve maximum supremacy. First, when he says, "ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern" proves Machiavelli feels mighty adamant about his view that being mean will help a prince achieve success (332). It is absurd to imagine the meanest prince as the most successful. Also, when Machiavelli states, "our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft" revealing his attitude to manipulate people into fearing and respecting the prince (335). Also, Machiavelli shows that for a prince to be successful, he must not think about good faith.
During the period of Medici’s ruling, politics and government was corrupted. In order to stop it, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince, stating the qualities for a successful ruler, to convince the Medici Family to start ruling Florence appropriately. He used his knowledge to deceive the Medici family in hope that the end justifies the means. Besides the main purpose of The Prince, Felix Gilbert claims Machiavelli was also signifying crucial insight to how the prince should act due to the fact that we live in an imperfect world, where politics is a science, and in order to keep society alive the prince must preserve his state and power.