The Prince Controversy

1883 Words4 Pages

Possibly the most controversial book ever written, The Prince by Machiavelli, focuses on how a Prince or leader should rule. Many of the techniques that are stated in the text have caused many debates ever since it’s publication. When Machiavelli composed the Prince, his contemporaries were shocked at the ideas and themes presented. The Prince introduced a whole new way of thinking that was almost completely contrary to present beliefs. For that reason, in 1559 the Pope banned the printing of the Prince and the rest of Machiavelli’s writings. What makes the Prince so controversial? The ideas presented in the book, such as the end justifies the means, makes it so controversial. Machiavelli’s influence can be seen through out history and literature. …show more content…

First, Machiavelli argues in The Prince that there are only two kinds of states, republics and principalities. Machiavelli does not speak about republics but instead he dedicated the Prince to principalities. He divides principalities into two categories: hereditary and new. Hereditary principalities are the current state which the prince rules. Machiavelli states that hereditary states are easier to control and maintain because the people are accustom to prince’s rule. Machiavelli stated “..., if the prince is reasonably assiduous he will always maintain his rule, unless some extraordinary and inordinate force deprives him of it; and if so deprived, whenever the usurper suffers a setback he will reconquer.” 1 Here Machiavelli proclaims that the natural prince will have the peoples support as long as the princes ambitions are moderate. Machiavelli also states that the natural prince will have less reason to cause the people to hate, when he states “ The fact is that the natural prince has less reason and less need to give offence; and so it follows that he should be more loved; ” 1 Now Machiavelli shifts his focus toward new states. Machiavelli states that new principalities are far more difficult to sustain than hereditary principalities for many reasons. Machiavelli claims that conquering new states is the most dangerous and difficult mission a …show more content…

Therefore, a ideal leader would control every aspect of the state. Such a leader would put in effect policies that would benefit his self interests such as, gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Also, it states that a leader should not allow morality and virtues to get in the way of leading. Machiavelli believes that moral and virtue are merely products of the imagination and should be discarded. It even states that a man who desires to act virtuously in every way will come to grief among those who are not virtuous. Additionally, The Prince states that secular forms of government are more realistic than pious ones because a pious government would be bound by morals. In the Prince, Machiavelli tries to convey that the end justifies the means, which means any thing goes. He claims that it would be ideal for a prince to possess all the qualities that are deemed good by other men, but states that no leader can accomplish that. He also states that the security of the state should be the prince’s first priority and it must be protected by any means necessary. Although, this can be true in certain cases, Machiavelli uses it as an excuse to use evil and cruel tactics.Machiavelli also teaches that a leader should be ready to change character at any given time. Therefore, a leader does not have to keep his word, but can change it depending on the circumstances. This

Open Document