Niccolò Machiavelli - 'The Prince'

Niccolò Machiavelli

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) was an Italian Renaissance historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer. He has often been called the founder of modern political science.He was for many years a senior official in the Florentine Republic, with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He also wrote comedies, carnival songs, and poetry. His personal correspondence is renowned in the Italian language.Machiavelli is best known for writing The Prince, a handbook for unscrupulous politicians that inspired the term "Machiavellian" and established its author as the "father of modern political theory."

'The Prince'

Though it was initially a dark period for his career, Machiavelli's time away from politics gave him the opportunity to read Roman history and to write political treatises, most notably The Prince. The main theme of this short work about monarchal rule and survival is man's capacity for determining his own destiny in opposition to the power of fate, which has been interpreted as the political philosophy that one may resort to any means in order to establish and preserve total authority. The work has been regarded as a handbook for politicians on the use of ruthless, self-serving cunning, and inspired the term "Machiavellian." While many believe that the book's title character, "the prince," was based upon the infamous Cesare Borgia, some scholars consider it a satire.It must be recognised that The Prince was only a small part of Machiavelli’s literary output. He wrote much more substantial works, such as the Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, the Art of War, a History of Florence, and even some plays, poetry and biographical sketches. In many ways these other works were more representative of Machiavelli’s ideas than The Prince. Secondly, it must be understood that Machiavelli’s work was part of the political and national context of a Florentine Republic that is 500 years distant from twenty-first century liberal democracy. Machiavelli’s era was that of the Medici family, of naked conquest by military force, Machiavelli himself being imprisoned and tortured for his beliefs and associations, something that was not at all unusual in this period of European history. Thirdly, Machiavelli’s political thought cannot be comprehended without an understanding of Machiavelli the man, of his personal motivations and experiences, and of his youthful dreams and his eventual professional disappointments. The key aspect of Machiavelli’s life was the fact that he always desired to occupy political office. In 1498 as a young man of 29, Machiavelli obtained a job as secretary to the Second Chancery in Florence, for which he travelled on diplomatic missions to cities within Italy and courts outside of it. He served in this job for 14 years, meeting politicians and statesmen across Europe (people such as Louis XII, the Emperor Maximilian, Cesare Borgia) and gaining experience of the winding ways of power politics. He also gave advice on military tactics, successfully organising infantry forces in specific Italian campaigns and establishing a Florentine militia. However, Florence eventually came under Papal control and (with Venetian help) the Medici were restored as a ruling family; Machiavelli had always supported the Florentine Republic and hence in 1512 he lost his job. He was then arrested and tortured, but eventually exonerated and released. He never returned to political office again.

The Princeis set against the backdrop of the Italian Renaissance, a period of intense activity in art, science, and literature. Rich, sophisticated, and cultured, Italy was the center of intellectual achievement in the Western world, and scholars and artists from all over Europe flocked to it to absorb its heady atmosphere. Even today, the achievements of Italian artists and thinkers are prized for their beauty and originality. Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci were Machiavelli's contemporaries, and Florence itself, with its famous cathedral, was one of the capitals of Renaissance art.

It was also a period of religious change. The decadence and corruption of the Catholic church, exemplified by the conduct of Pope Alexander VI, brought about a backlash against Catholic authority. In Germany (at that time, the Holy Roman Empire), the Protestant Reformation was gathering strength, led by Martin Luther, the famous German reformer. In politics, as well, change was brewing. The scattered feudal territories of the medieval period were slowly being brought under centralized leadership, so that the outlines of what would become the modern European nations were becoming visible. The modern concept of the state was being born. War was the ruler's most valuable tool in this struggle to create unified nations. The complexities of European politics during this period can—and indeed have—filled large books.

However, because Machiavelli draws so many of his examples in The Princefrom contemporary Italian politics, a brief introduction to the tangled history of foreign involvement in Italy is helpful in gaining an understanding of the book. Italy's increasing humiliation in the face of repeated invasions and duplicity from within was a cause of intense resentment to many Italian thinkers. It is this situation that leads Machiavelli to make his impassioned plea for a strong leader to free Italy from "barbarian" domination in Chapter 26.

Italy was composed of five main political powers: Florence, Milan, Venice, the Papal States (including Rome), and the Kingdom of Naples, far in the southern tip of the Italian peninsula. Naples, in particular, had a vexed history, with powers such as France, Spain, and the popes all laying claim to it on various dynastic pretexts. The period prior to 1494 was relatively peaceful and prosperous, with the various Italian powers generally well balanced against each other.

The events that brought such turmoil to Machiavelli's time were set in motion when Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan, invited French forces into Italy, offering to support French claims to the Kingdom of Naples, and hoping, in return, to conquer territory from the Venetians with the help of French troops. The French king, Charles VIII, invaded in 1494. Though he was driven out less than a year later by an Italian coalition that Sforza himself joined, on his first entry into Italy, Charles met with practically no resistance, a fact that was not lost on other European leaders. Machiavelli makes note of this in Chapter 12, when he mentions that Charles was able to conquer Italy with no more than a piece of chalk.

A few years later, Charles' successor, King Louis XII, also had designs on Italy. Louis claimed that he had a hereditary right to the duchy of Milan through his relation to the Visconti family, who had ruled Milan prior to the Sforza family. Louis' interest in Italian territory coincided with the ambitions of the powerful Borgia family. Pope Alexander VI, born Rodrigo Borgia, wanted to make his son Cesare a force in Italy. To do so, he needed the help of the French armies. Louis, meanwhile, needed favors that only a pope could manage. In order to consolidate his position in France, Louis needed to marry Charles' widow, Anne of Brittany, but could not do so until his marriage to his current wife was annulled. He also wanted one of his advisors, Archbishop Georges d'Amboise, made a cardinal so that he would eventually be a candidate for the papacy. In exchange for these favors, Louis agreed to help Alexander and Cesare conquer the Romagna region and to undertake a campaign against the Kingdom of Naples, which both France and the pope had claims to. Louis was also urged on by the Venetians, who wanted revenge on Sforza and Milan. Louis invaded and captured Milan from Sforza in 1499. Many considered it poetic justice that Sforza had been deprived of his dukedom by the very forces he had first invited into Italy.

However, Louis' hold over Naples was weak. He initially installed a puppet ruler in Naples (his cousin, Frederick of Aragon), but made a secret arrangement to split the kingdom with King Ferdinand of Spain, who also claimed a hereditary right to Naples. Ferdinand quickly reneged on the agreement and drove the French forces out of Naples. Even so, the French still controlled much of Italy. Cesare Borgia may have threatened French power in Italy after his success in the Romagna region, but his father's sudden death left him without resources or influence.

After Alexander VI's successor, Pius III, died after less than a month in office, Cardinal Giuliano dellaRovere became Pope Julius II in 1503. Julius earns several mentions in Machiavelli's narrative. As Machiavelli observes, he was every bit as warlike and ambitious as Alexander, but his goal was always to increase the power of the church, not to aggrandize his own family. Unlike Alexander, he was a good manager of money and resources and exercised restraint in his personal habits. He was also a wily politician.

In the power vacuum left after the collapse of Borgia power, Venice had seized part of the Romagna region, which traditionally belonged to the papacy, and they were also challenging Julius' authority in spiritual matters. In 1508, Julius formed the League of Cambrai, which included France, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire, for the purpose of putting the Venetians back in their place. The Venetian armies were defeated at the battle of Agnadello (which Machiavelli refers to as Vailà) and Venice's conquered territories were lost. Soon after, Julius, who feared the French's hold over Italy, began working to get them out. During this period, Louis had Julius at his mercy on more than one occasion, but never pressed his advantage, a move that Machiavelli criticizes. Julius' efforts culminated in the formation of the Holy League, which included combined forces of the Venetians, the Holy Roman Empire, the Swiss, the English, and the Spanish. Despite a disastrous defeat at the battle of Ravenna, the League ultimately drove out Louis and his armies in 1512, putting him out of power in Italy. Machiavelli alludes to this fact in Chapter 3 of The Prince when he comments that it took the entire world to deprive Louis XII of his Italian conquests.

The Florentines had been longstanding allies of the French. The Soderini government supported Louis up until the bitter end and against all advice, even as the French were pulling out of Italy. Their loyalty left them at the mercy of Pope Julius and his Spanish allies, and this led directly to the fall of the Florentine republic which Machiavelli had served for so many years.

The Princeis an extended analysis of how to acquire and maintain political power. It includes 26 chapters and an opening dedication to Lorenzo de Medici. The dedication declares Machiavelli's intention to discuss in plain language the conduct of great men and the principles of princely government. He does so in hope of pleasing and enlightening the Medici family.

The book's 26 chapters can be divided into four sections: Chapters 1-11 discuss the different types of principalities or states, Chapters 12-14 discuss the different types of armies and the proper conduct of a prince as military leader, Chapters 15-23 discuss the character and behavior of the prince, and Chapters 24-26 discuss Italy's desperate political situation. The final chapter is a plea for the Medici family to supply the prince who will lead Italy out of humiliation.

In chapters 15-23, Machiavelli discusses the following aspects of the character and behaviour of the prince.

Machiavelli recommends the following character and behavior for princes:

1.                  It is better to be stingy than generous.

2.                  It is better to be cruel than merciful.

3.                  It is better to break promises if keeping them would be against one's interests.

4.                  Princes must avoid making themselves hated and despised; the goodwill of the people is a better defense than any fortress.

5.                  Princes should undertake great projects to enhance their reputation.

6.                  Princes should choose wise advisors and avoid flatterers.

CHAPTER-15 (HOW NOT TO BE VIRTUOUS)

Machiavelli turns the discussion from the strength of states and principalities to the correct behavior of the prince. Machiavelli admits that this subject has been treated by others, but he argues that an original set of practical—rather than theoretical—rules is needed. Other philosophers have conceived republics built upon an idealized notion of how men should live rather than how men actually live. But truth strays far from the expectations of imagined ideals. Specifically, men never live every part of their life virtuously. A prince should not concern himself with living virtuously, but rather with acting so as to achieve the most practical benefit.

In general, some personal characteristics will earn men praise, others condemnation. Courage, compassion, faith, craftiness, and generosity number among the qualities that receive praise. Cowardice, cruelty, stubbornness, and miserliness are usually met with condemnation. Ideally, a prince would possess all the qualities deemed “good” by other men. But this expectation is unrealistic. A prince’s first job is to safeguard the state, and harboring “bad” characteristics is sometimes necessary for this end. Such vices are truly evil if they endanger the state, but when vices are employed in the proper interests of the state, a prince must not be influenced by condemnation from other men.

The proper behavior of princes toward subjects and allies remains to be discussed. Many others have treated this subject, but Machiavelli bases his observations on the real world, not on an imagined ideal. There is so much difference between the way people should act and the way they do act that any prince who tries to do what he should will ruin himself. A prince must know when to act immorally. Everyone agrees that a prince should have all good qualities, but because that is impossible, a wise prince will avoid those vices that would destroy his power and not worry about the rest. Some actions that seem virtuous will ruin a prince, while others that seem like vices will make a prince prosper.

In this chapter, Machiavelli introduces the theme that will occupy much of the rest of the book: how princes should act. He announces his intention to turn the reader's expectations upside down by recommending that princes be bad rather than good. He was consciously going against a long tradition of advice books for rulers, the "Mirror for Princes" genre, which predictably recommended that leaders be models of virtue, always upholding the highest moral standards and being honest, trustworthy, generous, and merciful. Machiavelli declares that this is fine if you are an imaginary model prince living in a perfect world, but in the real world, a prince is surrounded by unscrupulous people and must compete with them if he is to survive. To put it in modern terms, he must learn to swim with the sharks. Therefore, the prince must know how to behave badly and to use this knowledge as a tool to maintain his power. Machiavelli recognizes that princes are always in the public eye. Their behavior will affect their public image, and their reputation will affect their ability to keep power. With this in mind, Machiavelli advises that it is fine to avoid vices, but because no one can avoid them all, the prince should be careful to avoid those that will most severely damage his reputation and, therefore, his power. His consciousness of a prince's need to control his public image would not seem out of place in the media age, where public relations experts carefully groom and prepare politicians for public consumption. Apparently flaunting all conventional moral advice, he says that many things that appear good will damage a prince's power, while those that appear bad will enhance it.

The contrast between the imaginary world of virtues and the real world of vices could not be more plain. Now that he has everyone's attention, he proceeds to dissect these so-called virtues in the next three chapters.

CHAPTER 16 (GENEROSITY)

Liberality, or generosity, is a quality that many men admire. But if a prince develops a reputation for generosity, he will ruin his state. A reputation for generosity requires outward lavishness, which eventually depletes all of the prince’s resources. In the end, the prince will be forced to burden his people with excessive taxes in order to raise the money to maintain his reputation for generosity. Ultimately, the prince’s liberality will make the people despise and resent him. Moreover, any prince who attempts to change his reputation for generosity will immediately develop a reputation for being a miser.

A reputation for generosity is thought to be desirable, but developing it can be dangerous. Generosity exercised in truly virtuous ways is never seen by others, so if you want to be thought of as a generous ruler, you must keep up a lavish public display. To support this habit, a prince must raise taxes and squeeze money from his subjects. Generosity of this sort benefits few and harms many. The prince's subjects will hate him, and no one will respect him because he is poor. Therefore, a wise prince will not mind being called a miser, because stinginess is a vice that allows him to reign. If a prince is giving away other people's property, he can afford to be generous, but if he is giving away his own resources, he will become grasping and hated or poor and despised.

A parsimonious, or ungenerous, prince may be perceived as miserly in the beginning, but he will eventually earn a reputation for generosity. A prince who is thrifty and frugal will eventually have enough funds to defend against aggression and fund projects without having to tax the people unduly.

In history, the actions of Pope Julius II, the present king of France, and the present king of Spain all support the view that parsimony enables the prince to accomplish great things. Some might argue that successful leaders have come to power and sustained their rule by virtue of their generosity, such as Caesar. But if Caesar had not been killed, he would have found that maintaining his rule required moderating his spending.

In sum, generosity is self-defeating. Generosity uses up resources and prevents further generosity. While parsimony might lead to ignominy, generosity will eventually lead to hatred.

After teasing the reader with shocking revelations in Chapter 15, Machiavelli comes away sounding thoroughly conservative in this chapter, discussing the supposed virtue of generosity. His focus is on the appearance of generosity and what one must do to develop one's public image. True generosity, he notes, would not get a prince a reputation for being generous, because no one would see it. This is an important distinction. Machiavelli does not say that true generosity is bad. What concerns him is the kind of forced display that a prince must put on to develop a public image as a generous man. Supporting lavish displays eventually makes a prince poor, forcing him to exploit his subjects' resources. This does real harm to everyone, including the prince. Thus the supposed virtue is no virtue at all.

He does qualify this observation by saying that new princes who are trying to gain power must be seen to be generous, but after they have power, they should immediately curtail their spending. He offers good examples: Both Louis XII of France and Ferdinand of Spain were noted for their thrifty habits, and both were energetic conquerors. On the subject of conquerors, Machiavelli makes the interesting observation that because armies live off looting and extortion, a leader of armies had better be generous or his soldiers may decide to leave. According to Machiavelli, this is desirable, because the property involved is not the prince's or his subjects', and therefore the integrity of the state is not harmed.

CHAPTER-18 (PRINCES NEED NOT HONOUR THEIR WORD)

Machiavelli acknowledges that a prince who honors his word is generally praised by others. But historical experience demonstrates that princes achieve the most success when they are crafty, cunning, and able to trick others. There are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. Laws come naturally to men, force comes naturally to beasts. In order to succeed, the prince must learn how to fight both with laws and with force—he must become half man and half beast.

When a prince uses force, he acts like a beast. He must learn to act like two types of beasts: lions and foxes. A fox is defenseless against wolves; a lion is defenseless against traps. A prince must learn to act like both the fox and the lion: he must learn, like the fox, how to frighten off wolves and, like the lion, how to recognize the traps. In dealing with people, a prince must break his promises when they put him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made the promises no longer exist. In any case, promises are never something on which a prince can rely, since men are by nature wretched and deceitful. A prince should be a master of deception.

However, a prince must be careful to exude a virtuous aura that belies his deceitful mind. Pope Alexander VI was one ruler who excelled at this art. A prince should present the appearance of being a compassionate, trustworthy, kind, guileless, and pious ruler. Of course, actually possessing all these virtues is neither possible nor desirable. But so long as a prince appears to act virtuously, most men will believe in his virtue. If the populace believes the prince to be virtuous, it will be easier for him to maintain his state. Moreover, men will judge their prince solely on appearance and results. Thus, it doesn’t matter to the people that a prince may occasionally employ evil to achieve his goal. So long as a prince appears virtuous and is successful in running the state, he will be regarded as virtuous.

 Everyone knows that princes should keep their word, but we see that the princes who have accomplished the most have been accomplished at deception. A prince may fight with laws, which is the way of human beings, or with force, which is the way of animals. A prince should imitate the fox in cunning as well as the lion in strength. A wise prince should never keep his word when it would go against his interest, because he can expect others to do the same. In order to pull it off, you must be a good liar, but you will always find people willing to be deceived.

To sum it up, it is useful to seem to be virtuous, but you must be ready to act the opposite way if the situation requires it. A prince should do good if he can, but be ready to do evil if he must. Yet a prince must be careful to always act in a way that appears virtuous, for many can see you, but few know how you really are. If a ruler conquers and maintains his state, everyone will praise him, judging his actions by their outcome.

This chapter concludes Machiavelli's discussion of the qualities a prince should display. Keeping his feet firmly in the real world, as he promised, he begins by stating that even though everyone assumes princes should keep their word, experience shows that those who do not keep their word get the better of those who do. This is Machiavelli's justification for deceit: Because you can expect other princes not to honor their word to you, you should not feel obligated to honor your word to them. Sebastian de Grazia, writing about this chapter, refers to Machiavelli's precept as the "Un-Golden Rule"—do unto others as you can expect they will do unto you. In this bestial world, princes must act like beasts, imitating the clever fox, instead of relying only on strength, as does the lion. In a world full of deceivers, there must also be someone to deceive, and Machiavelli finds that there are plenty of people willing to overlook all kinds of deceit as long as their state is peaceful and prosperous.

The prince's control of his public image gets special attention in this chapter. A prince must always appear to be truthful, merciful, and religious, even if he must sometimes act in the opposite way. Interestingly, these are the very same qualities he condemns Agathocles for lacking in Chapter 8, but here, he advises the prince to dispense with them when necessary. But the great mass of people will never see the prince as he really is; they will see only the image he projects. The few insiders who know the prince's true nature will do nothing to harm him as long as the people support him, and the people will support him as long as he has been successful. Here, Machiavelli sounds remarkably like a modern spin doctor advising a politician on how to get good press.

CHAPTER-25 (ON FORTUNE)

Many people believe that fortune controls everything, so that there is no use in trying to act, but fortune controls only half of one's actions, leaving free will to control the other half. Fortune can be compared to a river that floods, destroying everything in its way. But when the weather is good, people can prepare dams and dikes to control the flood. If Italy had such preparations, she would not have suffered so much in the present floods.

Princes are successful one day and ruined the next, with no change in their natures. Two men may use the same method, but only one succeeds; and two men may use different methods, but reach the same goal, all because the circumstances do or do not suit their actions. If a man is successful by acting one way and the circumstances change, he will fail if he does not change his methods. But men are never flexible enough to change, either because their natures will not let them or because they become accustomed to a certain behavior bringing success.

It is better to be bold than timid and cautious, because fortune is a woman, and the man who wants to control her must treat her roughly.

Although it is often thought that fortune controls human affairs, fortune controls only half of one’s actions, while free will determines the other half. Fortune is like a flooding river: it is only dangerous when men have not built dykes against it beforehand. Italy has not built dykes, and as a result it has experienced tumultuous upheaval. Germany, Spain, and France have taken better care and have reaped the benefits of stability.

As fortune varies, one man may succeed and another fail, even if they both follow the same path. Times and circumstances change, so a prince must adjust to them in order to remain successful; however, men tend to stay on the course that has brought them success in the past. Circumstances allowed Julius II to act impetuously, but if he had lived longer, he would have been ruined when circumstances changed. On the whole, however, impetuosity surpasses caution. Fortune favors energetic youth over cautious age.

This chapter is perhaps the most pivotal in The Prince, because Machiavelli discusses the relationship of action and fortune in determining the prince's success. Machiavelli uses fortune (fortuna) in at least two senses. In Chapters 7 and 8, Machiavelli contrasts virtùwith fortune in the sense of luck or the favor of powerful people. In those chapters, the contrast is between what the prince can control (his own actions) and what he cannot control (the favor of others). In this chapter, fortune refers more to prevailing circumstances and events, which are still things that the prince cannot directly control. Rather than taking the fatalistic view that all events are controlled by destiny and that it is useless to work toward a particular outcome, Machiavelli gives fortune control over only half of human actions, letting free will influence the rest. If free will did not operate, all of a prince's virtù would be for nothing.

Yet Machiavelli struggles with the problem of why one person succeeds and another fails, even though they have employed the same methods, or why totally different methods can arrive at the same outcome. To explain this, he proposes that success comes whenvirtù is suited to the particular situation a prince finds himself in. Machiavelli envisions fortune as a set of constantly changing circumstances in which particular actions can bring about success or failure. To describe it, he uses one of his few extended metaphors, making fortune a force of nature, like a river that seems uncontrollable, yet can be tamed and directed by human activity. If the Italian princes had made suitable preparations, the "flood" of foreign invasions would not have swept over the open and unprotected country.

Having affirmed the value of free will, Machiavelli limits it by asserting that even though it may be possible to vary one's actions to suit the times, no one ever does. Machiavelli implies that this is because virtùis an inherent, natural quality that the prince cannot change. People act according to their character and cannot change their natures. This line of reasoning brings Machiavelli back to the pessimistic fatalism he rejected at the beginning of the chapter. If a prince cannot change his nature, success depends simply on being lucky enough to have a character suited to the times he lives in.

Fortune was frequently personified in Renaissance art and literature as Fortuna, a female figure who held a turning wheel to symbolize her constant state of change. Fortuna's fickleness is her greatest trait; no sooner are you at the top of her wheel than it turns, and you end up at the bottom. Drawing on this symbolism, Machiavelli closes the chapter by saying that a man who wants to subdue fortune must treat her like the woman she is, and approach her with boldness and roughness. While Machiavelli's metaphor may be offensive to some modern readers, it would not have been shocking in its own day. Even in modern times, the saying "fortune favors the bold" can still be heard.

thanks for reading it.