Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513, in order to ingratiate himself with the ruling Medici family in Florence; but it wasn't published until 1532, about five years after his death.  Prior to the Medici reconquest of Florence, Machiavelli had been active in the government of Pier Sardini, and had achieved the zenith of his power in that government when he successfully helped to bring about the fall of Pisa to Florentine forces in 1509.  But by 1512 Machiavelli's fortunes had changed and just weeks after the return of the Medici to power in Florence, he was forced into exile.  It was during this exile that he wrote The Prince with the hope that the book would persuade the Medici to end his exile and reinstate him to to his former position, or even some lesser post, in the government.  His hopes went unfulfilled.  In a letter dated 10 December 1513, Machiavelli gives an excellent summary of the book's purpose, and that it was meant to explain ". . . what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they are won, how they are maintained, and why they are lost" [page 5].

          In The Prince Machiavelli identifies two main forms of government, republics and principalities, but he makes clear from the start that he only intends to examine principalities.  Principalities are divided into four different kinds:  hereditary, where a family dynasty rules; mixed, where a prince acquires new territories through conquest; new, which include lands gained through one's own effort or acquired with the aid of others; and ecclesiastical, which are those lands governed by Church authorities.  The maintenance of power requires strong armies and good laws.  It is preferable that one's armies be composed of citizens of the state because in this way they have a vested interest in the success of the military campaigns.  A prince must also have a proper balance between virtue and vice.  If he is too virtuous, he will most likely fall from power because he will be perceived as weak, but if his vices are too many, he then runs the risk of being hated and overthrown.  The pursuit of virtue alone on the part of a ruler does not guarantee success, and in fact it may lead to ruin; while conversely the quest for something that appears to be immoral may secure prosperity.  

          There are several strong points in Machiavelli's book, though to modern individuals few of his ideas will be seen as good from a moral point of view, but one must be careful when studying history not to fall into presentism.  That said, in The Prince Machiavelli presents a very realistic view of human nature.  He makes it a point to emphasize the fact that human beings are not angels, and that it is normal for them to act in self interest, and - of course - this is not a new insight, but Machiavelli's application of this idea to the running of the state was a novelty at the time.  He was looking for a ruler who could unite the Italian people in order to turn them into a nation, and he was not averse to using any and all means as his disposal, to throw out those he viewed the invaders, whom he calls "the barbarians" [page  87].  He presents a political treatise that is not centered on theory, but is instead focused upon practice.  He does not talk about a fictional ideal state (e.g., as St. Thomas More did); instead, he talks about the real world.  The Prince is a realist's account of the political situation as it actually existed in the early 16th century on the Italian peninsula.

          Another of the strong points in Machiavelli's book concern his views on how to control recently acquired territories.  In order to control newly conquered lands, a prince must live there himself, or even better he should establish colonies within the new area.  The English followed this principle in the New World, while Portugal did not.  The Portuguese lost their empire because they had few settlements, and even where they did settle they remained foreigners among the indigenous peoples.  The English maintained their empire in the Americas longer because they established colonies which owed allegiance to the British King.  But weakness can still occur when the interests of the colonists diverge from that of the mother country, as happened in the case of the 13 American colonies.  The other option is the complete annihilation of the conquered people.  The example he gives in this case concerns the total destruction of Carthage by Rome, and in Machiavelli's view this is the most secure means for ensuring stability.

          The next element he addressed in his book has both good and bad properties.  Machiavelli holds that a prince must not be hated by his subjects, but that he should be feared.  Above all a prince must avoid seizing men's property, and must not be seen as disparaging or insulting toward women.  If he avoids these things, he ". . . will encounter no risk at all from other vices" [page 64].  He can be cruel or devious, but he must shy away from any vices which would threaten his continuing control of the state.  Machiavelli is advocating that a prince mix of both virtue and vice in his acts of governance, but he gives the greater weight to vice.  According to Machiavelli, the state may do anything so long as it preserves order, but this is contrary to the moral principle that the ends do not justify the means.  Nevertheless, Machiavellis is unconcerned by this moral dilemma, because for Machiavelli a prince must be severe, and indifferent to the charge that he is cruel, since cruelty will help him to maintain power.  He must be feared, but he must not be hated, and so he must protect the property rights of his citizens, and if he does that he will remain in power.  But should he confiscate a man's property, he will threaten his own rule because ". . . men are quicker to forget the death of a father than the lost of a patrimony" [page 60].

          The amoral attitude of Machiavelli in The Prince is hard to accept for a modern reader, but this same attitude can be seen in the way many corporations do business in today.  One can do any number of horrible things and justify them under the cloak of the greater good.  An example of this can be seen today in the case of the Philip Morris Corporation and its activities in eastern Europe.  The governments in Eastern European are concerned about the cost of health care for smokers, but Philip Morris has answered this concern by pointing out that the governments make money on the taxes associated with the sale of cigarettes; and moreover, that smokers will die prematurely, thus saving money on retirement programs and care for the elderly. [1]

          The darker side of Machiavelli's thought can also be seen in his support of absolutism.  It is ironic that he would support the concept of an absolutist prince, when he himself was an advocate of republican government.  The fact that he extols the actions of a man like Cesare Borgia, who in order to remain in power killed all those who could threaten his rule, and who intrigued to gain influence with the College of Cardinals, with the aim of controlling the papal election, and by consolidating other realms into his principality, shows that Machiavelli had succumbed to the desire for a unified Italy at any price.  Alas, a dream he did not see fulfilled.  The fact that Machiavelli saw the vile Cesare Borgia as an the example of a great prince is lamentable.  After all, Borgia was a man who had his vicar in Romagna, Remirro de Orca, cut in two and displayed in public, which can hardly be seen as an example of a "great prince."  It must be pointed out that Remirro de Orca, as corrupt as he was, had only done exactly what Cesare Borgia wanted, and yet he ended up being Borgia's scapegoat.

          As Vincent Cronin in his article on Machiavelli indicates, one cannot judge the man's views by modern standards, because he is a product of the time in which he lived.  The final chapter of The Prince supports this view, because it is clear that Machiavelli wanted the unification of Italy and its independence from foreign rule.  So, one cannot understand the him or his views accurately without taking that fact into account.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Niccolo Machiavelli.  The Prince – with Selections from the Discourses.  (New York:  Bantam Books, 1981).

Translated by Daniel Donno.

Book Review:  The Prince by Machiavelli

by Steven Todd Kaster

Diablo Valley College

History 141:   History of Western Civilization since the Renaissance

Prof. Manuel Gonzales

19 July 2001

_____________________________________

End Notes:

[1]  "Smokers' Deaths save Taxpayers Money."  Associated Press/MSNBC.  July 17, 2001.

      http://www.msnbc.com/news/601573.asp#BODY

Copyright © 2001-2025 Steven Todd Kaster