Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)

A fascinating piece of literature that's telling of both its time and its place but also conceivably of all times and all places as it discusses one of the most fundamental aspects of the human condition, that being of the need for leaders of the people and the need for said leaders to rely on certain precepts and truths to maintain their leadership.

What Machiavelli does is strip away the romanticism and the idealism behind those men and women who lead and gets down to the basest and most show more inelegant brass tacks of gaining and holding control over an empire in its nascent stages, its turbulent middle years, or even in its decline, and though this treatise predates the beginnings of realpolitik by 340 some odd years I couldn't help but see, at the very least, the germs and the basic genesis of those ideas being discussed here.

I've read that The Prince is similar to Dante's Divine Commedia in its use of the, at the time, vernacular Italian, not to mention its use of then contemporary Italian politicians and religious figures (the roles oftentimes bleeding into one another as was characteristic of the era and the various city states) to illustrate its various points and to give it a much more poignant sense of immediacy. But what got me most of all regarding how this work was stylized was the tone, at least in my translation, which read at times almost like a pre-unified Italy gossip rag. Don't get me wrong this oddly enough doesn't detract from the text at all. Far from it, it actually humanizes Machiavelli and grounds his points as coming from a very human mind and makes his overall discussion much more telling and insightful. Basically, Machiavelli, to me, isn't making this stuff up. He's come to some divisive but very well grounded conclusions about what leadership is versus how it's depicted. Is he always right? He himself admits that exceptions exist and that even with the lockstep of his ideas there exists the potential for flexibility, so, even when he's wrong it doesn't tear his argument(s) down.

Though I definitely wasn't knowledgeable of the lion's share of the Italian history I was never bored and Machiavelli's knowledge of several different nations histories(Italian, Roman, Greek, Persian, the list is very long) was especially gripping and handled like a real writer with not only an agenda based ax to grind but a definite flair for the theatrical. Speaking of theater, there is also an idea long discussed that The Prince is at heart a satire. Maybe I'm picking up a few loose threads here and there of the comedy but I definitely do see some funny scenes played out here. I don't think it's a satire so much as a treatise on human failings and the comedy of trying to control the uncontrollable, that no matter how hard you try, what method you use, and who you choose to emulate, you can still get screwed over...the comedy is no better exemplified then when Machiavelli compares fortune to woman that needs to be 'rode roughly' and controlled tightly. Whether intended or not, that's just damn funny.

All in all it's a great read and definitely worth the little time to get through it. It's not only an incredible historical piece but the points laid down are, if not applicable depending on your mindset and where you stand on the idealism vs. cynicism scale, incredible samples of food for thought and debate. show less

You’ve witnessed it too, or something similar: Your city’s NFL team has a 13-point lead at home with six minutes to go, plus 1st down and possession—should be a sure win, right?—but then they turn over victory to the opponent, losing the game in regulation.

It’s stuff like this that Machiavelli just hated. Except that, with Renaissance Italy bedeviled by an absence of NFL teams even the passage of five centuries hasn’t repaired, his annoyance was with princes whose misadventures show more cause them to blow it when trying to keep power.

Machiavelli’s advice? Be prepared to flout fairness. That competitors and coaches should overreach the rules makes sense. It’s impossible to be penalized for an infraction each time. And once the game is over, no NFL victory is ever overturned, no defeat nullified, no team put on probation. So why would a Head Coach repudiate advices given in The Prince?

Well, he might repudiate them if he doesn’t mind increasing the risk of losing his head (isn’t that what happens when the head coach is axed?). Otherwise . . .

Going beyond the morality of winning at games, there is a fundamental question: Is it virtuous to speak the truth and keep promises? Machiavelli teaches, the editor of my edition advises, that the real or true standard is that no one should keep a promise when by doing so he would diminish his own power and when the conditions which occasioned the promise are gone.

That’s troubling. But also brilliant at unveiling much of what is disappointing in political action and discourse to idealistic or more hopeful people. Word is such persons may find a less alienating brand of political thought in Niccoló’s The Discourses.

Note on Translation: The Editor of the edition I read, Angelo M. Codevilla, stresses that he made his translation more literal than is the custom to better illustrate how Machiavelli uses language to subvert commonplace ideas about virtue. This seems a good objective but the translation is no easy text—I would not want to read one that’s even a little bit less welcoming. show less

I have read this several times over the last twenty years, in the Basic Program and with an independent study group. That it is still relevant and worth rereading is because it is considered by most to be the authoritative text on statesmanship and power (how to obtain it as well as an illustration of its trappings), although certainly a shrewd one.
From this arises an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared. I reply that one should like to be both one and the other; but since show more it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking.
Machiavelli wrote this book while banished to a country villa when out of favor. Part of The Prince’s appeal to readers over the years has been that it focused on facts; it did not touch on moral issues. Machiavelli works with what kinds of principalities there are; how they can be won, preserved, and lost; and what qualities the prince must have to be successful. He does not discuss moral issues pertaining to the existence of one-man rule, or the forceful acquisition of power. He separates the moral issues from the other issues, creating a science out of politics. The result of his work is a practical textbook on how to rule.
Essentially, Machiavelli advocates letting your people have their property and women, but making sure that they know what you are capable of doing if they step out of line. His seemingly amoral approach lends a modern realistic touch to this masterpiece that shows how little humanity has changed over the centuries. show less

“This is why armed prophets always win and unarmed prophets lose”

“A prince therefore should have no other object, no other thought, no other subject of study, than war; its rules and disciplines”

“It is good to appear merciful, truthful, humane, sincere and religious, it is good to be so in reality, But you must keep your mind so disposed that in case of need you can turn to the exact contrary”

“If you have to make a choice; to be feared is much safer than to be loved. For it is show more a good general rule about men; that they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain.”

These quotes from Machiavelli’s The Prince are one of the reasons he has received such a bad press, however most successful politicians and all ruling tyrants would wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments. This is a clue I think to why when we read Machiavelli today we still find him disturbing, it is as though he has lifted a stone to let us peer beneath and our only concern is to replace the stone as quickly as possible.

Machiavelli was concerned to give technical advice to a Prince (and for Prince we can substitute any ruler including republicans) on how he should retain power and rule his subjects. Some of this advice has become notorious, for instance; one must employ terrorism or kindness according to the situation faced, it is best to keep people poor and always prepared for war, competition between classes in society is desirable because it promotes energy and enterprise, religion must be promoted even though it may be false as it preserves social solidarity, if your actions must be drastic get it over with quickly so that it is soon forgotten and do not advertise it beforehand or your enemies might destroy you, ensure that you extinguish the line of any previous rulers. There are plenty more gems like this but Machiavelli was not out to promote wickedness, he was concerned with writing a treatise that would appear real, practical and useful to its recipient. He says:in a note to the magnificent Lorenzo de Medici:

“I wanted my book to be absolutely plain, or at least distinguished only by the variety of the examples and the importance of the subject”

To understand Machiavelli it is useful to know more about the circumstances of his composition of “The Prince”

Machiavelli served for 15 years in public service to the republican rulers (committee of ten) in Florence. He carried out many diplomatic duties, some of which involved negotiations with the infamous Cesare Borgia. (whom he admired). The Florentine state had no regular army and had to rely on mercenaries and at that time both France and Spain were pushing to annexe territory in Italy. The Florentines survived by diplomacy and skills as merchants, but Machiavelli realised this was not enough and put together his own army. His worst fears were confirmed when the Florentine army was easily routed by Spanish regulars who restored the Medici as the ruling faction in Florence. Machiavelli was imprisoned and tortured but finally allowed to retire to the countryside with the proviso that he should take no further part in politics. He therefore had a wealth of experience as a politician in renaissance Italy, which was a time when force prevailed and murder and war were common place. Machiavelli lived for his public life and almost in desperation penned The Prince in 1513, which he planned to give to Lorenzo Duke of Urbino, as a way back into public life. He was therefore intent on writing a guide for rulers, ones who were steeped in the practicalities of surviving in turbulent times and who were not interested in idealism or dogma. As far as we know he never got his treatise presented to Lorenzo and manuscript copies leaked out, with a bowdlerised copy printed just four years before Machiavelli’s death in 1523.

The Prince takes just 68 pages to say what it has to say, but ever since its publication it has proved to hold a fascination for political thinkers and philosophers, much has been written about it and |I am sure that Machiavelli would be flattered by the attention it has received, but what makes it so worthy of our attention apart from the obvious fact that it is an important social document. Isaiah Berlin thinks he has the answer in his essay “The Question of Machiavelli” included here in The Norton Critical Edition. Machiavelli’s huge step forward was to deny that morality (Christian Morality) had a place in politics. He did not deny the validity of Christian morality but said that if you wanted to bring morality into politics you would be destroyed. In politics crimes might have to be committed it did not make them right, but all the same they were necessary for the greater good (of the ruler certainly). If you wanted to follow a moral code then stay out of politics and take the consequences.

Also I think there were other reasons why Machiavelli’s treatise seemed so radical. He thought that the idea of fortune’s wheel was an anachronism. Man could to a certain extent control his own destiny. Sure fortune could be good or bad but the wise ruler could use both to his own advantage. Machiavelli’s ideas on the creation of an army of local volunteers loyal to the state were also extremely relevant to the times in which he lived and if he had been successful in getting such an army up to speed, he would have been as great an expansionist as Cesare Borgia. Machiavelli was also concerned to use plenty of examples of ‘good practice’ from antiquity and so the book has a feeling of paganism about it, there are also examples used from recent Florentine history, but these are more often than not negative.

The Prince is not a difficult read especially in The Norton Critical edition translated by Robert M Adams. It is well annotated and the edition also contains excerpts from Machiavelli’s discourses, letters from his time as a working diplomat and some poetry. There is also an excellent selection of essays by critics and historians that add considerably to the reading experience and certainly to the size of the book, which including appendices and an index clocks in at over 300 pages. I thoroughly enjoyed it and as an example of putting a text in context then the Norton edition works superbly. It is “The Princes” 500th birthday next year and I wholeheartedly recommend it. A five star read.

Edit | More show less