The Prince, by Nicollo Machiavelli, is a foundational work of political philosophy. Through the men it has shaped and who have in turn shaped modern society, its influence is incalculable. But the methods of political success, and, indeed, the definition of that success which it presents, have been frequently reviled as immoral, cynical, or vicious (depending on whether the reviler in question prided himself mostly on his religion, optimism, or humanity).
[...] No one contains the brute force in his own body to compel the service of an entire army; every army is held by a genuine belief, an uncompelled belief, in their commander. And if an army is held by one's virtue, it does not require a huge extrapolation to observe that a principality may be so held. Unfortunately for Machiavelli, Lorenzo de Medici did not take his book as an adequate apology for past antagonism (although it is perhaps to the prince's credit that he did not enjoy a treatise so fixed on appealing to his [...]
[...] Because, although Machiavelli apparently never encountered one, there are some men whose depravity is tempered—whether by religion, or reason, or something else—so that they can entertain a little selflessness; else why are we embarrassed at our own depravity, and go about with cotton- ball and cardboard sheep faces to hide our wolf-heads? This depravity must be degeneracy: why do we persist in our amiable pretences, unless we have some sort of memory of a time when we did not have to pretend? Men may on the whole be heartless and overwhelmingly egotistical, but it does not follow that they admire these qualities, nor that they will support a prince who evinces them, nor that indulging them will bring happiness. This is the fundamental error of Machiavelli's philosophy. [...]
[...] A premise of his argument is false, and therefore the conclusions he derives are also sometimes false, but they are logically derived, conditionally true. One of the false conclusions of Machiavelli's philosophy are his opinions about principalities[1] held neither by the fear of armies, the apathy of tradition, nor the promise of gain. He calls the manner by which such principalities are acquired, ‘acquisition by one's own virtue'; virtue meaning, in this sense, one's avowed political philosophy or the ideas one seeks to impose. [...]
[...] He was reduced to poverty, and retired to his country estate to write The Prince and Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy, chiefly to impress the Medici and regain some political position. His reverses destroyed his practical hope in a Republic, as his distinctly totalitarian book shows, and he sought to return to influence in the government, to assist whatever prince should arise to achieve some—any—degree of unity for his country. Given that The Prince is actually an instance of flattery, it is possible Machiavelli's extremities were exaggerated; however, if he was shaped like all other men by his experience, and did not tend naturally to idealism anyway, the exaggeration may not be as great as it would seem. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
