machiavelli and the context in which he wrote the prince

8/3/2019 Machiavelli and the Context in Which He Wrote the Prince

1/32

Machiavelli and the context in which he wrote The Prince

In the sixteenth century, when Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince, Italy was not a unified

country. Instead, it was a collection of city-states, each with its own court and ruler, eachattempting to gain power over the others. In addition to being a place of domestic intrigue, Italywas also a battleground for the power-hungry French, the Spanish, the Germans, and the forces

of the Catholic Church under the Popes (who were, in essence, as powerful as secular kings at

this time). One of the major Italian city-states, the republic of Florence, had long maintained an

alliance with the French, and when Pope Julius II defeated the French in 1512, Florence wasdefeated too. Pope Julius declared that he would not agree make peace unless Florence ceased to

be a republic and accepted the Medici family as their rulers.

These political developments had a serious impact on the life and career of Machiavelli. Hardlya dyed-in-the-wool supporter of princes, Machiavelli had actually served for the past thirteen

years as a counselor and diplomat for the former rulers of Florence, the anti-Medici republicans

(his first book, The Discourses, presents a theory of republican government).

When Florence fell into the hands of his princely enemies, Machiavelli narrowly escaped

execution and found himself exiled instead. Formerly a man who lived in the center of political

power, Machiavelli was now unemployed and disgraced (not to mention bored!) in thecountryside outside Florence. He began to write a series of letters, begging the new Medici

rulers in Florence to allow him to return to his beloved city. He continued this unsuccessfuleffort for fourteen years, until his death in 1527.

We must read The Prince, written in 1513, as one of the first of the documents that Machiavelli

wrote in order to ingratiate himself with the new Florentine prince, Lorenzo de Medici. IsMachiavelli insincere? Is he a hypocrite? After all, his first book declared that a republic was

the ideal form of government, not a state governed by the authority of a prince. And yet, we

must note that Machiavelli never says anywhere in The Prince that he likes the notion of

government by princes. He merely states that if a country is going to be governed by a prince,

particularly a new prince, he has some advice as to how that prince should rule if he wishes to begreat and powerful. In other words,

Machiavellis book is absolutely practical and not at all idealistic. Leaving aside what

government is best in an ideal world, The Prince takes for granted the presence of anauthoritarian ruler, and tries to imagine how such a ruler might achieve success. It is, of course,


2/32

also entirely topical as well: Machiavelli offers Lorenzo an expert handbook that deals with

precisely the situation of Florence at the time. He seems genuinely interested in using hispolitical experience, as well as his wide reading in history and philosophy, to help Lorenzo be

the best prince he can be. But he also obviously expected some personal gain from the book as

well Machiavelli clearly hoped that Lorenzo would find The Prince so helpful that he would

immediately bring its author back to Florence where he could be a political counselor onceagain!

Unfortunately, Machiavellis cunning plan didnt work. Despite the lavish praise for Medicisand Popes that continues throughout The Prince, Lorenzo did not seem to like the book very

much, and certainly never called Machiavelli back from exile. Ironically, shortly before

Machiavelli died, Charles V of France defeated the Pope and removed the Medicis from power.

Florence became a republic once again, and Machiavelli surely expected his long exile to end atlast. There was one slight problem, however: Machiavelli had written a short book dedicated to

Prince Lorenzo de Medici, advising him on how best to acquire and maintain power not a veryrepublican thing to do! And so, that very book that Machiavelli had hoped would bring him backto FlorenceThe Princefinally kept him away for good.

Important Persons

List of Persons Mentioned in or Relevant to Machiavellis Prince

Lorenzo deMedici

Machiavelli dedicated the first printing of The Prince to this man, duke of Urbino and ruler of

Florence in 1516. He had originally dedicated the book to Lorenzos uncle, Giuliano deMedici,

but Giuliano died before the book appeared. (Confusingly, Giulianos father, and Lorenzosgrandfather, was also named Lorenzo deMedici, and known popularly as Lorenzo the

Magnificent.)


3/32

Pope Sixtus IV

The first of three popes who figureprominently in Machiavellis argument. Sixtus, whose real

name was Francesco della Rovere, was pope from 1471-1484. He led the papacy tounprecedented wealth and power by waging wars against the Turkish Empire, and by fomenting

domestic wars within Italy. Sixtus was responsible for commissioning the famous Sistine

Chapel, with ceilings decorated by Michelangelo, in the Vatican.

Pope Alexander VI

Originally named Rodrigo Borgia, this pope succeeded Sixtus and led the Catholic Church from

1492-1503. Like Sixtus, Alexander increased the power of the papacy and of the Churchgenerally. He notoriously used his wealth and power to advance his relatives (particularly hisnumerous illegitimate children) into high offices in the religious and political institutions of Italy.

Cesare Borgia

One of Alexanders sons, Cesare provided Machiavelli an ideal historical example of a crafty

prince. Pope Alexanders original plan was to send Cesare into the church. Cesare actuallybecame an archbishopat the ripe old age of 17! --because of his fathers influence. Afterseveral years of this, Cesare left the religious life and entered the world of politics, eventually

rising to dominance by cunningly manipulating strife among the Italian city-states.


4/32

Pope Julius II

This pope succeeded Alexander VI (after the hiccup of an eight-week reign by another man), and

ruled the Church from 1503-1513. Julius led the papacy in a number of intimidation campaignsagainst Italian city-states, such as Venice and Florence, trying to get them to join him in his war

on the French. His policies were bold, but ultimately unsuccessful. Eventually Julius ongoingfeud with the Borgias contributed to the utter collapse of most Italian alliances.

Agathocles of Syracuse

Machiavelli took the story of the cruel ruler Agathocles from the ancient historians Justin and

Diodorus Siculus. Agathocles was ruler of Sicily from 361-289 BC, and his evil rise to powerprovided Machiavelli with an example of a man who achieves political domination throughunvirtuous action.

Points to Ponder

Machiavellis political allegiances were a matter of some dispute in his own time. After working

for the Florentine republic, he attempted to gain a political position at the court of the men whodestroyed that system. He wrote a treatise on republics, The Discourses, as well as his

handbook for single rulers, The Prince. Are there suggestions, even within The Prince itself, that


5/32

Machiavelli doesnt actually like princes very much? If not, should we consider Machiavelli a

hypocrite? If so, then should the entire book be taken ironically?

From his time up until the present day, Machiavelli has often been considered an immoral

theorist, one who was prepared to suggest that the ends always justify the means. But readers

who wish to spare Machiavelli from accusations of immorality cite his example of Agathoclesthe Syracusan as an instance when the ends do not seem to justify the means. Since Machiavelli

presents Agathocles in such a negative light, does this suggest that there is some political

behavior that is simply unacceptable on any terms? Does Machiavelli object to the cruelty of

Agathocles on ethical grounds? If so, does this destroy his notion, expressed elsewhere, that

there is no absolute standard for judging political action?

The word virtu, so prevalent in The Prince, never seems to mean the same thing twice. How

many definitions for this term can you find implied in Machiavellis argument? Do any of thesedefinitions contradict each other? Why do you think that Machiavelli placed so much emphasis

on a word which resists stable definition? What implications does the slipperiness of this termhave for his larger argument? What is the point of writing a how-to that avoids makingconcrete recommendations?

After leaving Florence, the banished Machiavelli wrote a letter to a friend in which he describedhis evening activities alone in the countryside: every night, apparently, he would take off his

work clothes (remember, he was living on a farm), and would put on the royal and curial robes

he used to wear at court. Only when he was so splendidly attired, Machiavelli told his friend, didhe feel ready to join in the company of ancient kings and princesin other words, to sit downand write about them in The Prince!


6/32

Renaissance dramatists frequently used a stock character in their plays when they needed a

villain. This character, meant to exemplify the extreme of irreligious wickedness and

immorality, was called the machiavel. Shakespeares cunning Iago in Othello is one of his

most famous machiavels; the evil Richard III goes even further, declaring onstage that hisvillainy will set the murderous Machiavel to school.

Machiavelli devotes a great deal of The Prince to praising powerful popes. Rather than

appreciating such flattery, however, the Catholic Church considered Machiavellis book an

enemy to religionfrom 1557 onwards, The Prince has been on the Catholic Churchs IndexLibrorum Prohibitorum, or list of forbidden books!

Summary of the Argument

Machiavelli wrote The Prince in an attempt to ingratiate himself with the Medici princes who

had recently taken over the government of his native city, Florence, in the early sixteenth century

(see the rather overstated flattery in the prefatory letter to Lorenzo deMedici). He intended this

book to be a kind of how-to: a short, pithy handbook for princes who have gained power andwish to keep it. Accordingly, it begins by dividing all governments into two kinds: republics

and principalities (those ruled by a prince, or single ruler). Machiavelli swiftly dismisses the

first kind of government as being outside the scope of his argument. He then goes on tosubdivide the latter kind. Principalities, he writes, are of two kinds: there are those which have

been ruled by a family for a long time, and those which are newly conquered. It is this last kind,

obviously, that concerns Machiavelli most, and he spends the rest of The Prince sketching waysin which the new prince can acquire and maintain the greatest amount of power.

Machiavelli first considers mixed principalities, or new territories annexed to older ones. The

new prince of such a state, he writes, should wipe out the family of his predecessors in the, andshould take care not to change the old lawsif need be, he should live there himself, and learn


7/32

the customs of his new subjects, so they wont consider him a stranger. He should also set up

colonies of his own men in the new lands, and should weaken any strong neighboring enemies sothat he will have no rival conquerors. In all things, Machiavelli writes (as he does many times in

the book), the new prince should not only keep an eye on present dangers, but on possible future

dangersa good example of this is the Roman rule of new provinces.

When a new prince takes over a state governed by an absolute ruler, the process of acquiring

power is that much more difficult. However, once such a kingdom is conquered, it is much

easier to rule, since its subjects are used to oppression. Darius, for instance, took over landsfrom Alexander the Great, and was able to rule them without fear of revolt, since his new

subjects were accustomed to having no voice in government. Republics, by contrast, are very

easy for a new prince to conquer, but almost impossible for him to rule. Once a new prince has

gained control over a former republic, Machiavelli implies that he really has no choice but todestroy it entirely and rebuild it.

Machiavelli then proceeds to consider relationship between luck and skill in the gaining and

keeping of power. He introduces two key terms: fortuna, which means luck, chance,accident, or fortune, and virtu, which means, literally, manliness, and which can also bedefined as skill, cunning, power, ability, or strength. Which is more important for aprince to have on his side? Machiavelli suggests, over and over, that a prince is better off relying

on virtu than on fortuna. However, one of the key advantages of virtu is that it enables a prince

better to exploit and master fortuna.. He will say later that fortuna e una donna (fortune is a

woman) and must be dominated. Here, though, he stresses the connections between fortuna and

virtu as necessary for successful rule. A prince must be able to seize opportunities through skillin what Machiavelli calls a lucky shrewdness.

What kind of actions should a virtuoso (skillful) prince take? Well, he avoids using other

princes troops or hiring mercenaries to do his dirty work such a reliance on outside help

makes a prince the helpless victim of fortune . He does not come into power through overt

crime, nor does he allow himself to gain a reputation for cruelty but he is able to use crime andcruelty when he needs to, carefully concealing his guilt. A virtuoso prince will not alienate the

people he governs, but he will not let the need to be loved by them take precedence over the

necessity of being feared by them. In order to maintain his power, a prince must earn the

loyalty of his subjects, and he can best do this by protecting them. And any prince who showshimself to be strong enough to protect his subjects must also show himself to be strong enough to

be feared by themthough, of course, never gratuitously cruel to them. Above all (and heres

where Machiavelli got a little shocking for his Renaissance readers), a virtuoso prince must

acknowledge the fact that he does not live in an ideal world. He should therefore learn not to begood when a particular occasion (fortuna again!) renders it more advantageous to be bad. In

subsequent chapters, Machiavelli describes how a prince can break promises, commit crimes,


8/32

and generally behave nastily for political advantage. But he also insists that a prince should

learn to avoid the hatred that would result from exposure of his bad behavior. He should instead

cultivate a reputation for goodness, even if that reputation is false. In other words, forMachiavellis prince, its better to look good than to be good.

According to Machiavelli, a prince learns such virtu by particular kinds of study: first, and most

importantly, the study of warfare. He should spend lots of time strategizing, exercising, and

preparing himself for battle. Such training makes a man more likely to achieve power through

conquest, and less likely to succumb to laziness once he achieves it. In addition, any prince whowishes to be powerful should also study histories of successful princes, in order to understand

what has worked for men in the past and model his behavior on them. In a sense, The Prince

itself is a kind of history book, compiling short examples of good (and bad) rulers throughout

history for the edification of its princely readers.

Prefatory Letter

Prefatory Letter to Lorenzo the Magnificent

Machiavelli begins his treatise on the ideal Prince with a dedication to an actual prince, Lorenzo

deMedici. He declares that courtiers who wish to earn a princes favor do so by presenting the

prince with items which they themselves hold particularly dear: usually gold, jewels, horses, etc.Machiavelli tells Lorenzo that, after racking his brain for an appropriately valuable gift, he

decided that what he felt was most precious was his knowledge of great men, knowledge gained

from history books, as well as from current events. He will present Lorenzo with this knowledge,

in the form of the treatise to follow. Machiavelli claims to worry a bit about whether Lorenzowill be pleased with such a gift, but then reminds himself that any prince would be glad to

receive, in short handbook form, knowledge which the author has taken years to acquire.Machiavelli promises that his will be a small volume, written not in pretentious academic

language, but in the common language of men. He then excuses himself for having presumed towrite about princes at all, since he is simply an ordinary man; furthermore Machiavelli actually

suggests that being a commoner is actually an advantage to one who wishes to write about

princes, since that distance of rank gives the commoner a perspective that princes themselveslack. Machiavelli, then, is an outsider looking inoffering deliberately common-sense

explanations for how particular men are able to become and to remain great. Lest we forget,


9/32

though, that the Prince was intended as a gift to earn Lorenzos favor, this preface concludes

with a specific, pointed request: if his noble recipient likes the gift of this book, Machiavelligently suggests, then he might best show his appreciation by helping the author return to court

from his current position of exile and disgrace. Rather than considering this simply a work of

political theory written for its own sake, we should realize that the suffering Machiavelli had

some very practical reasons for writing this book and dedicating it to Lorenzo!

Chapters 1 and 2

Chapter I: The Various Kinds of Government, and the Ways By Which They Are Established.

Machiavelli begins The Prince with a crucial distinction of political categories. There are, he

writes, only two ways in which a state can be organized: as a republic, or as a monarchy. After

making this distinction, Machiavelli immediately, without a pause or comment, simply drops the

discussion of the republic. This doesnt mean that Machiavelli doesnt like republics --

republics, after all, are the subject of his other major work of political theory, The Discourses.

Rather than accuse Machiavelli of anti-democratic bias, we should note that in this particular

book, which meant to describe the proper conduct of a prince, any discussion of princelessrepublics would be entirely irrelevant. After bracketing the idea of a republic, then, Machiavelli

moves on to divide the category of monarchy into further sub-categories. Monarchies, he

writes, can be either hereditary and governed by the same family for generations, or recentlyfounded. Again, Machiavelli follows one division with another. Leaving aside hereditary

monarchies for the moment, he distinguishes two different kinds of recently founded monarchies

those which are entirely new, and those which are new annexations of territory added onto pre-existing hereditary monarchies. As we might expect, within this latter category (the annexed

state), there are also two subcategories: Machiavelli points out that some annexed states were

previously subject to another ruler, and some were formerly free. And finally, there is yet another

kind of subcategory within annexed states: those which were conquered by a prince in war, and

those which simply fall to him through luck or skill.

Chapter II: Of Hereditary Monarchies


10/32

This chapter begins with Machiavellis apology for not discussing republics in this book in

what seems to be an explicit reference to Discourses, Machiavelli notes that he has treated ofthem fully in another place. After making that disclaimer, he moves ahead with his discussionof how the various kinds of monarchies are best governed and maintained. He starts off with the

hereditary monarchy. This kind is pretty easy to handle, according to Machiavelli, because

political circumstances in such a monarchy have been relatively stable for a long period of time,

and subjects are used to the way things are under a ruling family. All a prince has to do, if he

inherits his state, is not to change anything too violently. Even if some exceptional andexcessive force were to disempower the hereditary monarch, the countervailing force of

political habit would soon restore him to power at the slightest opportunity. Machiavelli gives

the example of the Duke of Ferrara, who was able to withstand attacks by Venice and Romesimply because he was part of a long-standing family of Dukes. Unless such a ruler goes out of

his way to alienate his people, they will usually love and honor him as a part of their owntraditional way of life

Chapter 3

Chapter III: Of Mixed Monarchies

Problems arise, as you might imagine, in non-hereditary or new monarchies, governments inwhich habit, or political inertia, cannot be counted on to give stability. Take, for instance, the

mixed monarchy, or a state which has changed its ruler. Lets say that a prince has taken over a

kingdom with the support of some of the people in it. Since these people have already proventhemselves critical enough to abandon their old ruler, Machiavelli reasons, they are very likely

also to grow dissatisfied with their new one. Moreover, when a new prince takes over an existingstate, he is inevitably going to alienate those subjects who had been opposed to transition,

creating a certain amount of ill will. In other words, a new ruler, even if he successfully takesover a state, is vulnerable to the anger of his new subjects his supporters as well as his

opponents. An example of this is Louis XII of France, who was able to occupy Milan, but not to

keep it.


11/32

What about rulers who reconquer a territory that has rebelled? Machiavelli feels that such

situations are less dangerous: when France, for instance, took Milan a second time, Louis was ina much more stable position, and lost it again only when virtually the entire world opposed his

rule. Still, he did eventually lose Milan again, and for good. Why? And how could a prince in a

similar situation avoid such a double loss? First, Machiavelli suggests that it is easier for a

conqueror to maintain control over a territory which shares his language and nationality, andwhich is used to being ruled in a similar way by previous rulers. If a man, like Louis, were to

take over a land which differs from him in language, nationality, custom, and political

organization, then his rule will be difficult. One good way for a prince to deal with this,Machiavelli counsels, would be to take up residence in his new territorythereby learning the

ways of his subjects, and making himself constantly aware of the current state of their feelings

toward him. Another solution would be to plant colonies of loyal subjects from the princesoriginal territory in key parts of this new land, thereby maintaining surveillance as well as

destroying the unity and potential opposition of the newly acquired territory. Finally, the new

ruler should make himself out to be the protector of the new territory, rather its conqueror. He

should conciliate with smaller powers within, while annihilating large rival powers that threaten

from without.

The Romans followed these rules when they conquered Greece, Machiavelli points out. They

established colonies of Romans there, they befriended the Achaeans, and they defeated Greecesother enemies, the Macedonians. Above all, the Romans were always able to take the long view

of their government of Greece, planning ahead to avoid difficulties. Louis, by contrast, did none

of these things, and lost Milan and his other Italian holdings as a result. Machiavelli lists fivecrucial mistakes made by Louis: 1) he crushed small powers rather than large ones, 2) he allowed

one man in Italy to gain power rather than dividing authority among lower officers, 3) he

allowed a very powerful foreigner to have influence in Italy, 4) he did not live in Italy, and 5) hedid not establish colonies there.

Chapters 4 and 5

Chapter IV: Why the Kingdom of Darius, Occupied by Alexander, Did Not Rebel Against theSuccessors of the Latter After His Death.


12/32

After discussing the almost insurmountable difficulties in holding onto a newly-acquired state,

Machiavelli asks a logical question: How on earth did Alexander the Great not only successfullysubdue most of Asia in a few years, but pass it on to his successors without any danger of

rebellion? By way of an answer, Machiavelli first distinguishes between two kinds of

government: the rule of a prince and his servants (who have no power independent of the

princes permission), versus the rule of a prince and his barons (who have their own hereditarytitles, lands, and subjects). Machiavelli gives two examples of these two kinds of government: on

the one hand, the Turkish monarchy has one ruler and many servants. On the other, the King of

France governs with the help of an ancient class of hereditary nobles. He concludes that,obviously, the prince in the first kind of government has much more power located in himself

and it would be much harder to take power away the Turk than it would be to oust the King of

France. In Turkey, there would be no possibility of using the nobles to assist a rebellion, andintrigue would have to be abandoned in favor of sheer military force. However, though it would

be harder to take the Turkish kingdom away, it would actually be much easier to maintain once

a new prince was in, hed be pretty much invulnerable since there would be no rivals to power,

and no need to share authority with petty nobility. By contrast, it would be much easier to

dethrone the King of France, but much harder to maintain this new monarchy unless one had theunwavering assistance of the nobilitynot a sure thing to rely upon!

Having set up this framework, Machiavelli concludes that Alexanders conquering of Persia fellinto the former category. Like the Turk, Darius maintained absolute control over his kingdom.

Once Alexander had completed his conquest of that kingdom, there was virtually no way he, or

his successors, could be dislodged.

Chapter V: The Way to Govern Cities or Dominions That, Previous to Being Occupied, Lived

under Their Own Laws.

What if the people of a conquered territory had no king previously? What if they are used to

political liberty and government under their own laws? In other words, what if a prince wishes toannex a republic? There are three ways, Machiavelli argues, to govern a newly-conquered

republic. First, by utterly destroying it. Second, by going there to live. Third, by allowing the

pre-existing laws to continue, and creating allies among those citizens who had been governing.Turning to examples, Machiavelli contrasts the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans governed

Athens in the third way, allowing their laws to exist and attempting to rule through them. The

Romans, by contrast, took the first option, and utterly devastated Carthage in order to control it.Machiavelli points out that the Spartan conquest was a miserable failure, while the Romans did


13/32

not lose their territory. He concludes that the only way successfully to subdue a newly conquered

republic is to destroy it first. Republics, he argues, because they are used to freedom, will neversimply lie back and be ruled by a prince. If a prince wishes to govern, then, he must do it by

force. (It is this kind of argument that gives Machiavelli a reputation for ruthlessness!)

Chapter 6

Chapter VI: Of New Dominions Which Have Been Acquired by Ones Own Arms and Ability

Machiavelli asks his reader to forgive his frequent use of examples from historyin matters of

politics, he asserts, men usually follow the examples of earlier men, whether they realize it ornot. The key, then, is to learn from precedent, imitating successful examples while avoiding

unsuccessful ones. If a prince attempts to follow examples that are excellent, Machiavelli

reasons, even if he fails he will certainly achieve some tinge of greatness.

After discussing the need to aspire to greatness, Machiavelli suggests that men who achievedominion over states through skill and ability (the famous Machiavellian concept of virt,

meaning literally something like manliness and not to be confused with virtue) have agreater chance of successfully governing than do men who simply luck into their power (relying

on fortuna, which is the opposite of virt) . Those who rely on fortuna the least, he argues, tend

to govern bestexamples of this are Moses in Israel, Cyrus in Persia, Romulus in Rome, andTheseus in Athens. These men did not simply rely on fortune. Instead, they used fortune to find

opportunities to come to power (this notion of using fortune rather than accepting fate passively

is key to Machiavelli). For instance, Moses had the fortune of finding the Israelites enslaved by

Egypt. Because they were oppressed, they were easily persuaded to follow him as he led themout of servitude. Cyrus had the fortune of finding the Persians discontented with the government

of the Medes, and had the additional fortune of finding the Medes weakened through laziness.Given these circumstances, he was able to intervene and become the new, powerful ruler of

Persia.

All of these menMoses, Theseus, Romulus, and Cyrushad difficulty obtaining their

kingdoms, but were able to maintain them easily. Why? Because, Machiavelli says, they were


14/32

innovators. Innovators establish an entirely new order of things, establishing laws, customs and

ways of governing. Because they wish to make so many changes, they are inevitably feared andmistrusted at first. . . but once they succeed in their plans, they have made themselves entirely

secure. To achieve this success, a would-be innovator must have not only a powerful vision, but

also the practical ability to compel obedience to his new order this is Machiavellis figure of

the armed prophet.

Chapter 7

Chapter VII: Of New Dominions Acquired by the Power of Others or by Fortune

Machiavelli here returns to the stated aims of his book: to describe how a prince may best both

acquire and maintain power. The armed prophet, as we remember, will have incredibledifficulty acquiring power, but once he has it, will be able to maintain it easily. By contrast, the

ruler who comes to power through the efforts of others (i.e. by buying or bribing ones way into

office), or the ruler who gets his position through sheer fortune, or luck, has a very easy timeacquiring powerbut will find it almost impossible to maintain.

This latter way of coming to power results in a state with very shallow roots, and usually means

that the new prince has no native ability as a ruler.

Machiavelli introduces two of his most famous examples in order to make this contrast vivid:

Francesco Sforza and Cesare Borgia. Francesco came to power in Milan by appropriate means

and through great abilities. He achieved power after many difficulties, but stayed there easily.By contrast, Cesare Borgia became Duke because of the influence of his father, Pope Alexander

VI (apparently, vows of celibacy were not really taken very seriously back then!). No political

stability could be built on such a flimsy foundation; once his father was out of the picture, Cesarecould not stay in power, as much as he tried to do so.

You would think that the introduction of the example of Cesare Borgia would be meant purely

negatively; after all, he is supposed to be an example of how not to become prince. And yet,

Machiavelli goes into great detail describing both Alexander VIs actions in achieving power for


15/32

his son and Cesares own efforts to govern, not in order to condemn these but to suggest that

they are often admirable. For instance, Machiavelli describes the incredible political savvy ofAlexander as he plotted the future success of his son by creating and manipulating political

intrigue and unrest in Italy. One of his most ingenious moves (and one of the most famous

passages in The Prince ) concerned the government of the Romagna province. Alexander knew

that weak government had allowed all manner of crime and violence to flourish there, and knewthat it needed cleaning up so that he could govern it more easily. He appointed a harsh deputy

governor, Remirro de Orco, to punish criminals and crack down on law-breakers of all kinds.

Remirro did his work well. Alexander, however, knew that his deputys harsh measures wereboth necessary and hated by the people (no one likes a cruel enforcer of the laws). So, after

Remirro had successfully wiped out most of the crime in the Romagna, Alexander had him cut

in half, and placed one morning in the public square. . . with a piece of wood and a blood-stained

knife by his side. In other words, Alexander used Remirro to take care of his dirty work, then

earned the thanks of the people by executing him. Suddenly, Romagna was both free of crime,and well-disposed toward Alexanders rule.

After Pope Alexander died, Cesare his son took over and Machiavelli has just told us that such

a manner of achieving power is not to be desired. However, Machiavelli asserts that the only

thing that prevented Cesare from successfully governing was his poor health and his bad choice

of pope, and tells us that he should be in imitated in most of his actions. This is not thecontradiction it seems, though. Machiavelli is, after all, offering a handbook for all kinds of

princes. While he acknowledges that coming to power in the way the Cesare did is not desirable,

nevertheless Cesare is an example of the best a prince can do, given such circumstances.

Chapter 8

Chapter VIII: Of Those Who Have Attained the Position of Prince by Villainy

We have so far been presented with discussions of princes who have come into power by skill(virt) and by luck (fortuna). There are, however, other ways of gaining power. Machiavelli

moves on to discuss princes who come into power through villainy on the one hand, or through

election by fellow citizens on the other. Leaving aside election for the moment, Machiavelligives examples of power gained through villainy. He declares that he will not discuss the

merits of this methodand while Machiavelli explicitly omits any praise of villainy, what


16/32

many readers find shocking is his equal refusal to condemn villainy. Instead, he simply notes that

some men will find themselves obliged to use such tactics a tremendously practical, anddeeply amoral, vision of politics!

So, the examples. The first, from ancient history, is that of Agathocles the Sicilian, who became

King of Syracuse although he was born the son of a potter (you cant really get much commonerthan that!). From his earliest childhood, Agathocles demonstrated a wickedness matched only by

his vigor of body and mind. He joined the militia, rose through the ranks, and one day decided he

wanted to be prince. One day, he called a meeting of the Syracusan senate. Once all the peoplewere assembled, he gave a signal to his soldiers, who instantly killed all the senators and rich

men of the state. From that point on, Agathocles ruled without any serious threat to his power. A

success story? In terms of power, yesbut Machiavelli refuses to call Agathocles behavior

virt. This is not because Agathocles was a bad guyafter all, virt has nothing at all to do with

Christian virtue. Rather, Agathocles did not act with virt because his actions brought him

greatness (grandezza), but not glory (gloria) which is the main goal of acting with virt. WhileAgathocles achieved political power, he did not achieve renown as a ruler, and so cannot betermed an exemplary prince.

The second example Machiavelli offers comes from recent Italian history. Oliverotto da Fermowas an orphan in the reign of Pope Alexander VI. He was sent by his uncle to a military school,

and eventually became a leading soldier. Like Agathocles, however, Oliverotto decided he didnt

wish to serve, but to command. He and his allies decided to take over Fermo. He wrote to his

uncle, telling him that he wished to visit. When he arrived in Fermo, his uncle greeted him with

much fanfare. Oliverotto invited the important men of the town to a feast, and entertained themwith stories of Alexander and his son Cesare Borgia. Mid-conversation, however, Oliverotto

pulled an Agathocleshis soldiers rushed out of hiding and killed all the guests. Oliverotto then

besieged the town, killed the magistrates, and seized power. He would have maintained it, too,were it not for the superior political skill of Cesare Borgia himselfwho eventually had

Oliverotto executed.

How, Machiavelli asks, were such villains able to hold power so successfully? The answer, he

suggests, lies in whether they exploited their crimes well or badly. A good cruelty is done all at

once, and endsno need for more supplementary crimes. A bad cruelty sets in motion a need to

repeat crimes, and makes ruling a rather messy business. Note, again, that Machiavellis grounds

for praising government has nothing to do with morality and only to do with what seems to

work most efficiently. Its not that you shouldnt commit crimes, but rather that you should

commit them well.


17/32

Chapters 9 and 10

Chapter IX: Of the Civic Principality

Now we turn to the other alternative to the virt/fortuna method of achieving power: election in a

civic principality by which a private citizen is made leader by his fellow citizens. Machiavelli

describes this method as a kind of cunning assisted by fortune, since such a leader is skilledenough to make himself an appealing candidate, and then simply lifted up by others to a position

of power. There are two ways (as usual) by which a man can be thus elected: by the nobles whowish the prince to oppress the people, or by the people, who wish the prince to help them avoid

oppression by the nobles. According to Machiavelli, it is better for a man to be put into power bythe populace, since this usually means that he will have no rivals to his power and will be

generally loved by his subjects. If he is elected by the nobles, he is obligated to them, and will

often be the victim of their intrigues. (See Chapter IV for a similar idea). Regardless of how aprince is elected, Machiavelli argues, it is indispensable for him to have the good will of the

peoplethe good will of the nobles is much less essential. And in order to have the good will of

the people, it is necessary that the prince make himself indispensable to them. In other words,

here Machiavelli gives a theory of interdependence between the people and the prince that differsdramatically from the model of cruel exploitation often attributed to him.

Chapter X: How the Strength of All States Should be Measured

This chapter points out a different distinction between kinds of principalities (states governed bya prince): there are those that have the money and manpower to defend themselves against

attack, and those that do not, consequently needing to hide within their walls when they are

assaulted by an enemy. Machiavelli does not feel the need to discuss the former case, which isobviously to be preferred. If a prince finds himself in the latter case (without the power to fight

back against enemies), Machiavelli counsels him to concentrate his efforts on fortifying his own

town, and to forget about the outlying country, which will be too difficult to protect. The cities of

Germany, for instance, follow this strategyand as a consequence are rarely attacked, since it


18/32

would be hard for any enemy to get past the urban fortifications. Machiavelli concludes by

affirming that strong walls around the city, and the good will of the people within the city, arethe two best protections a prince can have. If a prince has both these things, it is almost

guaranteed that no enemy will be able to prevail against him.

Chapters 11 and 12

Chapter XI: Of Ecclesiastical Principalities

At the time when Machiavelli wrote The Prince, Italy did not simply have dukedoms andkingdoms and cities, but also had territories governed by the Pope and Catholic Church, or

ecclesiastical principalities. This chapter considers some of the difficulties of conquering and

ruling such territories. Machiavelli argues that a prince can gain power over an ecclesiasticalprincipality either by ability (virt) or chance (fortuna), but he will be able to maintain it by

means of neither of these. This is because the subjects of such principalities are used to obeying

ancient religious customs, rather than ordinary political customs or laws. Such religious customs

are so incredibly powerful that princes dont really need to do anything at all to keep theirsubjects in line. Nor does a prince need to do anything to defend such a kingdom, because no one

will attack a holy state. In other words, ecclesiastical principalities are the only truly secure states

for a prince to govern, according to Machiavelli. As soon as he says this, however, he cutshimself offsince these states are maintained and exalted by God, he says, it would be the

work of a presumptuous and foolish man to discuss them.

Machiavelli does allow himself some space to discuss how the church came to possess anytemporal (political) power in the first place. How was the Pope able to gain such great authority

in non-religious matters like government? Machiavelli explains that a long time ago, power in

Italy was divided among many potentates (princes and lords), and one of them was the Pope,

who controlled the Vatican City in Rome. As long as there were many of these potentates, no

single one of them was able to have any greater power than any other. When Alexander VIbecame Pope, however, things changed; as we have seen (in Chapter V), Alexander was a

supreme politician, and was able to manipulate both domestic politics and foreign policy in sucha way that his own political power increased, along with that of his son, Cesare Borgia.

Alexander was followed by Julius, who increased papal wealth and territories. Machiavelli ends

this chapter by praising the current pope, Leo X, suggesting that since his predecessors had

increased the power and wealth of the papal office, Leo might be able to add goodness so thatthe office of the pope will be both great and venerated. In other words, Machiavelli describes


19/32

the power of the Pope without ever assuming that he is, as the servant of God, necessarily a holy

and good mananother way in which The Prince might seem remarkably controversial toreligious readers!

Chapter XII: The Different Kinds of Militia and Mercenary Soldiers

After discussing how various states are best acquired and maintained, Machiavelli moves on toconsider methods of government. He declares that in all governments, of whatever kind, the best

foundation is a combination of good laws and good armsi.e. political and military strength.Machiavelli further asserts that the latter necessitates the former. There cannot be good laws

where there are not good arms, and once there are good arms, there will inevitably be good laws.After making this claim, he drops the discussion of laws, and spends the rest of this chapter

discussing military matters.

There are three kinds of armies a prince can maintain: an army made up of citizens, an army of

mercenaries (paid soldiers), or a mixed army. Mercenaries, Machiavelli argues, are worthless and

dangerous, impossible to rely on. This is because they have no love or loyalty to the prince, but

are simply paid to fight for him and are therefore ready to turn against the prince if anyone paysthem more. Indeed, Machiavelli points out that Italys current political ruin has resulted largelyfrom the fact that mercenary armies have been used there for many years. A better idea would be

for a prince to be captain of his own soldiers, and in the case of a republic for citizens to lead thearmies themselves.

Chapters 13 and 14

Chapter XIII: Of Auxiliary, Mixed and Native Troops


20/32

Machiavelli declares that auxiliary troops, or armies borrowed from another prince, are as

useless as mercenaries. In fact, auxiliaries are even worse than mercenaries. Mercenaries, as werecall from the previous chapter, are hard to motivate a paycheck is not enough to make a man

willing to fight and die for a prince they care nothing about. In the case of auxiliaries, they are

actually loyal to someone elseand so, even if they win the battle, they may hand the victory

over to their actual leader instead of the prince who has borrowed them. As Machiavelli cleverlyputs it, the danger with mercenaries is their cowardice, while the danger with auxiliaries is their

courage. It is always better to fight with your own men Cesare Borgia, for instance, used a

small troop of his own men rather than a larger auxiliary army. . . and was victorious!

Chapter XIV: The Duties of a Prince with Regard to the Militia

In a rather bold piece of advice, Machiavelli counsels the prince to have no other aim or

thought than the proper conduct of war, and to study nothing else besides military matters. Thebest way to gain and maintain power is through this knowledge, he claims, and without it a

prince is sure to lose whatever he has. Again, Machiavelli brings up Francesco Sforza (see

Chapter ). Francesco became Duke of Milan because he was well armed, but his sons saw no

need to study warfare, and soon lost their power. Machiavelli argues that no unarmed prince canever be safe, because no armed man ever obeys an unarmed one. Thus, an un-military prince will

always fail to have the support of his soldiers, his soldiers will then fail to protect him, and soonhe will be prince no longer.

For this reason, a prince must practice the arts of war even more seriously in peace-time.

Machiavelli describes the kind of training he has in mind: a prince should hunt, he shouldbecome as physically fit as possible, he should learn every detail of the landscape (so that he can

draw up battle plans better), and he should study military histories, particularly of great

commanders (Alexander the Great read about Achilles, Caesar read about Alexander, Scipio

Africanus read about Cyrus).

Chapters 15 and 16


21/32

Chapter XV: Of the Things for Which Men, and Especially Princes, are Praised or Blamed

Machiavelli begins this very notorious chapter by acknowledging that what he is about to writemight surprise, and even offend people. However, he continues, it is better to give advice based

on what the world is actually like, and the way that politics actually works, than to give idealized

advice based only on what sounds nice. In a well-known passage, Machiavelli declares that the

man who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about hisown ruin than his preservation. Here, Machiavelli admits that he is a political realist, and finds

conventional standards of morality useless as practical advice. Since so many people fail to act

according to these standards in reality, he argues, continuing tobe good can only weaken a

ruler. Instead, he writes, it is necessary for a prince. . . to learn how not to be good according tothe circumstances.

He then lists a number of the qualities that can bring a prince praise (liberality, mercy,

trustworthiness, wisdom, etc.), or blame (viciousness, greed, cruelty, lust, atheism, etc.).

Obviously, he writes, it is better for a prince to be praised than blamed, and a prince would be

loved completely by all his citizens if he actually possessed all of those praiseworthy qualities.

However, he writes, lets get real: no prince will have every good quality, and most princes willhave at least a few of those bad ones. The key, then, is that the prince should hide from the

people those vices that he may have, and to make sure that he seems to have as many virtues aspossible.

Chapter XVI: Of Liberality and Niggardliness

Of course, always eager to shock, Machiavelli points out that quite a few of those so-calledvirtues would be politically disastrous, while many of the vices would actually benefit thestateand if committing a vice is ever necessary for the safety of the state, the prince shouldcommit it without shame. Machiavelli examines more carefully one of his oppositions of virtue

and vice: liberality (free giving) and niggardliness (unwillingness to give, or miserliness). Everyprince would love to be considered liberalbut if a prince were really to give up his possessions

freely, he would quickly ruin himself. In fact, the more liberal a prince is, the poorer he will

inevitably becomeand then hell have to tax his citizens, making them hate him in the end


22/32

anyway. Better, Machiavelli writes, for a prince to be considered a miser for a while, so that he

will be able to govern better and give his subjects more in the long term. The best case scenario,

however, is for a prince to be miserly with his own kingdoms wealth, but free and lavish withthe money he steals from other countries in wartime. That way, he can have the reputation for

generosity without breaking the bank! If a prince doesnt have that last option, though,

Machiavelli advises him to give up the ideal of liberality in the interest of practicality. Thepeople will understand.

Chapters 17 and 18

Chapter XVII: Of Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether it is Better to be Loved or Feared

Every prince, Machiavelli points out, would rather be considered merciful than cruel. However,

cruelty can have its advantages: Cesare Borgia, after all, committed numerous crueltiesbut theend result was a united and strong principality. Machiavelli concludes that what seemed like

Cesares cruelty was, in fact, actually his clemency (mercifulness), since by that cruelty hespared his people the worse fate of political turmoil. A prince who cruelly punishes is not cruel if

these punishments help to create political stability; a prince who is merciful is not really mercifulif he allows disorders and crime to flourish, injuring everyone.

What about the difference between being feared and being loved? Obviously, every prince wouldprefer to be loved than to be feared. Taking the realistic view, Machiavelli says that it is best to

be both feared and loved, but the two do not often coincide. If one had to choose, he argues, it is

better and safer to be feared than to be loved. If a prince is feared, he is much less likely to have

his subjects revolt; Machiavelli is not afraid to say that men are generally selfish, and will nothesitate to break the obligations of love when it is to their advantage. Fear, however, keeps

people in check. It certainly also possible for a prince to be feared and not hated, Machiavellialso points out, particularly when the prince uses his power to protect his citizens and does not

interfere too often in their lives. Since love is too insecure a foundation for government, this fearwithout hatred is the best a prince can hope to have from his citizens.


23/32

Chapter XVIII: In What Way Princes Must Keep Faith

Like the previous two chapters, this one begins with a platitude: it is good for princes to keeptheir word. Again, though, Machiavelli writes this commonplace down only to question it. Yes,

obviously a prince should not lie or act hypocritically and should also live with integrity.

However, it is also the case that many princes who have not kept their word have accomplishedgreat things, and have even conquered other princes who have kept their word faithfully.

Machiavelli points out that there are two kinds of fighting: according to the law and according to

force. The former is the way of men, the second the way of beastsbut the best princes know

how to use both the man and the beast in order to achieve political goals. The prince, he writes,should be able to imitate the cunning fox and the mighty lionable to defend himself against

attack, but also sneak around traps. If a prince is to be fox-like, he must not be afraid to break hispromises when keeping them would be harmful to him. Machiavelli knows that this advice

doesnt sound too noble but, he says in his own defense, men are not all good. If they were, it

would always be best to keep ones word. Since they arent, it is sometimes necessary to lie and

cheatbecause otherwise, youll be tricked yourself. It is not only a good idea to cheat and lielike the fox, but it is also crucial that the prince be able to disguise the fact that he is doing so.

Men are easily deceived, Machiavelli writes, and gives the example of our friend Pope

Alexander VI: he was so willing to break his promises when he needed to, that he was the mostoutspoken promiser there ever was. He had a reputation for making promises, and always took

care so that he wasnt caught breaking them.

This chapter ends with one of the most striking passages of political realism in the entire book:

Machiavelli claims that a prince should always seem to have virtues, even if he doesnt actuallyhave them. Moreover, he asserts that seeming to have virtues is actually better than really having

them, since a prince is therefore not tied by the bonds of morality. If he does not feel any

constraint of virtue, a prince is better able do what he needs to do in any given situation. Hemust, Machiavelli writes, have a mind disposed to adapt itself according to the wind, able to

do good when he can but also do evil when he must. Still, even though on the inside he is able to

scheme, he should be mercy, faith, integrity, humanity, and religion on the outside.

Chapters 19 and 20


24/32

Chapter XIX: That We Must Avoid Being Despised and Hated

A prince should above all avoid being hated, Machiavelli repeats. He can guard himself againstthe hatred of his citizens by never seeming frivolous, changeable, or shallow, and instead

seeming to follow certain unwavering principles of upright morality (exactly what Machiavelli

warned the prince not to do in the previous chapter!). By behaving in this way, a prince willavoid the greatest political danger: revolt from within. Machiavelli argues that conspiracy and

internal unrest is much more dangerous to a prince than attacks from external enemies. If a

prince does not take care to avoid the hatred of his citizens, then, he will live in a state of

constant fear. In contrast, if a prince manages not to be hated, he can count on the goodwill of thecitizens and ensure political stability.

Machiavelli offers the example of France, where the parliament acts as a buffer between the kingand the people, as well as a buffer between the king and the nobles. By placing a certain amount

of power in the parliament, and by making the parliament take over many of the most unpopular

duties of rule, the king of France ensures that he never earns the hatred of the nobles or the

people himself. He then moves on to discuss the examples of various Roman emperors -- all ofwhom, he claims, prove his point: that rulers are most in danger when they are hated by the

people. Machiavelli reiterates that avoiding hatred should be a rulers main goal. This means, as

we have seen, avoiding the reputation for doing evil deeds (even though the prince will need, inactuality, to do such deeds). Here, he adds another tricky point: that sometimes doing good deeds

can also result in being hated by the people (for example, being nice to a cruel army leader whois popularly loathed). Typically, Machiavelli has moved from what appears to be a stable, simple

rule avoid being hated the peopleand then qualifies and redefines that rule so that itbecomes almost impossible to understand without reference to particular circumstances.

Chapter XX: Whether Fortresses and other Things Which Princes Often Contrive are Useful or

Injurious

Is it a good idea for a prince who comes into power in a state to take arms away from the citizens

there? Surprisingly, Machiavelli says no. By taking arms away from the people, he reasons, a

prince will make himself look cruel and harsh, encouraging discontent among his subject. By


25/32

doing the oppositegiving arms to the peoplethe prince will actually make himself safer,

since the people will be grateful and more loyal. However, as usual, there are some exceptions tothis rule. When a prince adds a new territory to his old state, he must disarm all the citizens in

that annexed territory, except those who helped him to gain power and he must also make sure

that his own soldiers are more powerfully armed than any of his new subjects.

Machiavelli offers some additional advice about governing a newly-annexed territory. A prince

in such a position, as we remember, can never be entirely safe. There are, however, some ways in

which he can make himself more secure. For instance, he might try to provoke an enemy attackintentionallythat way, by defeating the enemy, he can make himself look like a great leader.He might also try to earn the friendship of those who were his greatest opponents when he came

into power (friends who used to be enemies, he argues, are often more trustworthy than others,

because they wish to compensate for their earlier hostility). The flip side of this, of course, is thatthe prince must always suspect those men who rebelled against their previous ruler to help him

gain power, since they are usually the kind of men who will always be dissatisfied with theirprince.

What about fortresses? Should a prince build them around his state? Machiavelli begins bysaying yes, since many rulers in history have become strong by building strong fortresses.However, he also points out that some rulers have actually become more powerful after

destroying their fortresses. Once again, the best strategy is to do what works best in a particular

circumstance. But as a general rule, Machiavelli argues that princes who fear foreigners most

should not have fortresses, while princes who fear their own people most need fortresses.

Doesnt that seem backward? What does he mean? Well, he argues that if a prince has thesupport of the people, he will have no need of fortresses against the enemy, since the people will

help him fight. If the prince does not have loyal subjects, he must then use fortresses to protect

himself against attack, since he cannot rely on the peoples help.

Chapters 21, 22, and 23

Chapter XXI: How a Prince Must Act in Order to Gain a Reputation


26/32

This chapter begins with a seemingly obvious point: a prince gets a reputation for greatness by

doing great things. King Ferdinand of Spain, for instance, turned himself into a famous andpowerful king by undertaking extraordinary projects: he attacked the Islamic Moors, and by

building up his military and waging a holy war, he augmented his own power and reputation for

greatness. Other rulers have given demonstrations of greatness in their conduct of domestic

politics. As a general rule, Machiavelli advises the prince to avoid neutrality in domestic andforeign affairsneutrality often leads to weakness, and it is better to support one side or the

other. Nor should a prince ever join forces with another prince more powerful than himself

such a tactic nearly always results in the more powerful princes domination.

Chapter XXII: Of the Secretaries of Princes

A princes reputation has a lot to do with the character of his officers. If he has competent and

fair secretaries and ministers, he will usually be thought of as wise and good himself. How can aprince know who to choose as a minister? Machiavelli offers a rule of thumb: if a man is selfish

and seeks his own profit above all things, he will probably not be a good minister. Good

ministers must be willing to think of the prince first, always and in every case. This works two

ways, however; the prince, if he wishes to keep his good minister, must always be willing to givethe minister honors, riches, and other kinds of gratification. Like the prince and his people, the

prince and his ministers should exist in an ideal interdependence, since each needs the other.

Chapter XXIII: How Flatterers Must Be Shunned

A prince should take care to choose as ministers men who love him above themselves but not

men who are flatterers. The court, writes Machiavelli, is full of flatterers, and it is hard for a

prince to avoid them. One way to guard against flatterers is for the prince to encourage all men totell the truth without fear of giving offensebut if all men are permitted to speak the truth to the

prince, they will no longer respect him. Better, then, for the prince to allow certain wise men in

his council to speak freelybut only these men. That way, the prince will demonstrate his

willingness to listen to men who do not flatter him, but will be in no danger of losing the respect


27/32

of the rest of his people . Moreover, the prince should only allow people at court to give him

advice when he asks them for italthough he should ask for advice frequently.

Chapters 24, 25, and 26

Chapter XXIV: Why the Princes of Italy Have Lost Their States

If a new prince follows all of the advice in this book, Machiavelli claims that he will not onlyseem like the ancient ruler of a state, but will actually be more secure than an ancient ruler would

have been. This is because more people have their eyes on a new prince, expecting him to make

mistakes. If a new prince is a good ruler, he will actually impress many more people than a

hereditary prince would. He will also have what Machiavelli calls a double glory: the glory offounding a kingdom and the glory of governing it well. In contrast, a prince who is born into

power and loses his state earns a double shame.

Why have princes (such as the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, etc.) lost their thrones? Eitherthey lacked military strength, did not have the good will of the people, or did not have a loyal

nobility. Machiavelli insists that men should never blame fortune for their loss of power. Fortuneis never an adequate explanation; princes lose power not because they have bad luck, but because

they did not have enough skill to deal with the circumstances that fortune presented.

Chapter XXV: How Much Fortune Can Do in Human Affairs, and How it May Be Opposed

Machiavelli ended the previous chapter by declaring that princes must never blame fortune forthe loss of political power. He begins this chapter by acknowledging how many people believe in

a universal fortune that rules all things (or in an all-powerful God, a belief which he says


28/32

amounts to pretty much the same thingonce again, Machiavelli comes close to an atheistic

position!). While admitting that circumstances do change frequently in ways that are outsidehuman control, Machiavelli does not see this as a reason to reject free will. Fortune, he says,

rules half our actionsand the other half is determined by our skill and ability.

After making this statement, Machiavelli offers some metaphoric descriptions of fortune.

Fortune, he says, is like a mighty riverwhen it is at its fullest, no one can cross it or stop it

from flooding. When the river is calm and the water is low, however, men can do things like

build bridges and dams which will make the floods easier to deal with. This is how we shouldregard fortune: although we cannot control it, we can use our ingenuity to better handle what it

brings. In terms of princes, Machiavelli argues that it is foolish for a ruler to base his power

entirely on fortune; such a man cannot hold power once fortune changes. The man who skillfully

handles fortune, however, will prosper. This is Machiavellis crucial point: the prince must bewilling to adapt to fortune, altering his behavior with skill in order to exploit circumstances. This

means that an action that is successful on one day will be unsuccessful on another day it alldepends on the circumstances.

This is why Machiavelli is so reluctant to give strict rules for the princes behavior; what mattersis not following the rules, but being willing to break them when necessary. He counsels theprince to resist caution, since the cautious man is often reluctant to deviate from the safe path,

even when his fortune requires it. Better to act swiftly and suddenly, according to the moment.

An example of a prince who acted in this way is Pope Julius II. Julius always succeeded in his

endeavors because he always acted quickly and boldly. By making war when others were not

ready either to assist him or to oppose him, Julius ended up extremely powerful. Had he waiteduntil his friends and enemies were ready to fight, Machiavelli points out, Julius would have

either lost his war, or else had to share his victory with allies. Machiavelli concludes, in one of

the most often quoted passages of the book, that fortune is like a woman (the word fortuna, inItalian, is a feminine noun, so this makes a little more sense in the original); if you wish to

master her, you must conquer her by force. Moreover, she is more willing to be conquered by

forceful men of ability than by timid cowards (remember that the word virt means, literally,

manliness).

Chapter XXVI: Exhortation to Liberate Italy from the Barbarians


29/32

Nearly all of the previous chapters have concentrated on advising the new prince who has

recently come into power in a territory. This is no accident. In the final chapter of the book,

Machiavelli addresses his reader, presumably Prince Lorenzo de Medici, urging him to wagewar against the barbarians (the forces of Islam), and to reclaim Italy as his own. Machiavelli

assures Lorenzo that Italy is ready to follow a new leader, if only one would appear who is bold

enough to seize power. He tells Lorenzo to bear in mind the examples he has just read about, andto follow the counsel given in The Prince, so that he might acquire and maintain power in Italy.

Lorenzo should raise troops (his own men, not mercenaries or auxiliaries, of course), and strike

swiftly against the barbarian rule that stinks in the nostrils of every one. In the end, The Princehas a very practical, and very specific, goal in mind.

Sponsered by psychology of new jersey

courtesy of Michael Abrams, ph.d. order the new personality text by Albert Elliscopyrightr

copyright Mike Abrams, PhD

Bibliography courtesy ofMichael S. Abrams, Ph.D.

"Machiavelli, Niccol,"Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98 1994-1998 EncyclopaediaBritannica, Inc.

"The History of Western Philosophy: Modern philosophy: The Renaissance and earlymodern period: Dominant strands of Renaissance philosophy: Political theory,"

Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98 1994-1998 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

"Ethics: Western ethics from Socrates to the 20th century: Renaissance and Reformation:Machiavelli,"Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98 1994-1998 Encyclopaedia Britannica,

Inc.

"Italian Literature: The Renaissance: Political, historical, biographical, and moralliterature,"Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 98 1994-1998 Encyclopaedia Britannica,

Inc.

"Italian Literature,"Microsoft Encarta 99 Encyclopedia 1993 - 1998 Microsoft Corp. "Machiavelli, Niccol,"Microsoft Encarta 99 Encyclopedia 1993 - 1998 Microsoft

Corp.

Machiavelli, Niccol, Ed. Angelo M. Codevilla. The Prince, 1997 Yale University Press(used for footnotes)

Machiavelli, Niccol, Ed. Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. The Prince, 1985 The University ofChicago Press
http://www.psychology.ws/http://www.psychology.ws/http://www.personalitytext.com/http://www.psychology.ws/http://www.psychology.ws/http://www.psychology.ws/http://www.personalitytext.com/http://www.psychology.ws/http://www.psychology.ws/


30/32

Palmer and Colton.A History of the Modern World, 1971 Knopf THE PRINCE: GLOSSARY AGATHOCLES (361-289 B.C.) Potter's son, who through his special abilities became king of Syracuse. Machiavelli, however, considers him a villain. ALEXANDER THE GREAT (356-323 B.C.) One of Machiavell i's favorite historical examples of a successful and glorious prince. He conquered the kingdom of Darius of Persia. ALEXANDER SEVERUS (208-235 A.D.) Machiavelli's example of a weak prince, who was unduly influenced by his mother, hated by the people, and eventually murdered. AUXILIARY TROOPS Neighboring armies lent by powerful foreign princes in time of battle. Machiavelli regards them as highly dangerous. CESARE BORGIA (1475-1507) Model prince, who rose to power as the son of Pope Alexander VI. A brilliant tactical thinker, able leader, and cunning politician, Cesare Borgia fell victim to bad luck and lost his kingdom soon after his father's death. CHIRON Classical Greek mythological figure who was half-man and half-beast. Machiavelli employs this image to introduce his thesis that the prince must be both "fox" and "lion." ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPALITY Principality ruled by the Church and maintained by religious laws. The area around Rome, governed by the pope, was an ecclesiastical principality in Machiavelli's day. FERDINAND OF SPAIN (1452-1516) Machiavelli's example of a ruler who engaged in forceful foreign policies that resulted in absolute power. King Ferdinand drove the Moors out of Granada, attacked Africa, and invaded Italy and France simultaneously. FERMO City in central Italy, near the Adriatic Sea, part of the papal domain, 1538-1860. OLIVEROTTO DA FERMO Infamous prince, who ruled Fermo in 1501. He was murdered in 1502 for plotting to overthrow Cesare Borgia. FLORENCE City-state in central Italy, located on the Arno River and at the foot of the Apennines. Greatest cultural and artistic center of western Europe, fourteenth-sixteenth centuries. FORTUNE According to Machiavelli, luck that plays a pivotal role in the success or failure of a prince. GAETA Fortified seaport, located in central Italy on the Gulf of Gaeta. GOLDEN RULES Machiavelli's political maxims, or wise sayings, that summarize his major ideas and themes. HANNIBAL (247-183 B.C.) Leader of the Carthaginian army against Rome during the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.). HEREDITARY PRINCIPALITY Principality ruled by one person or one family for a prolonged period of time on the basis of an inherited right to power. LOMBARDY Region in northern Italy in the Italian Alps. It took its name from the fact that it was the center of the kingdom founded in the Po Valley by the Lombards, a German


31/32

people who invaded Italy in the sixth century. LOUIS XII (1462-1515) Machiavelli's example of a ruler whose military blunders cost him an empire. Louis XII, king of France, lost the duchy of Milan through a series of tactical delays, foolish alliances, and weak supporting armies. MAXIMILIAN I (1459-1519) Holy Roman Emperor. Machiavelli's example of a ruler who surrounded himself with flatterers instead of able advisers and was soon distrusted by the people. LORENZO DE' MEDICI (1492-1519) Grandson of Lorenzo the Magnificent and ruler of Florence when The Prince was written. Machiavelli dedicates the book to Lorenzo, whom he sees as a potentially glorious prince. MERCENARIES Hired armies that Machiavelli portrays as ambitious, undisciplined, and frequently cowardly in the face of attack. MILAN City in Lombardy, located in northern Italy. During the Renaissance, it was governed by the tyrannical Sforza family. The French sought to conquer Milan. MINISTERS Personal advisers to the prince. MIXED PRINCIPALITY Principality including both old and newly acquired provinces, subject to frequent rebellion and changes of leadership. MIXED TROOPS Armies composed of both mercenaries and national or local troops. Machiavelli describes mixed forces as disruptive, because they provoke bitter quarreling that undermines the spirit of a military campaign. NAPLES Seaport on the Bay of Naples. A scene of rivalry between France and Spain in Machiavelli's day. NATIVE TROOPS Armies formed by the citizens of a nation and loyal to the prince. Machiavelli considers them the best possible armies because they fight for their own freedom as well as for their prince. NEW PRINCIPALITY A principality formed by conquest and maintained only as long as a strong military can prevent its subsequent loss to another conqueror. REMIRRO D'ORCO The majordomo, or chief lieutenant, of Cesare Borgia. He was killed after he displayed excessive cruelty and brutality as commander of Romagna. Machiavelli cites him to show that by punishing (killing) him, Cesare Borgia tried to appear a humane prince. PETRARCH (1304-1374) Famous Italian poet. Machiavelli quotes several of his patriotic stanzas to conclude The Prince. PISA City-state in the province of Tuscany, in western Italy. Rebelled against Florentine rule 1494-1509; Machiavelli uses the image of Pisa in his writing to suggest that the love of freedom is so strong that a prince could never extinguish it by force alone. PISTORIA Surrounding province on the outskirts of Florence, seized by the Florentines in 1331. PRATO City located in Tuscany, in western Italy. Free Italian province in eleventh century; later under the control of Florence. Sacked by the Spaniards in 1512.


32/32

ROMAGNA Under papal control until 1500. Seized by Cesare Borgia in 1501. ROME City in central Italy, along the Tiber River. The capital of the Roman Empire and the seat of the papacy. ROMULUS Legendary founder of Rome. GIROLAMO SAVONAROLA (1452-1498) Dominican friar who had much influence in Florence from 1494 to 1497. He advocated puritanical laws. He was eventually hanged and burned in the town square by the Florentines. SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS (146-211 A.D.) Roman Emperor. Machiavelli's example of a strong prince who was both a fox and a lion. He defeated his rivals, Niger and Albinus, using cunning and force. FRANCESCO SFORZA (1401-1466) Duke of Milan, who maintained a fiercely loyal army to defend himself. After his death, his descendants neglected the art of war and were overthrown. SICILY Largest island in the Mediterranean Sea, at the extreme southern point of the Italian peninsula. Syracuse was the leading city of ancient Sicily. THESEUS Greek mythological hero and king of Athens. VENICE Seaport in northeast Italy. A rich, powerful aristocratic republic in Machiavelli's time. VIRTU Machiavelli's term for personal strength and ability, the special talent of a prince to seize the opportunity of a given moment and assume absolute power. BERNABO VISCONTI (1323-1385) Ruler famous for his cruel methods of punishment, including torture. Machiavelli uses him as an example of how a prince can instill fear in the hearts of the people. ^^^^^^^^^^

machiavelli and the context in which he wrote the prince

Documents