The Prince

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a short 16th-century instruction guide for new rulers. One copy of it ended up inside a defeated emperor's coach. After his defeat at Waterloo, Napoleon I of France lost that coach to the Prussian military. Inside they found the extensive comments he had written on the book at different stages of his life.

  Napoleon was not alone. Joseph Stalin also read the treatise, and he annotated his own copy. Kings, cardinals, playwrights and dictators all wrestled with this slim volume.

  The book is the reason the word "Machiavellian" became an insult. That raises a puzzle. Why would a manual for rulers, written by a diplomat and political philosopher, earn such a reputation? Who was it written for, and did he ever read it? And did its author mean what he wrote?

  535412

• 2. Dedication and Delay

  ›

  In 1513, Machiavelli's letters show him at work on a version under the Latin title De Principatibus, meaning Of Principalities. That was the year after the Medici regained control of Florence. It was also only a few months after the incoming Medici regime had arrested, tortured and banished him.

  Francesco Vettori, a friend of Machiavelli, talked the project over with him for a long time. Machiavelli hoped Vettori would carry the work to the Medici and speak well of it.

  The first intended reader was Giuliano di Lorenzo de' Medici, who died in 1516. The finished dedication went instead to Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici, grandson of Lorenzo the Magnificent. Lorenzo's uncle Giovanni had become Pope Leo X in 1513. In the dedicatory letter, Machiavelli calls himself a "humble servant". He says the book holds what he learned from "hardships and dangers", along with knowledge of "the actions of great men".

  Nobody can say for certain that any Medici read it before it was printed. The printing came in 1532, five years after Machiavelli died, and it had the permission of the Medici pope Clement VII. One commentator notes that controversy had swirled around his writings long before that, starting when the book first circulated in manuscript.

  The familiar title Il Principe appeared only after publication. Scholars have no surviving manuscript in Machiavelli's own handwriting. The scholar William Connell sees the text as the product of a lengthy process, with ideas revised between 1513 and 1515.

  The opening chapters show what Machiavelli wanted his Medici reader to grasp first: the problems of a ruler building a position from nothing.

  356595710

• 3. Taking and Holding States

  ›

  The first sentence of The Prince uses the Italian word stato to cover every kind of supreme political power, republican or princely. Stato could also mean "status", and scholars still debate how the word acquired its modern meaning during the Renaissance. Machiavelli signals that this book concerns princedoms, and that he has treated republics elsewhere.

  In the second chapter he sets inherited rule aside. A hereditary prince, he says, can expect his subjects to be well disposed to him "unless extraordinary vices cause him to be hated". The real novelty lies in his focus on a new ruler who must establish himself against custom. Earlier advice books were normally addressed to hereditary princes. His sorting of regimes is also simpler than the scheme in Aristotle's Politics, which separates rule by one, by a few and by the people. He ignores the classical line between good and corrupt forms, such as monarchy and tyranny.

  Chapter 3 deals with "mixed" princedoms, which are new territory added to an old state. Machiavelli lists four Roman habits. Settle colonies of your own people there, which is better than moving in yourself. Indulge the lesser local powers without strengthening them. Put down the strong. Keep foreign powers from gaining standing. He warns against relying on time, which brings evil as well as good. He also insists that an injury should be "so severe that the prince is not in fear of revenge".

  Chapter 4 compares kingdoms. France, where the king depends on his lords, is easy to enter and hard to hold. The Persia of Darius III, conquered by Alexander the Great, was the reverse. Everyone served the king, so entry was hard but holding was easy. Machiavelli says the Ottoman empire, which he calls the kingdom of the Turk, resembles Persia.

  Chapter 5 turns to free states with their own laws. Machiavelli offers three options. Ruin the city, as Rome did to Carthage. Rule it in person. Or leave a native oligarchy in charge. He prefers destruction, because a prince who spares such a city can expect "to be destroyed by it".

  In chapter 6 he separates rulers who rise by their own virtue, virtù, from those carried by fortune, fortuna. The first group struggles to reach the top but is secure once there. Reform is among the most dangerous tasks, because those who gained from the old order fight hard while the likely winners are lukewarm. Only armed prophets like Moses, he says, bring lasting change.

  Chapter 9 introduces two "humors" found in every city. The "great" want to oppress and rule, while the "people" only want to avoid being oppressed. A prince raised by the nobles, he argues, stands among men who think themselves his equals. So he advises building on the people. Chapter 10 measures a state by whether it can defend itself.

  Chapter 11 treats the Catholic Church as a principality. Machiavelli calls such states easy to keep, since they need neither armies nor governing. He points to factionalism as the Church's old weakness and to the Borgia family as a better strategy that nearly worked. He then proposes that the Medici are placed to try the same.

  1115191325

• 4. Arms and Allies

  ›

  In chapters 12 to 14, Machiavelli names sound laws and strong military forces as the two essential foundations of any state. A self-sufficient prince can meet any enemy in the field with his own arms. One who can only defend must fortify his city well, because few armies can endure a long siege. During that siege, a virtuous prince keeps morale high and removes dissenters.

  Mercenaries draw his sharpest scorn, and here he was innovative. Machiavelli had personal experience of them in Florence. In his view they are undisciplined, cowardly and disloyal, motivated by money alone. He blames the weakness of the Italian city states on their reliance on hired soldiers.

  Auxiliary troops, borrowed from an ally, are worse. If they win, the borrower owes them a favor. If they lose, he is ruined. They are also united and led by capable commanders who may turn on their employer.

  A prince's main concern should be war, not books, in Machiavelli's account. He declares that "being disarmed makes you despised". The prince should hunt often, which keeps him fit and teaches him the land around his realm. For the mind, he should study great military men, copy their successes and avoid their mistakes. Idleness is a danger. A prince who works in peacetime will be "prepared to resist" when fortune turns.

  Fortresses are another matter. In chapter 20 he allows that they sometimes work but often fail. He would blame anyone who trusts in fortresses while thinking little of being hated by the people. His example is Caterina Sforza, who used a fortress for defense and was still betrayed by her people.

  Chapter 21 is about winning esteem. Machiavelli praises King Ferdinand of Spain, who earned a name through great feats. Ferdinand conquered territory in the name of religion, which kept his subjects too busy to rebel. On warring neighbors, Machiavelli is blunt: it is wiser to choose a side than to stay neutral. A winning ally benefits you either way. A losing ally is still an ally.

  13161118

• 5. Vice as Strategy

  ›

  Cesare Borgia, whose career overlapped with Machiavelli's own diplomatic service, is the book's chief example of a lucky prince who escaped the usual fate. His father, Pope Alexander VI, made him commander of the papal armies. Yet he also depended on mercenaries loyal to the Orsini brothers and on the support of the French king. He won over the Orsini followers with better pay and prestigious government posts.

  To pacify the Romagna, Borgia sent in his henchman Remirro de Orco, who carried out acts of violence. When Remirro became hated, Borgia ordered him "cut in two", showing the people that the cruelty was not his, although it was. Mercenary captains who plotted against him were captured and executed. When the French king seemed ready to drop him, he looked for new allies.

  Chapter 8 pairs Borgia with darker models. Agathocles of Syracuse, once Praetor, called the city's elite to a meeting. At his signal, soldiers killed the senators and the wealthiest citizens. He ruled unopposed and could leave for military campaigns in Africa. Machiavelli refuses to call this virtue. Such modes, he writes, "can enable one to acquire empire, but not glory".

  Oliverotto of Fermo invited the notable people of his town, including his uncle Giovanni Fogliani, to a dinner on serious political matters. His soldiers came out of hiding and killed them all. Then he besieged the governing council until the magistrates accepted him as absolute ruler. Oliverotto met the same end, strangled by Cesare Borgia after being invited to a friendly gathering with Vitellozzo Vitelli.

  From these examples Machiavelli draws a rule. A prince should work out every wicked deed he needs, then carry them all out in one stroke. Subjects slowly forget, and the prince can win them back. A ruler who hesitates must "keep a knife by his side". Aristotle's Politics advised the opposite.

  Chapter 17 asks whether a prince should be loved or feared. Machiavelli says one would like both, but "it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both". Promises made in peacetime may not survive adversity, while fear of punishment never fades. The fear must not harden into hatred, so a prince should never touch his subjects' property or their women. He contrasts Borgia, whose cruelty kept order, with the leaders of Florence, whose mercy let Pistoia destroy itself.

  Armies show the same pattern. Hannibal led soldiers of many races who never rebelled, because they feared him. Machiavelli calls this "inhuman cruelty" and names it a virtue. Scipio Africanus, by contrast, had mutinous troops through "excessive mercy", which still earned glory because he lived in a republic.

  Generosity fares badly in chapter 16. An overly generous prince breeds greed, drains his resources, raises taxes and is finally branded a miser anyway. Better to be called stingy than hated. Giving away what belongs to others is different, as the examples of Cyrus, Caesar and Alexander show.

  Chapter 15 announces the method. Machiavelli wants "the effectual truth" rather than imagination. He writes: "Men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all." A man who strives after goodness in everything will come to ruin among many who are not good. A prince should seem merciful, faithful, humane and religious, because he cannot truly be all of these when necessity intervenes.

  Chapter 18 presses the point. The prince should become a "great liar and deceiver" while keeping up the look of honesty. He is told to learn from the lion, which stands for force, and the fox, which stands for deception. The image echoes Cicero's De Officiis while reversing its conclusion.

  Chapter 19 concedes that every prince will be hated by someone, so he must at least avoid the hatred of the most powerful. Septimius Severus is the model, a ruler who "embodied both the fox and the lion". Severus deceived and killed military rivals and oppressed the people, yet kept them "satisfied and stupified". Machiavelli adds that only the Turkish empire of his time still faced the Roman problem of a greedy military.

  1921222955

• 6. Fortune and Counsel

  ›

  Machiavelli sorts minds into three "kinds of brains" in chapter 22. The best understands things for itself. The good one understands what others explain. The third does neither and is useless. A prince without the first kind must at least have the second. He writes that a prince needs "the discernment to recognize the good or bad in what another says or does even though he has no acumen himself".

  Flatterers worry him in chapter 23. People are so absorbed in their own affairs that they fall for flattery easily, yet refusing all advice is just as foolish. His middle road is a small circle of wise advisers who speak truthfully, with the final decision resting on the prince alone. Emperor Maximilian I is the warning. He was secretive and consulted no one, but dropped his plans the moment they met dissent.

  In chapter 24, Machiavelli tells the princes of Italy who lost their states that they cannot blame bad luck. He accuses their own indolence and says one "should never fall in the belief that you can find someone to pick you up".

  Fortune dominates chapter 25. A commentator observes that "Fortune pervades The Prince as she does no other similar work". Machiavelli holds that she judges only half our actions, while the other half answers to "sweat", prudence and virtue. He compares her to a torrential river in flood season, which people can tame with dams and levees during calm periods. Italy suffered because no resistance had been built. He also claims Italians leave things to "fortune and God", suggesting Christianity had made them helpless and lazy about their own politics.

  His advice on risk was unusual too. Rather than urging caution, he says the greatest princes tend to take more risks. He writes that "it is better to be impetuous than cautious, because fortune is a woman". His friend Francesco Guicciardini voiced similar ideas.

  The book ends in chapter 26 with an appeal to the Medici to seize Italy and free her from the barbarians, using Italian armies. Leo X, a Medici, sat on the papal throne when the work was written. Naming papal power as a personal base for secular politics was unusual for the genre, and it recalled the controversial Borgia attempts.

  1346262960

• 7. Banned and Praised

  ›

  By 1559, when the Index of Paul IV arrived, roughly fifteen editions of The Prince and nineteen of the Discourses had circulated. French translations of each existed too. The Tridentine Index repeated the condemnation in 1564. These measures nearly stopped publication in Catholic areas, with France as the exception.

  Three writers led the early attack. They were the English cardinal Reginald Pole, the Portuguese bishop Jerónimo Osório and the Italian humanist Ambrogio Caterino Politi. Pole read Il Principe in Italy and wrote that he "found this type of book to be written by an enemy of the human race". Yet Pole also reported that his enemy Thomas Cromwell spoke highly of it in England. He believed it had influenced Henry VIII in his turn to Protestantism and in his tactics during the Pilgrimage of Grace.

  Charles V, the Catholic king and emperor, owned a copy. In France, a mixed first reaction gave way to an association between Machiavelli and Catherine de Medici, and with the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Sixteenth-century Catholic writers linked him to Protestants, while Protestant authors saw an Italian Catholic. In fact he was shaping the thinking of kings on both sides.

  In Geneva in 1576, the Huguenot Innocent Gentillet published Discourse against Machiavelli, often called Anti Machiavel. He accused Machiavelli of atheism and called his works the "Koran of the courtiers". More in Machiavelli's own spirit, Gentillet questioned whether immoral strategies even work. Catholic Counter Reformation writers such as Giovanni Botero and Justus Lipsius criticized Machiavelli yet followed him in many ways. They cited Tacitus for realist advice, a pretense known as "Tacitism".

  The English stage took him up. Christopher Marlowe made him a character in the prologue of The Jew of Malta. William Shakespeare's Othello, Macbeth and Richard III feature versions of the stage Machiavel, a figure who advances through devious means.

  Thinkers who built modern materialist philosophy noted his realism, among them Francis Bacon, Spinoza, Rousseau, Hume and Adam Smith. Republicanism in seventeenth-century England, leading to the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, drew strongly on his political thought. Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams are widely thought to have been influenced as well.

  Rulers answered him directly. In 1740 Frederick the Great of Prussia published an Anti-Machiavel, written under the guidance of Voltaire. In the 20th century, Benito Mussolini wrote a discourse on The Prince. The book also helped give "politics" and "politician" their negative ring in Western countries.

  4445475253

• 8. Satire or Sincerity

  ›

  In 1958, the scholar Garrett Mattingly argued that the treatise was "a diabolical burlesque" of the Mirrors of Princes, "like a political Black Mass". Earlier, Enlightenment thinkers had floated a similar idea. Diderot guessed that it secretly exposed corrupt princely rule. In The Social Contract, Rousseau read the choice of Cesare Borgia as a hero as a clue to Machiavelli's hidden love of liberty.

  Isaiah Berlin could find no other work that "reads less" like satire. Maurizio Viroli says that none of these defenses is valid and that the idea misrepresents the text.

  Mary Dietz offers a third reading in "Trapping The Prince". She argues that Machiavelli gave advice meant to undo a ruler who followed it, so as to restore the republic in Florence. She names three paradoxes. He discourages liberality, supports arming the people, and urges the prince to live in the city he conquers, against the Medici habit of living outside. Lorenzo, a "suspicious prince", never read the book, so the trap never closed. John Scott and Vickie Sullivan reply that she has identified "the wrong plot".

  Antonio Gramsci held that Machiavelli addressed the common people rather than those already ruling. He called the author the first "Italian Jacobin".

  Dating the work matters too. Hans Baron thought Machiavelli changed his mind sharply toward free republics after writing The Prince. Harvey Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov see the two books as a pair, not much different in time of composition.

  Another thread is ancient. Machiavelli refers to Xenophon more often than to Plato, Aristotle and Cicero combined. Xenophon wrote the Education of Cyrus, and Leo Strauss noted his dialogue Hiero, in which a wise man deals sympathetically with a tyrant. The Rhetorica ad Herennium, believed in Machiavelli's day to be Cicero's, condones force and deception as part of political life. That made it an ideal text for him. He claimed in his introduction not to have used "big, impressive words", yet echoes of classical rhetoric appear.

  On morality, commentators split. Some excuse him because Italy was in continuous conflict. Another declares that even a patriot or scientist could still be "a teacher of evil". His other writings include The Girl from Andros, The Art of War and The Mandrake.

  5861432556