The Prince By Niccolo Machiavelli

The town of Pistoia lies near Florence, less than an hour away now by train. In the early 1500’s it was under the Florentine sphere of influence, but a rivalry between two families, the Cancellieri and Panciatichi families, started riots and unrest. At that time Florence was a Republic, and from 1498 to 1512, when the Republic would fall, Niccolo Machiavelli was Chancellor of the Florence Republic. He was sent to try to broker a peace between the rival factions. He did not like what he saw; he realized that the whole place was going to blow up, and blow up badly. He came back and told the leaders of the Republic that there was no hope; the two sides were going to butcher each other. Florence should avoid anarchy so close to the city, he argued, by going in with its overwhelming power and simply take control from the Pistoians. In Florence, the premier city of Renaissance Italy, public opinion was against such a move. They feared a reputation for cruelty, and instead tried to simply continue to broker a deal. The result was a civil war and unrest in 1502-03 where people were hacked in the streets, and mass killing and anarchy occurred. Machiavelli was to write: I say that every sensible prince wishes to be considered merciful and not cruel. Nevertheless, he takes care not to make a bad use of such mercy. Cesare Borgia was thought cruel; nevertheless that well-known cruelty of his re-organized the Romagna, united it, brought it to peace and loyalty. If we look at this closely, we see that he was much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to escape being called cruel, allowed the ruin of Pistoia. A wise prince, then, is not troubled about a reproach for cruelty by which he keeps his subjects united and loyal because, giving a very few examples of cruelty, he is more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, let evils continue, from which result murders or plunder, because the latter commonly harm a whole group, but those executions that come from the prince harm individuals only. The new prince — above all other princes — cannot escape being called cruel, since new governments abound in dangers…. Nevertheless, he is judicious in believing and in acting, and does not concoct fear for himself, and proceeds in such a way, moderated by prudence and kindness, that too much trust does not make him reckless and too much distrust does not make him unbear- able. This says something profound about Machiavelli’s motives, and displays what could be called a hidden moral agenda. Machiavelli thought a Prince or a leader had to act in a way that assured stability and order; the leader had a duty to the people, in other words. His emphasis on political expediency was not in the service of the personal power of a politician or leader, but in allowing that leader to do what is necessary for the sake of the people. The reason for this often misunderstood aspect of Machiavelli’s thought is evident when looking at his life. Machiavelli was born May 3, 1469 in Florence. In his early years, Florence was considered a major Italian power, and was the cultural center of the renaissance. But when he was 25, in 1494, French armies crossed into Italy with a major invasion, and over the coming years French and Spanish armies would fight for dominance in Italy. On the year of Machiavelli’s death, 1527, Rome would be sacked by armies from across Europe. Italy was, during Machiavelli’s lifetime, falling into disarray due to lack of leadership or unity, and the result was that it was at the mercy of armies and monarchs from elsewhere in Europe. After serving 14 years as Chancellor of Florence, an important post in the Republic, he was exiled in 1513 when the Republic fell, and the Medicis came back to power. He would write The Prince while in exile. It remains now to see what ought to be the rules of conduct for a prince towards subject and friends. And as I know that many have written on this point, I expect I shall be considered presumptuous in mentioning it again, especially as in discussing it I shall depart from the methods of other people. But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of the matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil. Interestingly, there are similarities between Plato and Machiavelli – each saw their state in crisis, culturally strong but declining in power and becoming susceptible to outside force. Plato took the idealist route: what kind of republic would be strong and virtuous, and avoid the moral decay destroying Athens from within? Machiavelli the realist route: what is the pragmatic way to be able to fend off foes and restore order and stability? For that you don’t need a philosopher king, you need a Prince, a leader who understands what it takes to lead. Such a prince, Machiavelli argues, must learn NOT to be limited by morality when necessary. A leader has to be able to use lies, force, and deception if needed in the world that is. The reason for this is clear when Machiavelli addresses the question of whether it be better to be feared or loved. This leads to a debate: Is it better to be loved than feared, or the reverse? The answer is that it is desirable to be both, but because it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer for a prince to be feared than loved, if he is to fail in one of the two. Because we can say this about men in general: they are ungrateful, changeable, … runaways in danger, eager for gain; while you do well by them they are all yours; they offer you their blood, their property, their lives, their children, … when need is far off; but when it comes near you, they turn about. A prince who bases himself entirely on their words, if he is lacking in other preparations, falls; because friendships gained with money, not with greatness and nobility of spirit, are purchased but not possessed, and at the right times cannot be turned to account. Men have less hesitation in injuring one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of duty which, since men are bad, they break at every chance for their own profit: but fear is held by a dread of punishment that never fails you. Nevertheless, the wise prince makes himself feared in such a way that, if he does not gain love, he escapes hatred; because to be feared and not to be hated can well be combined; this he will always achieve if he refrains from the property of his citizens and his subjects and from their women. And if he does need to take anyone's life, he does so when there is proper justification and a clear case. But above all, he refrains from the property of others, because men forget more quickly the death of a father than the loss of a father's estate. … But when the prince is with his armies and has in his charge a multitude of soldiers, then it is altogether essential not to worry about being called cruel, for without such a reputation he never keeps an army united or fit for any action. … I conclude, then, reverting to being feared and loved, that since men love at their own choice and fear at the prince's choice, a wise prince takes care to base himself on what is his own, not on what is another's; he strives only to avoid hatred….. A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.

Excerpts from

Erb, Scott. "Machiavelli and Power Politics." Paper presented at the University of Maine at Farmington, October 26, 2005. Gilbert Allen, Ed., Machiavelli: The Chief Works & Others, 1965, 1, pp 56-57. Reprinted in Advanced Placement European History I, Lesson 7