Renaissance Lit, Discussion Question #2 - The Prince
March 25, 2008 by mswilson
Machiavelli wrote The Prince while in exile, yet in his preface he spends a lot of time praising the very ruler that had him banished from the city of Florence. How do Machiavelli’s actions here reflect the political advice he gives to the rest of us? Is he following his own precepts or is he being hypocritical as he “sucks up” to the ruler? There are some who would say that Machiavelli wrote The Prince solely as a way to end his exile from Florence and that the book is therefore ‘false’ or ‘fake’ - any thoughts on this opinion?
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
it is my opinion that he does follow his own precepts in this circumstance, he spends much time stressing the ability to manipulate people by ways of praise. So in this situation he is simply obtaining a political alliance in order to exploit it for his own benefit, in the future. How else could Machiavelli seek to return to Florence the city which he was banished from, besides appealing to the man who banished him? He is not in any position of power to force his way back into the city or even pressure the Florentine ruler into allowing him back. So in that case Machiavelli was forced to play on the rulers vanity in order to get what he wanted.
Machiavelli’s actions show that he follows his own precepts. He must have done something contradictory to what the ruler of Florence wanted in order to get exiled in the first place. Machiavelli shows a firm belief in doing whatever is necessary to maintain power in The Prince. In every situation he describes, he lists the options a ruler has, studies the effects of each option, and selects the best possible option of the ones presented. His thinking in this situation was probably the same. The option that Machiavelli had that would produce the best possible outcome for him was to praise the ruler that exiled him in hopes of being allowed in Florence again. As a result, that is what he did, whether or not he really believed the ruler of Florence was doing a good job. Machiavelli’s pattern of thought presented in The Prince indicates that by praising the ruler of Florence, he was following his own precepts.
I believe the argument posited by Machiavelli may not be a reflection of his true feelings. While Machiavelli was in power in Florence, before the Medicis exiled him, the state was considered to be a republic rather than a principality. While his discussion is centered completely around principalities, he never addresses which type of government is more ideal: rather, he just dismisses the republic as uninvolved with his argument. He might be simply suggesting the best ways for a prince to deal with the situations that come with ruling over a principality even though he prefers the republic. I do agree with Davio that he is appealing to the ruler that exiled him. He wants to gain the new prince’s approval by giving him a handbook of ideas, hoping that the prince will consider him to be so helpful that he’ll allow him to return.
Both Mary H and Davio hit the nail on the head. I too agree that Machiavelli definitely stuck to his precepts. The mere fact that he was exiled is proof enough that he did what he wanted, without worrying about what others thought of his actions. Generally speaking, it takes a blatant act of disregard for a ruler’s likings to be thrown out of his domain as a reciprocating punishment. After having crassly demonstrated his utter lack of respect for the Florentine ruler, he did what any man would have done; sought redemption. Granted, it was somewhat hypocritical of him to praise the very man with whom he had altercated, but he was given no alternative choice. He had no other way of regaining access to Florence, and seized the only feasible path back into the city. Machiavelli weighed the pros and cons and decided that the best course of action for himself, which proves that he did in fact follow his precepts. As for those who say that The Prince is ‘fake,’ I disagree entirely. Machiavelli approaches every situation presented in the text from all sides, weighs the potential outcomes and selects which one he feels is best. By using deductive reasoning and documenting his thought process, Machiavelli demonstrated that he must have believed what he wrote. Just as a mathematician shows the work required to get to the solution, Machiavelli takes the reader on a comprehensive journey through the process that derived him the answer.
How do Machiavelli’s actions here reflect the political advice he gives to the rest of us? Is he following his own precepts or is he being hypocritical as he “sucks up” to the ruler?
Well first of all Machiavelli’s advice was directed at princes, particularly those that did not rise to power but rather were born into it, as he writes, “I will deal only with monarchies.” So I’m not exactly sure that he would be hypocritical if he did not follow the advice he is giving to a hereditary monarch, seeing as he is not one. Regardless, he does not contradict any of his own precepts by “sucking up” to this ruler. As Machiavelli consistently reaffirms throughout The Prince morals and personal beliefs are not to come into the decision making process, only what is most expedient in achieving your end goals. So assuming Machiavelli’s end goal is to ingratiate himself with the ruler of Florence then writing a flattering introduction, whether or not he actually admires the man is an intelligent decision not hindered by morals or personal bias; and as a result is completely in line with his ideas.
There are some who would say that Machiavelli wrote The Prince solely as a way to end his exile from Florence and that the book is therefore ‘false’ or ‘fake’ - any thoughts on this opinion?
An obvious way to determine whether or not this is “fake” would be to compare The Prince with Machiavelli’s other works (assuming he did write other political treatises) and see if there is a huge contradiction between The Prince and his other works not written during his exile. Also, if this work was “fake” then it is assumed that Machiavelli’s true ideals were contradictory to it. However, if Machiavelli really did not believe in using excessively violent or oppressive means to ensure stability then why did he recommend that this ruler use such methods? Surely Machiavelli could have devised other ways to flatter this ruler and secure his own return to Florence aside from totally contradicting his personal beliefs and recommending violence and oppression.
Also one other small section suggests that Machiavelli truly believed what he wrote. The final chapter, Chapter 26, Exhortation to Liberate Italy from the Barbarians seems to me particularly sincere and heartfelt and not particularly satirical. In this final chapter Machiavelli practically begs the ruler he writes to, “This opportunity must not, therefore, be allowed to pass, so that Italy may at length find her liberator…May your illustrious house therefore assume this task with that courage and those hopes which are inspired by a just cause, so that under its banner our father may be raised up.” To me, Machiavelli seems so hopeful that this ruler has a chance to seize back the former glory of Italy (that Machiavelli, obviously well versed in history frequently makes reference to), it just does not seem “false” to me.
I agree with Mary H, she emphasizes the point that the circumstances which Machiavelli discuss lists the options a ruler has, and then effectively selects the more efficient or the more successful. Machiavelli is clearly applying the same tactics in his writing without having to invalidate his writings.
Machiavelli might also be demonstrating humility throughout his writings and show that even though he might feel wronged, he does accept that the ruler is trying to work towards the common good of his nation.
I agree with Mary’s concept of how Machiavelli has described all possibly options of various situations, and interprets the effects and overall outcome of each. The Prince, itself, can be seen as a link for Machiavelli’s own admittance back into Florence by inferring his own motives for constructing such a critical guide for Lorenzo de’ Medici, However, the true bulk of the book is much more than just a clever way for Machiavelli to purge his previous offenses. I believe that he had taken the best out of his situation, and used his time out of Florence to reflect on politics and analyze what he has seen being done, and give advice stemming from his knowledge of past experiences regarding these specific themes. When reacting to the entire preface, and how Machiavelli might seem to be “sucking up” to the prince, it does convey a slightly sketchy mood, however that serves as only a reasoning for the birth of the book, and should not be taken into account when evaluating his commitment to his ideas and advice.
Medici banished Machiavelli because he had been discovered to be (vaguely) plotting to overthrow the new ruler. The Prince clearly seems to try to win Medici’s favour, but at the same time Machiavelli is admitting his own mistakes, and showing a deeper comprehension of Medici’s decision. Even though Machiavelli is trying to gain back Medici’s favour (by kissing up to him) he at the same time is not deviating from his own precepts.
(sorry about the double post)
As strange as this may sound, I agree both with Mary H. AND Davio on this one. I believe that Machiavelli wrote The Prince using his own precepts while praising the ruler of Florence for a reason. I believe this because, like Mary H. said, Machievalli’s precepts state that a prince must do anything necessary to maintain power and since Machiavelli has been banished from Florence, he needs to “suck up” to the ruler a bit to get himself back into Florence. In order for Machiavelli to regain his power in Florence, he has to do anything, including “sucking up” to the ruler of Florence, in order to regain his power. Though he is teaching his own precepts, which are most likely very similar to the ruler of Florence, he praises the Florentine ruler. I do not believe that Machiavelli would teach precepts that he did not believe in because the renaissance was a time of enlightened thinking and it would not make a lot of sense for a thinker such as himself to write a book about something he does not believe in so that he could regain power. I do not think that Machiavelli’s The Prince is fake at all, however I can most definitely understand how this could be misinterpreted.
I agree with Mary H. Every ruler that Machiavelli describes is judged only by whether they were able to effectively govern the state, with little regard to how moral they were. For instance, he praises Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus without making any mention of their ability to influence public opinion about them or gain their subjects’ respect. He instead champions them for never letting their guard down, and being prepared for the day that their people no longer trusted them. Similarly, Machiavelli criticizes Fra Girolamo Savonarola who was overthrown because he had no means of compelling his subjects to respect them whent they no longer would out of the goodness in their heart. The best leader, in his mind, is one who aknowledges that “And so it is necessary to order things so that when they no longer believe, the can be made to believe by force,” (50). In my opinion, this line is intended more to be a confession of Machiavelli’s mistakes as a ruler than a useful piece of advice for the new prince. He is aknowledging that his inability to prepare for the day that the Medicis no longer respected him was his downfall, and that he was justly removed from power for lack of foresight.
The Prince is a genuine study of monarchies and politics by Machiavelli. There is nothing in it, I believe, that isn’t a sincere hypothesis on how the ideal country should be run. Machiavelli based everything in his book on hiis own observations of different governments and did not write an entire book that had no solid content. Yet still, I believe that the reason Machiavelli wrote this book was pretty much to “suck up” to the Prince. Machiavelli probably would have not addressed his essay on government to the prince if he was not trying to sweet-talk him. Of course, the smart thing to do in his case was to do what he did, so he could be exonerated from exile. Yet still, his writing was not garbage, as I said earlier. The reason for writig his essay was garbage and not genuine, but the actual writing itself is ingenious. So, in conclusion as Mike said, Machiavelli’s the Prince is not “fake at all.” It was a real, sincere piece of writing; however, it was driven by the want to return to his country. But arn’t most works of literature written for personal interests such as money? Machiavelli’s writing was is a great demonstration of thought and reasoning.
I agree with Noah, especially with how he pointed out that Machiavelli describes and judges rulers of nations by what they achieve while in power. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli uses different leaders from the past to give the audience evidence which would support what he was trying to say. Though his preface focuses on praising the ruler who exiled him from Florence, I do not believe he was simply doing this to placate the ruler. Why would an educated man who’s writings appear honest and direct lower himself enough to lie and suck up just to make amends? Based on what he preaches through his writings, it does not seem Machiavelli would do something like this. In Chapter VI, Machiavelli states that, “People are by nature changeable. It is easy to persuade them about some particular matter, but it is hard to hold them to that persuasion”. Though he could attempt to placate the powerful man whom he irritated, he was aware that due to human nature, it would be incredibly difficult to completely convince the ruler to forgive him. Because he was aware of this, and even shared it with the audience who reads The Prince, Machiavelli seems to have accepted his exile (albeit with unhappiness) and to have chosen to consider what good qualities the leader of Florence had instead of dwelling on the banishment this leader thrust upon him.
The fact that Machiavelli wrote The Prince in order to manipulate his way back into Florence is a prime example of his political beliefs: obtain a position of power by any means possible. Machiavelli portrays political savvy as the ability to compromise your true identity and assume whatever “fake” personality will act as a springboard to success. Often times this requires that an individual bulldoze their morals, ethics, and personal belief system in order to best harness the winds of political influence. Machiavelli’s political advice is stated as fact in chapter 6, “And in examining the life and deeds of great rulers, it will be seen that they owed nothing to fortune but the opportunity which gave them matter to be shaped into what form they thought fit;”(49) Machiavelli is heeding his own advice by seizing the opportunity of writing this book so that he may shape the matter of his exile into the renewed influence he sees fit for himself in Florence. I agree with Dan S that Machiavelli approaches politics in a very technical manner in which the pros and cons of a situation are weighed before making the move that will best serve his political ambitions.
Machivelli definitely has his own precepts but he is also aware of the fact that he needs to end his exile in Florence and therefore he says things to impress the ruler. Not only does he go into great depth in each of his dicussions, but he is sure to mention all aspects and sides to the topic. For example, he mentions that rulers acquire states through their own abilities rather than birth. However, in addition, he states that this is not an easy method. In fact, it is very difficult method. He is sure to include the different point of views with each topic so that the ruler will approve of his reasoning. Ultimately however, Machivelli speaks for himself. As Dan mentioned, “Machiavelli weighed the pros and cons and decided that the best course of action for himself, which proves that he did in fact follow his precepts.”
It seems as though Machiavelli is following his own words. During the time though the king of Florence was a powerful influential man. He was able to keep the empire together with out it collapsing and Machiavelli really hadn’t been influenced by any other ruler, so it would be easy to assume that he was basing his theories off of what he as a person experienced before he was exiled. I do agree with Davio that he was using this as a way to suck up to the king and get back into Florence and how the only way that he could do it was through flattery. However, he could have also produced this book to help out other rulers in different countries that weren’t so successful. If he had written this work for that reason then he might have been able to get a position in a court where he would have more influence. When this piece is looked at through different views both of them seem correct and maybe parts from both are correct but it is difficult to determine what he was thinking through one piece.
After reading everyone’s answers, both Davio and Mary P’s resembled my own thoughts the most. I believe that Machiavelli is indeed following what he has told us in his book. He stresses the idea that the ruler should be able to do whatever he must in order to maintain stability in the nation of Italy. Therefore, he is, in a way, agreeing with Medici that his own exile was the right thing for him to do. The fact that he is writing this to a member of the Medici family just reiterates the fact that he is “sucking” up in order to gain favor with the ruling family again.
I also agree with the views of Davio and Mary P. I acknowledge that Machiavelli is “sucking up” to the ruler but i don’t necasserily think that he compromises his own values in doing so. He maintains that a ruler must do whatever he needs to in order to maintain control of his empire, thus he understands the reason for his exile. At the same time it’s only natural that Machiavelli wants to return to Florence. He is following his own advice in doing whatever he needs to do so that he can be allowed to return to his hometown. Although Machiavelli might have been hoping that his book may cause the ruler to change his mind about his exile, I still believe he wrote it based on his own precepts.