Comments on: Renaissance Lit, Discussion Question #2 - The Prince

By: Damian

Damian — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:50:20 +0000

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.

By: Vanessa

Vanessa — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:03:10 +0000

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.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:30:12 +0000

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.

By: Kristen S

Kristen S — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:41:34 +0000

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.”

By: Liana

Liana — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:29:30 +0000

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.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:27:19 +0000

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.

By: Zach

Zach — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:32:09 +0000

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.

By: Noah

Noah — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:11:09 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:50:47 +0000

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.

By: Andres

Andres — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:43:51 +0000

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)