Comments on: Renaissance Lit, Discussion Question #4 - The Prince

By: Liana

Liana — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:26:44 +0000

Being the last post on the wall, I was shocked by most of the responses I read. Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of a text, but how could so many different interpretations not acknowledge the (for lack of a better word) EVIL dripping from Machiavelli’s words? His most basic advice on dealing with your fellow man is to either insincerely kind or brutally violent. “At this point one may note that men must be either pampered or annihilated. They avenge light offenses; they cannot avenge severe ones; hence, the harm one does to a man must be such as to obviate any fear of revenge.” I can agree with everyone that Machiavelli was a master of logic. It is precisely Machiavelli’s sick practicality that is the basis for his terrible reputation.
The emphasis Machiavelli puts on practicality, logic, and expedience make The Prince read almost like a manual for operating machinery. A nation should be run as though it were an elaborate mechanical device and one must simply trash parts that aren’t working your way. But the fact of the matter is, a nation is made not of metal but flesh and blood. Consider for a moment the point about destroying free cities that Elliot brought up. For the sake of one man’s political ambition, Machiavelli would have an entire city destroyed because its inhabitants live freely. I am not trying to be “excessively emotional” when I imagine the carnage that this CUNNINGLY simple and DECEIVINGLY “harmless” statement implies. Don’t let a matter-of-fact writing style dampen the image of blood, terror, and fear those words suggest. Human lives become worthless when merely looked at from the perspective of logic and practicality.

By: Kali

Kali — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:14:29 +0000

I agree with Davio and Damian that Machiavelli does not deserve such a negative connotation. Although his idea’s for ruling did not benifit the lower, common people, how many politicians and rulers do, even today? Marchiavelli was giving an outline to Princes on how to rule a nation effectively. It was up to them to decide if they took that information and ruled their people justly or not. Some people could look at his writting and think he was showing princes how to decieve their people and gain as much power and control as possible, I think he was teaching the princes ways to keep stability within a nation and expand their empire, which no one has seemed to ever have a problem with. Although I do not agree with many of the ideas and strategies that Machiavelli bringing up in The Prince, I would not go so far as to give him such a negative connotation. He had many great ideas for ruling and maintaining control that has changed political affairs forever.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:03:20 +0000

I must agree with Damian and Mary H. I do not think that I could possibly agree with them more that Machiavelli does not deserve this negative connotation. Machiavelli is merely stating the most efficient means of obtaining and maintaining power for a leader. Like Damian said, it is the survival of the fittest, where anything goes. In politics, politicians will do anything to maintain their power. Like Mary H. said, sometimes you need to do things you normally wouldn’t to maintain power. I think all those who think Machiavelli has a bad connotation seem to forget that people are not perfect, and that people sometimes do bad things but for a good reason. For Machiavelli, this would be to keep the status quo in his favor. He is not teaching leaders to be deceitful or expedient all the time to remain in power, just when necessary.

By: Elliot

Elliot — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:34:31 +0000

I very much agree with Mary P. that Machiavelli deserves this reputation. As basically everyone agrees, Machiavelli definitely deserves his reputation as “cunning and expedient”, however the argument seems to be the tags of “deceitful” and “bad”. As Mary wrote, his reputation as deceitful is well-deserved. Machiavelli his deceitfulness especially clear in Chapter 18, for example he writes, “A certain prince of the present time, whom it is well not to name, never does anything but preach peace and good faith, but he is really a great enemy to both, and either of them, and he observed them, would have lost him state or reputation on many occasions.”

The negative connotation of Machiavellian is also well deserved, and I don’t really see how people are disagreeing with this, come on, he was brutal! In Chapter 5 when he is writing about how to deal with free cities he makes it pretty clear as to why he deserves this negative connotation. He writes, “and whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it.” He is saying that better than to try and win the favor of people who once lived in a free city, that governed itself has to be dealt with in one of two ways: Either you go and live there personally or you destroy the city. I think this makes it pretty obvious as to why his strategies carry such a negative reputation.

By: Noah

Noah — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:47:07 +0000

I agree with Damien and Davio. The criticism of Machiavelli probably stems from the fact that he does not praise a republican form of government over one that is corrupt and harsh, but stable. In my response to the previous question, I pointed out that Machiavelli would probably advocate a government that uses whatever means necessary to acheive stability within a nation. Throughout the Prince, machiavelli tells tales of rulers who build themselves up militarily, tax their citizens, and use occaisionally unjust measures to control their nation. While rulers should keep human rights in mind while governing a state, advocating harsh measures to ensure control is always preferable to anarchy. Growing up in America, I can understand why people would disrespect a ruler that didn’t guarantee rights to their citizens. And yet, if one is to consider the time period in which Machiavelli wrote, then they will understand that governments came and went over a period of a few years, and stability in any form was praise worthy.

By: Zach

Zach — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:38:47 +0000

Yeah, I can’t disagree with Davio and Damain. Machiavelli’s writing was not created so that the people would suffer and the powerful would be happy, but to help leaders of countries, nations, and empires make decisions that would be in the interest of almost everyonone. Machiavelli’s goal was to find the ideal way that a prince or leader should act, what he should enforce, and how to have the people follow their leader with outmatched loyalty. The only way that I could see Machiavelli’s writing style as cunniing was the way he used it to buy the prince’s favor back, so that he would return unbanished.

By: Kristen

Kristen — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:07:20 +0000

I could not agree with Davio and Damien more. Machiavelli is doing whatever he can to maintain power, and if it seems “cunning” to the reader, that is too bad for them. He is not writing The Prince to impress the audience. In a way, I respect Machiavelli for saying how he truely feels rather than trying to impress the people. Truthfully, what people say about his work has no impact on him. He cares about one thing and that is power. It is extremely difficult to maintain power AND make the people happy. In other words, Machiavelli does not deserve the connotation by any means.

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 02:56:14 +0000

Those who would classify Machiavelli as expedient, deceitful and cunning are dead-on with their classification. He does encourage methods of ruling that are more advantageous for practical reasons rather than moral ones. However, I (in agreement with Davio and Damian) don’t believe that he deserving of such a negative reputation. All he did was write a guide on how to ensure that the ruling government maintains its power. He discusses the pros and cons of addressing different scenarios in different ways, and tells the reader which one he feels to be the best one. Machiavelli does not preach morals, nor does he refute the fact that the methods that he discusses are morally sound.

By: anika

anika — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:26:15 +0000

Machiavelli doesn’t deserve a negative connotation. He was only concerned about obtaining power and maintaining it. His book, The Prince, doesn’t support doing immoral and unjust things; it’s just a factual statement of what to do when one must preserve power. The book only advocates doing whatever it took to stay in power-even if it meant doing things that would be considered corrupt. This doesn’t mean the prince should be expedient, deceitful and cunning. Rather, he should just know how to get what he needs, by any means. I agree with Davio in that he was just being practical. The world is an unfair place, and one can’t always be worried about the moral aspect of things if they want to get what they desire. Therefore, Machiavelli just believes that all essentially all men are for themselves, and to protect their power they must employ certain practices for their own welfare.

By: Mary H

Mary H — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:12:08 +0000

I agree with Davio and Damian on the fact that Machiavelli does not deserve the “deceitful” part of the definition of Machiavellian. Machiavelli was not out to teach leaders how to deceive people, only how to maintain power. Sometimes the most effective way to do that would not be the nicest way to do things. Machiavelli, however, does deserve the two other parts of the definition: expediency and cunning. Everything Machiavelli says in his book is a means to achieving an end: maintenance of power. Achieving an end, even if it is not my the most moral method, is the connotation of both expediency and cunning. Machiavelli deserves all of the definition of Machiavellian except the deceitful part.