Renaissance Lit Discussion Question #3 – The Prince
April 17, 2009 by mswilson
Though it is anyone’s guess how many people have actually read The Prince, Machiavelli has entered our language – according The American Heritage Dictionay, Machiavellian means “suggestive of or characterized by expediency, deceit and cunning” and carries a very negative connotation. Does Machiavelli deserve the negative connotation attached to his name? Why or why not?
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
I feel that in certain ways, Machiavelli does deserve the negative connotation, and in others he does not. Due to the nature of “The Prince”, in that its content was written in such a form as to help the individual gain, and ultimately retain power over lands or people in the best way suited for the individual; yes, he deserves it. Due to the lack of compassion he seems to have for the conquered peoples, yes, he deserves it. In addition, “The Prince” seems to be an embellished and gilded resume to the medici family.
“The Prince” shows the individual the different ways that one can take power, and the effects of the path chosen. Machiavelli makes the path to a seat of power a very smooth one. I have read that even hitler kept a copy on his night stand for inspiration!
I agree with Ellen on her opinion on how Machiavelli does deserve the negative response from people. In “the prince” for me it seems like that he may want to rule at some point in his life , or get some to rule get the same idea he is saying in the book and that person will rule as Machiavelli wanted to. However, the book also states bumps in the road of ruleing and might changes ones opinon if they want to take over/ or rule land, ect. If your reading some parts in “the prince” it made me think about how ruleing is to hard of a job, and that it is a lot of work for one person. Even gives examples of past leaders, and how they successed, and what you can do to learn from their mistakes. i do think that Machiavelli in the dictionary is an alright definition, however, it should be made a bit more clearer.
I honestly believe that Machiavelli is not naturally negative, in regards mainly to The Prince, but he is simply stating how the world works, and frankly, it’s sad. Machiavelli’s work in The Prince is not meant to be negative, but has two other reasons; (a.) to (as immediately assumed) instruct how to gain a position of power/ remain in power, and (b.) to open the eyes of the people who read it to how conformist, gullible, and controllable they are, which they most likely had never realized. At this point, it can be declared with a fair amount of certainty that Machiavelli does not deserve the negative connotation attacthed to his name, as he himself is not a negaitive person, nor are his works negative, but the subjects he touches upon (mainly in regards to The Prince) are seen as negative because The Prince in a nutshell is really simply states: “To get into and stay in power, all you have to be able to do is control those around you without attempting to overstep your mortal boundaries”, and this is seen as negative because it poits out the frailty of the human race. The Prince shows us that while humans may consider themselves the greatest being on the planet, we are no more significant than a fish in the ocean or a bird in the sky, because we, just like these creatures, are all subject to change based on the goings-on around us, whether it be these animals, nature, or we humans oursleves.
I agree mainly with Jack, I believe that Machiavelli does not deserve such a harsh definintion becuase he is merely stating truths about the world. He didn’t write The Prince to discourage or deceive those who read it. He used The Prince to honestly state how he belived a good leader should act. In it he also shows how difficult it is to be a strong leader; there are so many things to account for and think about. He describes the differnt duties that a prince has to think about; laws,strength of individual states, the military, faith, love and fear, etc. ( and how a prince should handle them.) In fact Machiavelli advises many principles that peolpe still use today. I bet if asked most politicians would be familiar with his ideals, and many of them probally follow some of them in order to maintain a good reputation. As seen in “How a Prince must act in order to gain a reputation.” Machiavelli also writes about human nature and a prince’s free will compared to what he has no control of. While reading this chapter I found that it was not at all negative he even advises; ” but he should offer rewards to whoever does these things, and whoever seeks in any way to improve his city or state. Besdies this, he ought, at convenient seasons of year, to keep the people occupied with festivals and shows.” Pg 113. I don’t think Machievelli deserves to be remembered as negative because he did advise many positive aspects as well like festivals and rewards.
I agree with Jack about how Machiavelli is not negative. Although how he informs us how to get the powers witch includes cruel actions, they are just simply actions necessary to stay or take power. What he is trying to get across are ways to have power so Due to the reason that what is necessary are the steps that will allow each individual to reach their goals, feelings like compassion are unnecessary. I think how people view the things that individuals need to take are perceived as harsh and as a result, attach the “negative” to Machiavelli. In reality, Machiavelli is not that kind of character.
I think that Machiavelli deserves the negative connotation attached to his name because his whole book is about how to obtain power and what to do to ensure that you hold onto that power. Machiavelli’s “The Prince” highlights specific examples to prove what he is trying to get across. “The Prince” could be related to our modeern “(topic) Book for Dummies.” It’s Basically a what to do/what not to do manual.
I agree with Ellen that “The Prince” has content that would help promote individual gain. The ideas and advice given in “The Prince” shows that Machiavelli believes in expediency over morality. Machiavelli wrote a book that gives tips to trick the people into liking/respecting the ruler, ” There is no other way of guarding one’s self against flattery than by letting men understand that they will not offend you by speaking the trth; but when every one can tell you the truth, you lose their respect.” I definitely think that the definition of “machiavellian” in the dictionary captures who Machiavelli was and his ideas regarding “The Prince.”
I believe that Machiavelli does, in fact, deserve the negative comments. Because this book only lets the reader see his lines of thinking (on how to take over a state). the over all point in the book is ‘how to take and keep the control of a kingdom’ (by being respected). Obviously it shows that he only cared about self gain and makes him look like a want-to-be tyrant. but while reading this book, it makes me ask myself weather or not he was respected himself. Political figures of that time must have been suspicious and paranoid of him after reading “The Prince”. He was most likely respected by lower classes in which though that the king of that time was a weak ruler. but not by the higher class figures. Publishing a book like this could only create controversy.
When I first saw this question, my immediate response was, “yes, Machiavelli deserves this negative reputation.” However, after reading Jack’s post, I am forced to reassess that way I look at Machiavelli’s writing. True, the methods he presents on gaining power are neither moral nor are they ethical; they are merely practical. He knows that his ideas will not help bring about an ideal world, but will help a person gain power in the real world. Machiavelli explains quite clearly that “how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his preservation” (84). Society places a negative definition upon Machiavelli because the majority of people don’t like to think that the only way to gain power is to abandon all morality. We like to think that success can be achieved through ethical actions which is why most of shun his methods. I would also like to think that moral values have a place alongside success, but I cannot completely condemn Machiavelli for his beliefs. He is honest about his views. Machiavelli’s goal in “The Prince” is not to transform the world into a utopia, but to accept the world’s corruption and teach a person how to climb to the top of it
I also agree with Ellen and am not surprised that Hitler held him in high regard. The phrase “machiavellian” is well deserved in my opinion. I believe this because while showing some signs of morality (which are few and far between), he seems to have a centered focus on the “practicality” of rulers and not on the wellness of their subjects. He views ruling a country like one would view operating a machine or herding sheep. Machiavelli’s views on politics may be immoral, but nothing he says is false either. I think that this book would be a good guide for a strict and imposing dictator. This book is definitely dangerous in the wrong hands which is why it is good to study it. People are smart but we are still animals and yearn for structure and control, so machiavelli is far from a liar, but we have evolved a lot since the renaissance and have democracies and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, while reading this text, i see many “machiavellian” tendencies in our government such as the rulers thinking they know what is best for the people, without their consult, and acting accordingly. If we do not recognize the Machiavelli in our society then we are bound to repeat history, for better or for worse.
From the book The Prince, Machiavelli has received a bad reputation of advising Princes or similar leaders to be ruthless rulers. In some ways he deserves this reputation because he is the one who wrote it. If he did not believe in what he was writing he would probably not have written it (with such conviction). On the other hand, he was a devoted democrat and served his city for a long time. To quote Salmon Rushdie “Machiavelli was not Machiavellian.” However I believe Machiavelli does deserve this reputation because his writing is deceptive, dishonest and lacking morals.
Machiavelli unfortuntately deserves the negative connotation attached to his name. But I guess all great leaders have been criticized at one point or another for forcing their beliefs on others. However, if no one ruled, everything would sort of be a total mess. Machiavelli just points out that the world works in a survival-of-the-fittest type of way, and he who can outwit his enemies retains control. No one really likes to be ruled, though, and certainly not by the “any means necessary” way that Machiavelli proposes, so that’s how the whole negative connotation gets in there.
Ultimately, Machiavelli does not deserve the negative connotation attached to his name. Machiavelli is definitely a cutthroat kind of guy who refuses to sugarcoat the power in and of the government. In reality, people are quick to call him cruel simply because he is blatantly harsh about something so sacred as government. People don’t like reading how unimportant they, the individual, are in the eyes of the government. Machiavelli simply hints to the reader that they are very disposable in the schemes of the government. Similar to what Jack said, Machiavelli is simply stating how the world works. Government has to be power hungry in order to remain in power. During Machiavelli’s time, as suggested throughout The Prince, power was incredibly difficult to hold. Thus, those in power must be especially cunning in order to remain. Machiavelli simply refused to lie to the reader and made no effort to cover up the power hungry nature of leaders. His wit and blatant honesty does not deserve the definition of “suggestive of or characterized by expediency, deceit and cunning” and the negative connotation implied within that statement.
Machiavelli isn’t the figure of corruption he is now taken to be. Instead he is a man who believes it is worth accepting a lesser evil to enable a greater good. His skills, seen by those who disagree with him, seem almost demonic. Machiavelli’s ideal politician is a person who includes his personal interests and if possible his personal identity to forward the good of the state that he works for. For a prince to remain in power, they must avoid the hatred of his people. It is not necessary for him to be loved but it is often better to for him to be feared. This statement might seem contrary with Machiavelli’s statements on the utility of cruelty, but Machiavelli recommends the use of cruelty only if it does not compromise the long-term goodwill of the people. The people’s goodwill is always the best defense against domestic revolution and foreign aggression. Machiavelli warns princes against doing things that might result in hatred, such as taking away property.
Machiavelli deserves the negative connotation partially, but only because that is the nature of what he is trying to do. The Prince is a book that tells a leader how he can get into the throne and hold onto it. It is a book all about political power, and there’s just something about political power that makes it slimy. There is a general mistrust of the government, so anything that involves the actual roots of it is even worse. The idea of making a guidebook telling you how to get power and hold onto it just repulses people. Most people are attracted to the idea of power, however. I, for one, am not a particular fan of politics, though I do thoroughly enjoy Machiavelli. I think Machiavelli himself wouldn’t really mind having a negative connotation to his name, so long as he is remembered.
I believe that Machiavelli deserves the negative connotation like how Ellen said. The motive in his book, “The Prince” was written to resume for the prince. In the book, his goal is to educate the people how they should gain power and how they should keep that power. The fact that Machiavelli is teaching this to the readers also can mean that he may have been a person who longed to be in power and to be the leader of people. Therefore, I believe that Machiavelli was a Machiavellian who deserves to carry the negative connotation. He does not seem like a negative person in the beginning of the book, but as the story develops, he starts to explain how getting in power is to take over the people. He tells the readers to devastate the people and to conqueror them to have the right to occupy them. This destruction in human race tells the readers that Machiavelli deserves the negative connotation.
In my opinion Machiavelli does not deserve the negative connotation at all, nor does he deserve the negativity towards what appears to be class consensus on his ideologies. I wholeheartedly agree with Sarah’s comment; “Machiavelli is definitely a cutthroat kind of guy who refuses to sugarcoat the power in and of the government. In reality, people are quick to call him cruel simply because he is blatantly harsh about something so sacred as government.” Machiavelli is, as I have mentioned before, a pure and very fundamental realist. His beliefs are often blunt, harsh, brazen and absolutely not sugarcoated. The ideas he presents in The Prince, along with his numerous other writings, are not to be taken at face value. If we were to do that then the entire world would regard his literature as brashly irrelevant and that is not the case. Therefore, I believe it is wrong for others in this class to quickly jump to the conclusion that simply because Machiavelli’s writings and outlooks are not sanguine or idealistic in nature that his thoughts are consequently less important or less relevant. Life isn’t always going to be pretty; it is, in retrospect, gritty, dirty, crime-ridden and often very ugly. I believe Machiavelli presents far more realistic ideals than someone who strives to create a utopia. The latter person is, furthermore, delusional. The world needs crime, dirt, ugliness and death in order to maintain a sort of homeostasis, if you will. It helps to bring about an equilibrium that would otherwise not exist if we were to all live in a perfect world.
I dont believe that Machiavelli deserves the negative connotion. in “The Prince” Machiavelli is stating how the world is. basicly facts on how some one would have to be in order to take controle of a country. with a firm grip. He is not meaning to be negitive. I dont think thats were he is/ wanted to go with this book and i truely think that if it was, nobody would pick it up to read. I believe that Machiavelli wrote this book to show the human race how controleable and manipulative we could be and if one were to want to take such a strong hold of us and that Machiavellis way would be the way to do it. wich is kinda scary considering the fact that the times that his method has been used, or somewhat used, it has been frightening for the human race. giving his facts and observitory opinions a negative view to most. eventhough he is just showing a idea.
I do not believe that Machiavelli deserves this negative connotation because he has not done anything wrong, he simply explains how to rule a government and the entire system behind it. The entire purpose of the book is to show others how to rise up and take hold of the throne but most importantly, to rule the nation. He does not deserve the title of deceitful or cunning because he is straight forward with his ideas of how a prince should rise and rule appropriately if they wish to hold onto their power. Machiavelli never actually acts in this manner but he notes that a good prince would follow the guidelines he has set. Machiavelli by no means acts in the ways the word “Machiavellian” is described and it truly is a false title to give him.
I believe that Machiavelli does not deserve the negative connotation attached to his name because his whole reason for writing “The Prince” was simply to show people how to gain and maintain power. There were no evil intentions behind the book, though many people view the methods that Machiavelli suggests to be harsh, cruel, or even barbaric. But the fact is, Machiavelli lived in a different a time and he is being jugged by modern society’s standards, and the methods that are discussed in “The Prince” are designed to seize and maintain control not to punish or murder people. Like Morgan, and Sarah said Machiavelli was merely being realistic and giving advice that will help people gain power in the real world, he does not have some hidden agenda were he is telling people in the government to just be cruel to the people for no reason. In fact when Machiavelli discusses how one of the most stable empires in history was the Roman empire, and Machiavelli’s reason for its stability was because the Romans basically let their subjects rule themselves, making the Roman empire of one the most stable, and longstanding governments in history. Thus Machiavelli is not inherently negative, he is simply a pragmatist and does not try to hide it.
I believe that Machiavelli does deserve the negative connotation. He does speak logically and everything is very thought out, but sadly, that can also mean that what he says can be a bit negative. He took the whole monarchy and royalty idea and thought it over completely, making observations, writing ways to keep your power. But does he mention anything about being happy? Having fun? True, some may be happy with being king, actually, many would be. But it wouldn’t be that same happiness that keeps people smiling all day long. And if he is writing about thinking and doing things logically, then that’s probably the way he lives his life, always thinking things through until he analyzes them enough to figure out what to do. And thinking logically can be a real downer and will put a negative aspect on what someone says and does, and even writes about.
I really do not believe in the ideas that Machiavelli has been talking about when he claims that in order to get into a very powerful position, one needs to cut throats and set aside all moral and ethnic beliefs. Although after looking at what Jack and many others said after his statement, I have come to the conclusion that most of what Machiavelli is saying is an exaggerated form of the truth in our reality. People who want to be the most powerful of all, at some point in their life, eventually are forced to do un-ethical things in order to climb another step on the social ladder. However, I do not believe that all morals should be thrown aside because if that does happen, and you do something that is going against what your conscience is saying, then you will end up with guilt and possibly resentment for letting greed get in your way of being a civilized person. What makes Machiavelli not worthy of deserving a negative connotation is because he has a lot of truth in what he says. One thing he says is, “He was able on this foundation to build securely, so that while he had great trouble in acquiring his position he had little in maintaining it,” (51). Here he talks about how to secure your position in life. Everyone in today’s day in age wants a secure foundation to build on. Whether that means a house or a savings account, it is natural to want to be safe. Everything including this quote is understandable in this book as long as you can take what he says as an exaggerated version of what he is trying to get across, and then are able to compare what he is saying to our time period.
The essence of Machiavelli’s work basically deals with instructions on how to be a tyrant. Any guidebook for tyranny by nature is most likely dealt with negatively. Therefore it is the ideas that are illustrated by Machiavelli that are upheld with negative connotations. Many of these ideas deal with very dark realities about human nature. These realities range from the weaknesses of men to succumb to force and the vulnerability of man to cunning acts and deceitful persuasions. These very ideas of man’s weakness are shown to be truths due to the reaction of society. People have read or heard of these ideas and fear them because they are exposing dark weaknesses about themselves. Therefore the realities of the world that Machiavelli is pointing out are upheld by the negative connotations that society places on them. It is not to say that these ideas are not negative because of society but that they are so dark and very real weaknesses of mankind. It appears that society has not rid itself of these weaknesses as even today in modern dictionaries the ideas of Machiavelli are viewed as negative and feared by society. Machiavelli himself was attempting to find a cunning way to get back into the high esteem of his ruler by writing this piece of literature. This hidden intention again points out to the negative realities of the book as even the author is a propagator and instigator of the realities to be cunning and to be deceitful in life.
Machiavelli does desereve the negative connotation. He manipulates and will do whatever it takes to keep his nation stable. He doesn’t care for the rights of the citizens all that matters to him is that his nation is still thriving. When Yui brought up the point that Machiavelli “tells the readers to devestate the people and to conquer them to have the right to occupy them” i felt like that was the perfect example for why he deserves this negative connotation. He is very clever and deceitful in his ideas for becoming a great power and has shown that he will do whatever it takes to help his nation rather than its people.
I agree with Sarah S. and Michael because my argument for this question is that Machiavelli does not deserve this negative connotation because of the time period it was written it. By today’s standard’s, yes, this book is a manual for an evil dictator to stage a coup and keep power of the government, but this book was not written to appease today’s standards of government. Today, we live in a society where the great democracies of the world seem to be leaders, and (by today’s standards) those countries that still have a monarch or emperor seem archaic and ignorant to the “right way to govern.” With other forms of government come certain restrictions and control that are accepted in today’s day and age, which is why Machiavelli has taken on such a negative connotation. But as I said before, I think we need to look at the time period in which this was written. A great part of the world’s countries were ruled by monarchs or leaders who had absolute power, while the political lines of the map were constantly being redrawn. Therefore, this book is merely a manual for a prince living in a time of power struggle. Everyone else was power-hungry and barbaric in their pursuit of it, Machiavelli simply wanted to write instructions for Lorenzo de’ Medici to be able to keep his head above water in this setting, so to speak. This is just how it was. Machiavelli does speak about the people though. He always says that the government with the consent of the people is the strongest, so he does have some hints of the “democratic model” in this. In light of all of this, I do not think it is fair to compare a man who was writing in his contemporary time, not ours. It is not fair to hold him to governmental or ethical standards of today, when he was writing a manual in accordance to the standards of the day. Therefore this negative connotation is definitely not deserved.
Throughout “The Prince” Machiavelli is constantly telling it how things are. How things were back then and what had to be done to obtain power and ensure that you kept that power. Many of things he talked about are still prevalent in today’s society but to a lesser degree. Although Jill makes a good point in saying that “The Prince” is like a modern day “For Dummies” book, but it doesn’t mean Machiavelli is a negative person. I don’t think Machiavelli’s bluntness should earn him a negative connotation, simply because, as Jack said, he is telling how the world works. He is telling the truth, we may not want to hear it but its there and its not Machiavelli’s fault. The world perceives Machiavelli as a negative symbol because most people don’t or wouldn’t want to confess the truth that much of power that is gained in this world is by kicking moral ethics to the side. How can we say that Machiavelli’s views are so off, in the last year we have gone through the worst economic state since the great depression. The people who were responsible made this happen with reckless in greed. As Morgan says he isn’t trying to change the world, (because it won’t change) but rather except its corruption and tell people how to survive in our world.
I think that Machiavelli well earned the negative aspect attached to his name in American language. He writes, “For love is secured by a bond of gratitude which men, wretched creatures that they are, break when t is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective.” Machiavelli assumes that all men are evil and dictates ways to gain power that are unethical and evil. He finds ways to power that lead to fright, anger, and unhappiness on behalf of the people. The main way to realize the Machiavelli is truly evil is because he has no care of the people, he just finds way to get a ruler to the top and have absolute control over the people. Machiavelli also is constantly saying the the way to control the people is to have them fear the ruler. Machiavelli is obviously unconcerned about the welfare of the people, and in that he shows his dark side and well represents the connotation associated with him in our language.