Critics who are clearly aware of the amoral aspects of Machiavelli’s political recommendations sometimes attempt to gain him a sympathetic hearing in unfriendly quarters. They do so by placing The Prince in its limited historical setting and relating its contents to certain biographical facts about the author. They tell how Machiavelli longed for one ultimate goal: the eventual political unification of Italy as an independent state under one secular ruler, strong enough to rebuff the growing might of powerful neighbors like Spain and France. The armies and policies of these neighboring countries had already seriously influenced internal affairs even in Machiavelli’s beloved Florence. Critics often suggest that Machiavelli’s subordination of religion to the temporal aims of princes followed from his hatred of the political machinations of the Roman Catholic Church, which, by maintaining a series of temporal states, helped to keep Italy divided. The state of affairs created by the Church also invited foreign intrigues and corrupted the spiritual life of the Italians. In this context, another peculiarity of The Prince deserves mention: its total unconcern for forms of government other than monarchical ones. This unconcern might suggest that Machiavelli favored the monarchical form over the republican form. However, such a view would be false. In Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (1531; Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, 1636), Machiavelli openly expressed preference for republics whenever the special conditions for their existence could be obtained. He tells his readers in The Prince that he has discussed republics elsewhere.
Such historical insights help to gain for The Prince a more understanding reading by those who reject its sharp separation of politics from morals. Yet the fact is clear that, whatever its author’s motives, The Prince does ignore all moral ends of organized life and instead emphasizes the need to maintain sovereignty at all costs. Coldly, calculatingly, Machiavelli tries to show princes the means they must use in seeking power as an end in itself. He does not discuss moral rules. Discouraging to unsympathetic critics is the extent to which actual political life often seems to fit Machiavelli’s somewhat cynical model.
Great political thinkers often write about specific historical situations and yet succeed in making recommendations that apply to times other than their own. Niccolò Machiavelli must be numbered among such thinkers. An Italian patriot deeply involved in the diverse political maneuvers of sixteenth century Italy, he addresses advice to Lorenzo de’ Medici which, first written in 1513 and later published as The Prince five years after his death, marks him as one of the most controversial, enduring, and realistic political theorists of the modern world.
In this short book, Machiavelli undertakes to treat politics scientifically, judging people by an estimate of how in fact they do behave as political animals rather than by ideal standards concerned with how they ought to act. The hardheadedly consistent refusal of the author to submit political behavior to moral tests has earned the named “Machiavellian” for amoral instances of power relations among nation-states and other organized groups. The power divisions of Machiavelli’s Italy are now seen to have been prophetic of the massive national rivalries that followed in the Western world. The problems encountered by Renaissance princes endured long after the princes themselves fell before more powerful enemies. Machiavelli understood how success is always a minimal condition of political greatness. In The Prince, he presents a manual of advice on the winning and retention of power in a world containing extensive political factionalism and lust for dominion.
The Monarch’s Rise to Power
Machiavelli classifies possible governments as either republics or monarchies. In The Prince , he confines his analytic attention to the latter. Any monarch with a legitimate...
(The entire section is 5,773 words.)