home page

.

THE PRINCE: MACHIAVELLI'S LIFE

Living from 1469 to 1527, Niccolo Machiavelli saw what we now

consider the height of the Italian Renaissance--a period that

produced some of Italy's greatest achievements in the arts and

sciences, but that also produced horrible scandals and the

establishment of foreign domination over the peninsula. Brought

up while members of the powerful Medici family were masters of

Florence, he studied the classics and learned to read and write

in Latin. He also showed a keen interest in, and the ability to

learn from, the world around him. He was a diplomat, a student

of history, and a writer of comedy--and his sharp and unique

insights changed the face of political science forever.

Machiavelli was born in Florence on May 3, 1469. We first

hear of him playing an active role in the affairs of his native

city in 1498, when the government dominated by Girolamo

Savonarola, the Dominican friar whose puritanical views had

influenced Florence for the preceding four years, fell from power.

One of Savonarola's supporters who lost his position as a

result was Alessandro Braccesi, head of the second chancery, an

office responsible for all correspondence related to the

administration of Florentine territories. At first the post was

left unoccupied, but after a short delay the little known name

of Niccolo Machiavelli was put forward as a possible

replacement. He was only twenty-nine years old at the time and

apparently had no previous administrative experience. His

nomination was confirmed, however, and he was appointed second

chancellor of the Florentine Republic. It was an enormous

opportunity, and the experiences and insights he would gain in

the post would be used later in writing The Prince.

At the time Machiavelli entered public service, there were

already well-established standards for filling major

administrative positions in Florentine government. In addition

to exhibiting diplomatic skill, civil servants were expected to

display competence in the "humane disciplines." These

disciplines had been derived from ancient Roman sources

especially from the orator and statesman Cicero, who had written

about the need for formal study of Latin, rhetoric, history,

moral philosophy, and politics to prepare a student for

professional service to the community. Ultimately, they were

the ancestor of the "humanities," or liberal arts curriculum in

contemporary education.

The popularity of the humanistic ideals in Florentine

government help explain how Machiavelli came to be appointed to

a responsible government post at such an early age. His family,

though neither rich nor aristocratic, were closely allied with

the city's leading humanists.

Machiavelli's father, Bernardo, a lawyer, was friendly with

several distinguished humanist scholars, including Bartolomeo

Scala, who at one time served as first chancellor of Florence

and whose treatise On Laws and Legal Judgments (1483) was

dedicated to Bernardo.

We learn from Bernardo's diary that his son began formal

education at the age of seven. Basically, this was the study of

Latin, the language that was the passport to the world of

humanistic learning. By the time Machiavelli was twelve he had

graduated from primary school and was enrolled in private

classes. Later, he was accepted at the University of Florence,

where he received training in the humanities, literature, and

sciences from Marcello Adriani, who succeeded Scala as first

chancellor of Florence.

Do you think these contacts help explain why young

Machiavelli suddenly was awarded the government post in 1498?

Adriani had taken over as first chancellor earlier in the same

year, and it's reasonable to assume that he remembered the

talents of his brilliant student when he was filling vacancies

in the chancery. It is also possible that Machiavelli's father

exerted some influence.

Machiavelli's official position involved him in very

important duties. The first and second chanceries both handled

official correspondence dealing with Florence's domestic,

foreign, and military affairs. As head of the second chancery,

Machiavelli was also soon assigned the further job of secretary

to the Ten of War, the committee responsible for Florence's

diplomatic relations. This meant that in addition to his

routine office duties, Machiavelli sometimes traveled abroad to

act as spokesman for the Ten. In some respects, Machiavelli's

government position resembles that of a modern diplomatic

attache: a skilled and reliable official who sends to the home

office detailed reports and observations on the affairs of

foreign nations.

During the next fourteen years, Machiavelli was sent on

numerous diplomatic missions to France, Switzerland, and

Germany. His observations abroad resulted in many of the ideas

that form the basis for the major statements found in his

political works. In The Prince, for example, Machiavelli

comments at length on Germany's well-fortified cities and

evaluates the weak leadership of the French king, Louis XII.

DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS In June 1500, Machiavelli was in France

at the court of Louis XII, negotiating for assistance in

regaining Pisa, which had asserted its independence from

Florence and tried to establish an independent city-state. It

was in France that Machiavelli saw first-hand the weak

leadership of the king he describes so clearly in The Prince.

He also learned about the French Parliament and its difficulties

in resolving power struggles between the hereditary nobles and

the common people.

When the mission to France ended in December of that year,

Machiavelli hurried home. His father had died shortly before

his departure, his sister had died while he was away, and his

family affairs were in disorder. He spent the next two years

mainly in and around Florence. It was during this time that he

met Marietta Corsini, whom he married about August, 1501. She

remains a shadowy figure in Machiavelli's life, but his frequent

letters to her suggest his genuine fondness for her. For her

part, she bore six children and suffered greatly from her

husband's long absences and many infidelities. She outlived

Machiavelli by a quarter of a century.

In 1501 Machiavelli met Cesare Borgia, whom he often refers

to in The Prince as a model for the political and military

leader. Borgia was an illegitimate son of Cardinal Rodrigo

Borgia. After the cardinal became Pope Alexander VI in 1492, he

tried to use his position to advance the fortunes of his family.

He gave Cesare the title of Duke of Romagna (an area in

northeastern Italy), and Cesare launched a series of campaigns

to carve out a territory to match his new title. He quickly

overran nearby areas and then asked that an envoy be sent to

hear his terms for a formal alliance with Florence. The man

selected for this delicate negotiation was Machiavelli.

Machiavelli's mission to Borgia's court lasted four months,

during which he had many private discussions with the duke.

Machiavelli later reported to his superiors in Florence that

Borgia was "superhuman in his courage" and "capable of attaining

anything he wants"--someone who "must now be regarded as a new

power in Italy." (These observations, originally sent in a

secret dispatch to the Ten of War, appear almost word for word

in Machiavelli's description of Cesare in Chapter 7 of The

Prince.)

In 1507, Machiavelli arrived at the court of Maximilian I,

who was Holy Roman Emperor, but who had not been crowned by the

pope in Rome. Machiavelli persuaded the emperor not to march

into Italy and have himself crowned in Rome. He considered the

emperor to be inept, with scarcely any of the qualifications

necessary for conducting effective government. Maximilian's

basic weakness, according to Machiavelli, was a tendency to be

"altogether too lax and credulous" and readily "influenced by

every different opinion." (In Chapter 23 of The Prince,

Machiavelli incorporates many of the same phrases to sketch an

unflattering portrait of Maximilian as incompetent and

indecisive.)

When Machiavelli returned to Florence, he received permission

from the city's governing council to create a special military

board responsible for recruiting a militia, obtaining arms, and

providing for the city's defense. When Florence was threatened

in 1512 by the Spanish, who wished to restore the Medici family

to power, Machiavelli mobilized an army of twelve thousand men

to repel the invasion. However, his ill-equipped

citizen-soldiers were unable to withstand the heavily armed,

disciplined, and seasoned Spanish forces.

RETURN OF THE MEDICI The Medici then reentered the city of

Florence after an absence of eighteen years. Within weeks the

free republic of Florence was dissolved in favor of an

oligarchy--a government where ruling power belongs to a few--and

the Medici family assumed absolute power. With the downfall of

the republic, Machiavelli's own political career also collapsed.

In November 1512, he was dismissed from his government post and

forbidden to leave Florentine territory for a year. In February

1513 came another blow: Machiavelli was falsely accused of

taking part in an unsuccessful conspiracy against the Medici and

was imprisoned. The one responsible for Machiavelli's

imprisonment--Lorenzo de' Medici, grandson of Lorenzo the

Magnificent--is the same person to whom Machiavelli dedicated

The Prince. Do you think this explains why some readers believe

the dedication was intended to help Machiavelli win a pardon and

regain his position in the new government? Or do you think

Machiavelli's dedication was meant to be ironic and sarcastic?

Early in the same year, the Medici family scored its most

impressive triumph when Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici was elected

pope as Leo X. The election greatly strengthened the new regime

in Florence. The city held public celebrations for nearly a

week. The election of Leo X also prompted the government to

declare an amnesty as part of the rejoicing, and Machiavelli was

freed along with many other political prisoners.

As soon as he was released, Machiavelli sought reappointment

to his former government post. When his pleas went unanswered,

he withdrew to his farm at Sant' Andrea. At the age of

forty-three, he saw little prospect of reversing his fortunes

now that the Medici held power. His letters from this period

reveal a sense of despair and isolation. He reports that he is

pondering the insights he acquired during the fifteen years he

served the Florentine government. The outcome, he says, is that

"I have composed a little book On Principalities." This "little

book" was Machiavelli's masterpiece, The Prince. It was started

in the second half of 1513 and completed by Christmas of that

year.

Machiavelli hoped that The Prince would bring him to the

notice of the "Medici lords." One reason--as the dedication to

the treatise makes clear--was his desire to offer the Medici

"some proof" that he was still their loyal subject. His other

concern was to emphasize that he was a man worth employing, an

expert who might prove useful to them.

But Machiavelli never won the trust of the Medici, and he was

not restored to his official position. From 1513 to the time of

his death in 1525, he wrote historical narratives (The History

of Florence, 1525), satirical plays (Mandragola, 1518),

political treatises (The Discourses, 1519), military manuals

(The Art of War, 1520), biographies of political figures (Life

of Castruccio Castracani, 1520), and poems.

On June 21, 1525, Machiavelli fell ill and died. He was

buried in the small churchyard at Santa Croce, where other great

Florentine artists and thinkers, such as Michelangelo and

Galileo, also rest. In the eighteenth century, the citizens of

Florence erected a monument to his memory; the inscription is

simply, "No praise can enhance such a great name."

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: MACHIAVELLI'S REPUTATION AND

INFLUENCE

Machiavelli's works, especially The Prince, have been widely

read for more than four and a half centuries, and Machiavelli's

name has been familiar to millions who never read his works.

Mostly, he has been condemned as a preacher of political

immorality. In Elizabethan England, he was conventionally seen

as a diabolical figure. Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593), in his

play The Jew of Malta (1590?), brings him on the stage under the

name "Machevill" and makes him say (Prologue, lines 14-20):

I count religion but a childish toy,

And hold there is no sin but ignorance.

Birds of the air will tell of murders past.

I am asham'd to hear such fooleries!

Many will talk of title to a crown:

What right had Caesar to the empery?

Might first made kings....

Certainly, the reputation of Machiavelli in England

contributed much to the notion that Renaissance Italy was a

place where intrigue, treachery, and political violence were not

only practiced almost continuously but also shamelessly

justified by the invocation of evil principles. It has even

been suggested (probably incorrectly) that the expression "Old

Nick," meaning the devil, is derived from Machiavelli's first

name, Niccolo.

But within a century of Machiavelli's lifetime, Francis Bacon

(1561-1626) expressed a different opinion: "We are much

beholden to Machiavelli and others that wrote what men do, and

not what they ought to do." The accurate perception of

Machiavelli as a careful and honest observer of human conduct

has increasingly led to a much more positive view of his

significance and value. Although in the popular mind he still

retains his sinister reputation--"Machiavellian" has after all

passed into the language to refer to the use of unscrupulous or

deceptive means to advance one's ends--most writers today regard

him as one of the founders of modern political thought. The

influential political theorist Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), author

of Leviathan (1651), strongly echoes Machiavelli's conviction

that human beings are naturally wicked and require strong

government to keep them from harming each other and reducing

society to ruin. Moreover, Machiavelli's method of supporting

all his conclusions with examples drawn from history or from the

public life of his own time makes him perhaps the most important

forerunner of modern political science, and of the social

sciences in general. In this respect, he had particular

influence on Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu

(1689-1755), author of The Spirit of Laws (1748).

Has Machiavelli's influence on political activity equaled his

influence on political thought? It has frequently been asserted

by writers hostile to Machiavelli that rulers like Napoleon I

and Adolf Hitler used The Prince as a kind of textbook to guide

them in the pursuit of power. Most scholars, however, say this

notion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

Machiavelli's purpose was to describe the realities of political

life--not to set up a school for tyrants. Certainly, many

modern politicians have read The Prince, and no doubt they have

learned something from it. But, if Machiavelli's exposition

applies to nineteenth--or twentieth-century figures like

Napoleon and Hitler, that is much more an indication of how well

he understood the political dimensions of human nature than it

is evidence that such figures learned their methods from him.

On the other hand, there are two important areas of political

life in which Machiavelli's influence is evident. First,

Machiavelli was an ardent patriot. He lived at a time when

Italy was divided into dozens of principalities and city-states,

and his primary attachment was quite naturally to his own

city-state of Florence. But Machiavelli's eloquent call, at the

end of The Prince, for the liberation of all Italy from foreign

invaders marked a major step forward in the evolution of

national consciousness. It took a long time for his hopes to be

realized. But in the nineteenth century, when Italy was finally

unified and freed from foreign domination, Machiavelli came to

be recognized as one of the prophets of modern patriotism.

Second, Machiavelli has had great influence as a military

thinker. In many ways, he is considered to be the founder of

modern military science. His treatise The Art of War, it has

been said, laid the foundations of modern tactics. More

generally, his study in The Prince of the rational use of force

to get, keep, or increase political power is a direct antecedent

of the work of the great European military theorist Karl von

Clausewitz (1780-1831), author of On War (1833). Also,

Machiavelli's repeated call for a citizen army--and his

practical work as a government official in trying to build such

an army for Florence--anticipates the mass armies that, ever

since the age of the French Revolution, have fought most wars of

modern national states.

History has shown that Machiavelli exercised a profound

influence on generations of readers. In what way may he

influence us? Certainly we can learn a great deal from him

about the political nature of people and about the way that

educated people in early modern times thought and felt. That is

important and valuable. Machiavelli's significance also lies in

his personal example as a man of the Renaissance. He was a man

of action, a statesman, and a diplomat. He was also a man of

letters, who showed that he could produce works that became

classics in the fields of politics and history--and who even

wrote a play (Mandragola) that some critics have called the

greatest Italian comedy! He reflected constantly upon the

experience of his busy public life to obtain the materials for

his writings. At the same time, he drew upon his scholarly and

literary reflections for the wisdom he needed to guide him

through the difficult and sometimes dangerous tangle of worldly

business. Thus he exemplifies the ideal of versatility, of the

integration of thought and action, that was so valued by people

during the Renaissance. This ideal of the "Renaissance man" can

still be useful today, when many people feel their individuality

is threatened by the tendency to specialize more and more

narrowly.

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: FORM AND STRUCTURE

You can divide The Prince into four basic parts. The first

part, Chapters 1 to 11, catalogues the different types of

principalities, or monarchical governments, and the ways in

which they may be established and maintained. The second part,

Chapters 12 to 14, describes the role military power plays in

safeguarding a prince's, or monarch's, power. The third part,

Chapters 15 to 23, lists the general characteristics and

personal qualities needed to be an effective ruler. The fourth

part, Chapters 24 to 26, is both a historical glimpse of the

political climate of Italy in Machiavelli's time, and an

emotional appeal by Machiavelli for a future ruler (Lorenzo de'

Medici, in Machiavelli's mind) who can unite the forces of Italy

and liberate the country from foreign rule.

Machiavelli states that his aims in writing The Prince are to

describe standards of political behavior, to help the reader to

understand these standards, and to explain new political

strategies that will assist rulers in maintaining power. In

keeping with these goals, The Prince is a collection of concrete

maxims--warnings and injunctions voiced in regard to specific

points of policy, rules of conduct for different types of

emergencies, and explanations of tactical moves and

countermoves.

You may consider The Prince a political pamphlet, written to

educate and instruct readers in the general nature of the proper

rules of political conduct, political strategy, and the

political process. Or, you may regard it as a "laudatory

treatise," a flattering expression of praise dedicated to a

well-known personality. You might even look upon it as an

essay--though a rather long and detailed one--that discusses

different aspects of one theme in separate chapters. That one

theme is, of course, how to rule.

Some readers find it helpful to think of The Prince as a

series of long letters written as if to a friend and intended to

share personal confidences and mutual concerns. If you view the

book in this way, you will be less troubled by its abrupt

transitions, scattered thoughts, and lack of chronological

order. Remember, though, that the book was written hastily, and

is famous more for the ideas it contains than for its style.

The events, historical figures, and examples that Machiavelli

cites in The Prince were well known to him. In many instances

he is merely recording what he saw, heard, or experienced in his

political travels abroad. Having considerable personal

knowledge of Italian politics during the turbulent years he

describes, Machiavelli can also be considered a historian, one

who is personally acquainted with many of the historical facts

he is recalling for the reader.

Although, in the strictest sense, Machiavelli was not a

political philosopher, he did attempt to discover an order in

the political process. He examined politics the way a scientist

might research a cure for cancer: by analyzing data, reviewing

past histories, testing hypotheses, and maintaining detailed

records. This spirit of scientific objectivity was

characteristic of the Renaissance approach to critical

inquiry.

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: THEMES

The following are themes of The Prince. Machiavelli wrote in

the early sixteenth century, and in order to determine his

relevance to government today you'll want to examine these

themes, and others in The Prince, very closely. You'll want to

consider whether Machiavelli accurately analyzed affairs in

Renaissance Italy, and whether people and government have

remained fundamentally similar--despite obvious surface

changes--so that his analysis, if correct, remains helpful.

People and government are all around you, so you have plenty of

opportunities to test Machiavelli's theories.

1. HUMAN NATURE

Machiavelli believed that human nature does not change. This

is the reason why he is equally willing to illustrate his points

with examples drawn from ancient times and from his own.

Although he recognized that people sometimes possessed

remarkable abilities and could do admirable things, he believed

that people in general were ungrateful, insincere, anxious to

look out for their own safety, and greedy for gain.

Machiavelli's view of human nature was based on observation, but

it also comes out of the medieval Christian tradition which

taught that human nature was weakened and corrupted by Original

Sin. Machiavelli did not suggest that human weaknesses made

government impossible, but rather that government must take

account of man's real nature and use his real qualities for its

purposes.

2. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE IDEAL AND THE REAL

Machiavelli remarked that many had written about imaginary

republics and principalities in which ideal conditions existed,

but that he was considering real political conditions, because

he wanted to write something useful. He did not deny the

attractiveness and praiseworthiness of traditional morality, but

he pointed out that moral behavior can at times be a liability

in politics. To the extent, then, that success in politics is

desired, politics requires a different set of principles.

Machiavelli asserted that it is good for the ruler to appear

virtuous, and also to be virtuous, but that the ruler who

intends to be successful must be prepared to do bad things on

occasion, when political realities demand such actions. This

ideal that political requirements may override moral

considerations came later on to be known by the French

expression raison d'etat ("reason of state").

3 VIRTU

A key to Machiavelli's concept of political success is the

idea of virtu. This Italian word does not have the same

significance as the related English word "virtue." It does not

mean moral goodness, but rather strength, ability, courage, and

vitality. Machiavelli believed that this quality of virtu was

found in its highest form in the founders of new states, such as

Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus. In The Discourses he

suggested that the maintenance of liberty in a republic depends

on the virtu of the citizens. In The Prince, on the other hand,

dealing with states that are governed by individual rulers, he

asserted that political success depends on the virtu--the force

of character--of the ruler himself.

4. FORTUNE

In contrast to the idea of virtu stands the idea of fortune.

Clearly, many considerations that affect the success or failure

of our efforts are not dependent upon anything we do; people

attribute them to Providence, to chance, or to luck. In the

Middle Ages and the Renaissance, fortune was sometimes

personified as an allegorical figure. It was also often

represented by the symbol of a wheel, which, as it turns,

carries people now to the heights of success, now to the depths

of ruin. Although Machiavelli strongly advocated the

application of intelligence and vigor in human affairs, he

admitted that there is a side to life over which we have little

or no control. An example is the prince's health: Machiavelli

recalled that Cesare Borgia had said to him that he had taken

precautions against every possible thing that might happen on

the death of his father, Pope Alexander VI--but that he had

never thought that, when his father died, he might be dying

himself. In general, Machiavelli advocated boldness. In an

image that offends modern readers, but that is certainly

powerful, he said, "Fortune is a woman, and it is necessary, if

you wish to master her, to conquer her by force."

5. QUALITIES OF THE RULER

Borrowing an image from medieval animal fables, Machiavelli

said that the ruler must be able to imitate both the lion and

the fox. The bravery and strength of the lion will not be

enough to enable the ruler to escape the traps set by his

enemies; for that, the slyness of the fox is also needed. This

is especially true of the new prince, who is in a very exposed

position. Machiavelli admitted that Marcus Aurelius, the

"philosopher King" (Roman emperor, 161-180 A.D.), who had been a

virtuous and just ruler, had kept his throne. But Marcus

Aurelius had become emperor by hereditary succession.

Machiavelli offered Septimius Severus (Roman emperor, 193-211

A.D.) as an example of a new prince who effectively used the

techniques of both the lion and the fox to maintain himself in

power.

6. MILITARY FORCE

Machiavelli declared that the chief--even the only--subject

that was of importance to the ruler was the art of war. He held

that the cultivation of this art was the chief means of gaining

and keeping power, and that the neglect of this art was the

chief means of losing power. It was a central belief of

Machiavelli's that security could only be obtained by raising a

body of troops within one's own country--loyal soldiers who

would be defending their own homes and families. He

particularly opposed the use of mercenary forces, or dependence

on the help of foreign armies. He was also inclined to

downgrade the importance of fortifications, remarking that "the

best fortress is to be found in the love of the people."

7. PATRIOTISM

Another theme of great importance to Machiavelli is

patriotism. Machiavelli wrote at a time when French, Spanish,

and German armies were seeking to gain control of Italy. He

believed that the ruin of Italy had been caused by its own

military weakness. He called on Lorenzo de' Medici, to whom he

addressed his book, to free Italy from foreign domination. He

devoted most of his work to the discussion of political and

military methods, and it often sounds as though these methods

are only means of attaining power as an end in itself. But

Machiavelli hoped that the great Florentine family of the Medici

would use power--and the full repertory of "Machiavellian"

methods--to liberate his country.

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: STYLE

Although all translators of a work try to capture the basic

ideas of the original, they often disagree over individual

words, phrases, or even complete sentences. Such differences

will sometimes provoke a discussion of what meaning was intended

by the author, a discussion that may result in a better

understanding of the original work.

This is especially true in translations of The Prince. For

example, in translating Machiavelli's discussion in Chapter 21

of the ways that a prince can win a good reputation, Paul de

Alvarez renders the original words thus: "Nothing makes a

prince so esteemed as when he does great enterprises, and gives

by himself rare examples of his actions." Luigi Ricci, on the

other hand, translates the same sentence more indirectly, not

crediting the enterprises mentioned by Alvarez as the prince's

responsibility: "Nothing causes a prince to be so much esteemed

as great enterprises and giving proof of prowess." Kenneth

Douglas translates the same sentence only slightly differently

from the first two, but substitutes "schemes" for "enterprises":

"Nothing of a prince is so valued as his grand schemes, or when

he gives himself to noble actions." George Bull chooses still a

third word when he translates the sentence: "Nothing brings a

prince more prestige than great campaigns and striking

demonstrations of his personal abilities."

Notice how the differences between the words chosen by the

different translators open up a variety of possible

interpretations. Ricci and Alvarez use the most general term,

"enterprises." Douglas substitutes "schemes," which is likely to

suggest more underhanded behavior to the reader. But Bull, with

the word "campaigns," directs the thrust of Machiavelli's

statement more in the direction of military activity. It is

important to realize that, while any competent translation of

The Prince will give you the essential substance of what

Machiavelli wrote, different translations will often have subtle

differences of tone. One reason for this is that Machiavelli's

"rhetorical" style--his use of figures of speech like metaphor,

simile, and hyperbole (exaggerated language) to express his

meaning--is often difficult to put into contemporary terms.

Machiavelli's use of the rhetorical style of writing is an

important consideration to keep in mind when you read The

Prince. At certain points in the discussion, you may need to

remind yourself that the figures of speech are literary devices

used to emphasize a point. For example, Machiavelli's use of

hyperbole, should not be taken literally in Chapter 26, when he

exhorts Lorenzo de' Medici to act swiftly to drive foreign

invaders from Italy and thereby earn the gratitude of the

people: "Nor can I possibly express with what affection he

would be received in all those provinces that have suffered so

long from this inundation of foreign foes!--with what thirst for

vengeance, with what persistent faith, with what devotion, and

with what tears!"

Machiavelli also makes significant political statements in

his use of metaphors and maxims (wise proverbs). The most

obvious metaphorical image is the use of the myth of Chiron in

Chapter 18. The example of Chiron (who was a centaur--half man,

half beast) is for Machiavelli a positive force that promotes a

keen mind (man) and a strong will to survive (beast). Carrying

the imagery further, Machiavelli suggests that the prince should

have two sides to his "beast" nature: he should strive to be

both a "lion" and a "fox" in his political posture. Maxims are

another literary technique used in The Prince. These "golden

rules" of political behavior and attitude are sprinkled

throughout the book and help pinpoint Machiavelli's thought.

One very practical piece of advice is found in Chapter 10, when

he warns that "it will not be difficult for a prudent prince to

keep the courage of his citizens in time of siege... provided

there be no lack of provisions or means of defense."

Machiavelli wrote The Prince hurriedly, in a burst of

passion, and his rising and falling emotions are visible in his

changing writing style. Much of the material in The Prince is

presented in direct and simple language. With his carefully

reasoned and logical arguments to sway the thoughtful reader,

Machiavelli's political experience and his abilities as a

scholar shine through; in these passages he is, in essence, a

thoughtful and capable adviser counseling his leader.

He can also be biting, sarcastic, as when he discusses the

"virtues" of leaders who failed. You can almost feel his

contempt at the stupidity of Louis XII, the French king who made

blunder after blunder when dealing with foreign powers and

territories.

In striking contrast, there is the eloquence and poetic

imagery of the last chapter, where Machiavelli makes an

impassioned plea for patriotism, in the hopes of firing

Lorenzo's enthusiasm for liberating Italy.

Though the tone sometimes changes from passage to passage,

the text flows naturally; it is as if Machiavelli is talking to

you. What kind of conversationalist is he? A very skilled one,

most would agree, because the different arguments--whether using

scholarly, scientific analysis; stirring poetic eloquence; or

cutting sarcasm--always seem to hit the mark.

NOTE ON SEXISM Although Machiavelli's 450-year-old

instructions are how a man can increase his power and become

prince over all men, these terms should be considered only as

the standard, general forms of address that existed in

Machiavelli's day. If Machiavelli lived in the twentieth

century, his writing would undoubtedly reflect modern usage; as

a political realist, he'd be very much aware of the equal

abilities of women. In fact, during his diplomatic career,

Machiavelli had engaged in difficult negotiations with women as

well as with men.

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: POINT OF VIEW

If you read the chapters carefully, you may notice that

Machiavelli occasionally switches his point of view. Try to pay

attention to the literary person in which he writes, because it

may help you decide how to interpret the passage. When he uses

the personal pronoun I--as in Chapter 14 when he says, "I say

that on the side of the conspirator there is nothing but

fear"--he is presenting himself as a knowledgeable expert who

can give informed advice and make predictions based on

experience. When he writes you--"You must know, then, that as

soon as the Roman Empire began to lose its power... Italy

became subdivided into a number of states" (Chapter 12)--he is

addressing his intended reader, Lorenzo de' Medici, and is

either imparting gentle reminders (to a "superior") of the

historical past or stern judgments on the Italian present. And

when he speaks of they--"They know not how to command, having

never occupied any but private stations" (Chapter 7)--he is

referring to past rulers, military leaders, or political figures

who have failed in their use of authority and leadership.

By keeping the "person" in mind as you read the book, you

should find it easier to determine when Machiavelli is saying

things he intends for Lorenzo's ear only, or when he's speaking

to the general reader with references to specific events,

episodes, or personalities that have helped fashion his own

political views.

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: DEDICATION

The Prince begins with the author's dedication to Lorenzo de'

Medici, grandson of Lorenzo the Magnificent. Machiavelli

appeals to Lorenzo with poetic images and flattery, calling him

"your Magnificence" and asking that he look favorably on the

book. He tells Lorenzo that, in this book, he is giving him his

most valuable possession: the knowledge of government that he

has gained from years of experience and study.

NOTE: Dedications were customary when Machiavelli wrote.

Leading artists frequently chose a powerful nobleman or

government official to honor in this manner. Some readers,

however, consider Machiavelli's praise of Lorenzo as

unwarranted, and a thinly veiled attempt to be restored to

public office or to have his banishment lifted. (Remember that

Machiavelli's removal from office wasn't due to any fault of his

own, but occurred because he was a high-ranking official of the

government that the Medici overthrew.) You should examine the

dedication closely and decide for yourself about Machiavelli's

intent. If you believe he's making a calculated appeal to

Lorenzo's pride, the chapters that follow may ring false. But

if you think he's asking Lorenzo for an appointment to public

office or for pardon, the chapters may take on new meaning for

you, as Machiavelli spells out the specifics of his argument.

Once you've finished the entire book, go back and reread the

dedication, and see if your opinion's changed.

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: CHAPTERS 1 AND 2

The first two chapters of The Prince introduce types of rule

common when Machiavelli wrote: republics and principalities.

He points out that he has already discussed the role of

republics--democratic states in which power rests with the

citizens and their elected representatives--in an earlier work

and asks you to consider now the subject of principalities.

NOTE: A BALANCED VIEW OF THE PRINCE To fully understand

Machiavelli's motives in writing The Prince, you need to be able

to separate the man from the book. That this is not an easy

task is evidenced by the poor public reputation Machiavelli has

had through the centuries. To call someone Machiavellian is to

call that person sinister, diabolical, without regard for human

morality.

You must remember that The Prince was written as a specific

solution to a specific problem. In it, Machiavelli describes

monarchy, yet that fact does not mean Machiavelli favored

monarchy above all other forms of government. Florence had

tried a republican form of government and had failed. The

Medici were now in control, and Machiavelli was writing about

current political realities. Actually, Machiavelli considered

the Roman Republic a more admirable form of government than any

monarchy. He wrote about republican regimes at length in

Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy (1518?).

Principalities are either hereditary or new. Hereditary

principalities are those whose government has been in the family

of a ruler, or prince, for a long time. New principalities are

those that are entirely new, like Milan, or those that have been

annexed to a state by the prince who acquires them--as the

kingdom of Naples was to Spain during Machiavelli's time.

Hereditary states, accustomed to their princes, are

maintained with much less difficulty than new states. An

example of a hereditary prince ruling his state is the Duke of

Ferrara, who could not have resisted the assaults of the

Venetians in 1484, nor those of Pope Julius II in 1510, had he

not held the reins of power by hereditary right. A

well-established prince, like the Duke of Ferrara, thus has less

cause and less necessity for irritating his subjects; and it is

reasonable to assume that he should be more popular than other

princes. And unless extraordinary vices should cause him to be

hated, he will naturally have the affection of his people.

NOTE: USE OF HISTORICAL EXAMPLES Machiavelli takes many of

his historical examples from contemporary rulers, politicians,

and religious figures. Some commentators suggest that

Machiavelli's use of well-known names and events is evidence

that he's appealing to Lorenzo de' Medici's sense of national

pride in order to win his favor. Consider this explanation as

you interpret The Prince, but also be aware that Machiavelli's

considerable political experience and travel abroad on

diplomatic missions provided him with many examples of

leadership that could have served as role models for the

intended reader of the book. In reviewing the types of

principalities outlined in Chapters 1 and 2, how would you

describe the systems of government in the United States or Great

Britain in terms of Machiavelli's political scheme? Would each

fit easily into one of these types of principality? Consider

this question carefully before reading further; it will help you

strengthen your understanding of the distinctions critical to

each of Machiavelli's categories.

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: CHAPTER 3

In Chapter 3, Machiavelli continues some of the arguments of

the first two chapters and presents examples of principalities

that are "mixed." Mixed principalities, those that include both

old possessions of the ruler and newly acquired territories, are

difficult to maintain and are subject to rebellion.

Fighting may continue simply because freedom fighters rebel

against foreign rule, or because the new prince is disliked by

both his original followers and his conquered enemies. Thus,

the new prince finds that his enemies include all those whom he

has injured by seizing his new principality; at the same time,

he may lose the friendship of those who aided him in the

conquest, because he can't satisfy their expectations.

To clarify his point of view, Machiavelli describes the

historical situation of King Louis XII of France, who occupied

Milan but could not win the support of its citizens despite

their previous suffering under the harsh and cruel Italian

prince Ludovico Sforza.

So that the fickle and unpredictable nature of the people

won't undermine a prince's quest for power, Machiavelli suggests

possible strategies to ensure that a newly acquired principality

can be governed with a minimum of effort. The tough but

realistic strategies advanced show clearly Machiavelli's

experience--drawn both from his study of history and from his

years as a diplomat.

Look at the strategies carefully. Do you think they would

work? Do you think the American Revolution would have happened

if King George III of England had followed Machiavelli's

advice?

NOTE: In the discussion so far Machiavelli has often

referred to rebellion, force, and power. They will be discussed

at length in the book, for they are essential ingredients in the

Italian Renaissance world of power politics. Notice, also, that

the principalities described so far depend on military

superiority or the individual strength of forceful men. Is

there any support for his views in recent history? Do you think

the social and political upheavals of the late twentieth century

in the Middle East, Africa, Central America, and other areas

support Machiavelli's analysis?

The Romans, Machiavelli observes, followed these strategies

carefully in the territory they conquered. They established

colonies there and assisted the feebler chiefs--whom the Romans

could control--without increasing their power, while they

humbled the stronger chiefs--whom they could not control. They

also permitted no powerful foreigners to acquire influence

there. Thus, says Machiavelli, the Romans did what all the wise

princes ought to do: they not only took care of present

troubles, but also tried to avoid future ones. Foreseen

difficulties can be provided against; but when you wait for

problems to become serious, you run the risk of letting them

become so big you can no longer control them. And so it is with

the affairs of state.

The strategic errors made by Louis XII when he unsuccessfully

invaded Italy are a good example. Louis XII accepted the

invitation of Venice--a powerful and independent Italian

city-state and the two powers combined forces to capture

Lombardy. Then Louis XII rejected overtures for a treaty and

alliance made by other Italian city-states and embarked on a

personal journey of conquest. He made an ill-advised pledge to

help Pope Alexander VI occupy Romagna and, by doing so,

alienated his friends and supporters. When he later rejected

the pope's request to become ruler of Tuscany, he created a

strong rival and potential challenger to his rule. Not content

with having snubbed the pope and with having alienated his own

friends, Louis, in his eagerness to possess the kingdom of

Naples, shared it with the king of Spain--who was powerful

enough to drive him out later.

Louis XII committed these five errors, says Machiavelli, and

they cost him his power: He destroyed the weak; he increased

the power of one already powerful in Italy; he established a

very powerful stranger there; he did not go to reside in Italy

himself; and he did not plant colonies there. These errors,

however, would not have injured him during his lifetime had he

not committed a sixth one by attempting to deprive the Venetians

of their possessions--and thereby turning that powerful city

against him.

The decision to divide the kingdom of Naples with the

Spaniards for the sake of avoiding a war alienated the Venetians

who had helped Louis acquire his new kingdom. No prince, says

Machiavelli, should ever submit to such an evil. For a war is

never avoided; it is only deferred to one's own disadvantage

and, as in the case of Louis XII, inevitable defeat.

NOTE: THE ERRORS OF LOUIS XII The example of Louis XII was a

very significant political fact for Machiavelli. He frequently

returns to the example of Louis and his strategic errors as he

points out the specific lessons to be learned from the mistakes

of the French king. Machiavelli had known Louis XII personally.

It might be helpful to your reading of The Prince to know that

Cesare Borgia--Machiavelli's model prince--did follow the

suggestions made here for the prince who acquires new

principalities. Is Machiavelli, perhaps, trying to persuade

Lorenzo to follow the blueprint of Cesare Borgia if he wishes to

avoid the fate of Louis XII? Keep Cesare Borgia in mind as you

begin to frame your own interpretation of the narrative that

follows. It could help you to understand later references to

him as a prince worthy of imitation.

The chapter concludes with the first of Machiavelli's golden,

or general, rules for political power (these maxims, or

proverbs, are intended to guide a prince in his quest for power

and are excellent summaries of Machiavelli's thoughts on

acquiring and maintaining power.):

The prince who causes another to become powerful thereby

works

his own ruin; for he has contributed to the power of the

other

either by his ability or force, and both the one and the

other

will be mistrusted by him whom he has thus made powerful.

There are other golden rules sprinkled throughout the book;

they are clear statements of Machiavelli's best advice. Look

for them. Underline them in your copy. When you collect all

the rules concerning absolute power, rule by force, military

strength, and political ethics, you will have in hand a

convenient summary of Machiavelli's major themes in The

Prince.

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: CHAPTER 4

Now Machiavelli turns his attention to the contrast between

two fundamentally different kinds of states. All

principalities, says Machiavelli, have been governed in one of

two ways: either by one absolute prince, to whom all others are

completely subordinate--even the government ministers--or else

by a prince and hereditary nobles, who hold their ranks not by

the grace of the prince but by the antiquity of their lineage.

(For a more detailed account of the role that ministers or

advisers play in aiding a prince, see Chapters 22 and 23.) In

those principalities that are governed by an absolute prince,

the prince has far more power and authority.

The best example of the first type of rule in Machiavelli's

day was the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, which was governed by an

absolute monarch, who divided the country into districts

supervised by appointed governors who could be replaced at their

master's pleasure. The best example of the second type of rule

was France, whose king was surrounded by large numbers of

ancient nobles who were recognized and acknowledged by the

people as lords, and who were held in great affection by them.

The nobles had their rank and hereditary rights, which the king

couldn't take away without danger to himself.

The Ottoman Empire, Machiavelli advises Lorenzo, would be

difficult to conquer. A potential conqueror will not be invited

into the country by any of the great nobles of the state, nor

could he hope for a revolt by the ministers. Since they're all

slaves and dependents of their master, it is difficult to

corrupt them, and even if they are corrupted, they can't arouse

the common people. Whoever attacks the Turks, therefore, must

expect to find them united and must depend wholly upon his own

forces, and not upon help from within the country.

France, on the other hand, would be easier to conquer,

because having won over some of the great nobles, the prince

will have no difficulty in entering the country. But for the

conqueror to maintain himself there afterward will involve

infinite difficulties. Nor will it be enough merely to wipe out

the family of the former ruler, because the great nobles will

place themselves at the head of new resistance movements; and

the conqueror, not being able either to satisfy them or to crush

them, will quickly lose the country again.

Machiavelli then shifts his focus to Alexander the Great, who

conquered the kingdom of Darius of Persia in southwestern Asia

between 331 and 327 B.C. Persia was a kingdom that resembled

the Ottoman Empire, the reason why Alexander, a great

strategist, decided to attack in full force. After the defeat

of their absolute ruler, Darius, the people shifted their

loyalties to Alexander, who ruled strongly and wisely,

maintaining Darius's empire and expanding it even further into

Asia. It was only after Alexander's death, in 323 B.C., that

his enormous empire was divided into a number of separate states

ruled by independent monarchs. Machiavelli blames Alexander's

successors for the demise of the empire. If they had remained

united they might also have enjoyed vast power at their ease,

since there were no disturbances in the empire except those they

created themselves.

To reinforce his point of view, Machiavelli again cites the

manner in which the Romans--his favorite example--dealt with

similar problems in the territories they conquered. The

frequent insurrections of Spain, France, and Greece against the

Romans were due to the many petty princes that existed in those

states. As long as the memory of those old princes endured, the

Romans were never secure in their control over those regions.

But once the families of those princes were extinguished, the

Romans became secure possessors of the territories. As a

result, even afterward, when the Romans fought among themselves,

each of the parties was able to keep for itself the province

where it had established regional authority.

NOTE: ROLE OF VIOLENCE IN POLITICS Here, most readers agree,

is one example of Machiavelli's patriotic efforts to persuade

Lorenzo to act swiftly and draw up plans to conquer Italy,

which, like France, was then divided among many states and was

therefore an easy prey. (The unified Italy you know today was

established in the nineteenth century.)

When Machiavelli says that the Romans extinguished the

families of the sovereigns when they captured new territory, he

is carefully laying the foundation for his later discussion of

the role that violence might play in power politics. Keep this

in mind as you continue to read The Prince.

While contemporary "civilized" politicians would, at least in

public, resist much of what Machiavelli suggests in this

chapter, it is still apparent that his examples have modern

parallels. Consider the role that violence, murder, and

terrorism play in many countries. Can you think of any country

where civil war, rebellion, or revolution has prevented the

achievement of national promise? Is your example similar to the

Ottoman Empire, with a powerful ruler and his loyal ministers?

Or is it similar to France, with a powerful ruler and his

reliable barons, or local chieftains?

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: CHAPTER 5

A principality accustomed to liberty and to government under

its own laws can be held by a prince in three different ways.

First, the prince might destroy the entire province, as the

Romans did when they leveled the city of Carthage after the

Third Punic War (149-146 B.C.). Second, the prince might move

his government to the conquered province and live there himself

in order to maintain absolute authority over the region. Third,

the prince might permit the province--if it pays him regular

tribute--to continue to live under its own laws and to establish

a government of the few who will keep the country friendly to

him.

Machiavelli then cites the classic examples of Sparta and

Rome. Sparta, after conquering its chief rivals, Athens and

Thebes, permitted each city to establish a friendly government.

In time, however, both Athens and Thebes rebelled and drove the

Spartans from their conquered territory. Rome, which also tried

the Spartan experiment of a cooperative government when it ruled

Greece later, soon discovered that the only way to maintain

power was to destroy or completely subjugate those cities most

likely to rebel.

Whoever becomes master of a city that has been accustomed to

liberty, and does not destroy it, says Machiavelli, must himself

expect to be ruined by it. No matter what is done, or what

precautions are taken, if the inhabitants are not separated and

dispersed, they will revolt in the name of liberty and their

ancient institutions--as was done by Pisa after having been held

captive over one hundred years by the Florentines.

But the situation is quite different with states that have

been accustomed to live under one prince. When the line of the

old prince is extinguished, the inhabitants, being accustomed to

obey, yet having lost their hereditary sovereign, can't agree

upon a new prince from among themselves; nor do they know how to

live in liberty. Therefore, they'll be less prompt to take up

arms, and the new prince will easily be able to gain their good

will and to assure himself of their support.

NOTE: PISA AS A SYMBOL OF LIBERTY Machiavelli's account of

Pisa, national symbol of Italian independence and liberty, is

especially significant here. In 1494, when Charles VIII of

France invaded Italy, Pisa took advantage of the ensuing chaos

and successfully rebelled against Florence, ending nearly a

hundred years of Florentine domination. How does this

supporting example influence your interpretation of what

Machiavelli has said so far in the chapter? Is his purpose

here, as some readers believe, to remind Lorenzo to proceed

cautiously in dealing with freedom-loving city-states such as

Pisa after he has won the battle for national unity? Or is

Machiavelli's love for liberty, as exemplified by defiant Pisa,

so strong that it emerges in this chapter as if to mockingly

contradict his theories? Remember that Machiavelli has seen his

beloved Italy overrun by foreign powers and has had to

compromise his ideals to speak directly to the reality of

sixteenth-century Italian politics. Look for a possible shift

in his analysis as you continue to read.

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: CHAPTER 6

There are historical and classical examples of noble leaders

who have gained new principalities by their courage and ability,

rather than by the benevolent hand of good fortune. Machiavelli

believes the study of these examples is important. His second

golden rule advises:

A wise man should ever follow the ways of great men and

endeavor to imitate only such as have been most eminent; so

that

even if his merits do not quite equal theirs, yet that they

may

in some measure reflect their greatness.

The examples of powerful princes who used their courage and

ability--what Machiavelli calls their virtu--to advance their

careers are drawn from history, and include Moses, Romulus (the

legendary founder of Rome), Cyrus (founder of the Persian

Empire), and Theseus (mythological king of Athens). According

to Machiavelli, Moses, the biblical figure who liberated the

Jews from Egypt, was fortunate that the people of Israel were

slaves in his time, or they might not have chosen to follow him.

Machiavelli skips over Moses fairly quickly because Christians

would be likely to attribute his success, not to his own

ability, but to the help he was believed to have received from

God. Romulus was lucky that he was expelled from his native

Alba, or he would not have become the founder of Rome in 753

B.C. Likewise, if the Persians had not been discontented with

their Median rulers, Cyrus might never have gained power. Even

Theseus was favored by the gods when the Athenians fled without

engaging his advancing armies in combat.

Each of these leaders was presented with unique

opportunities, but could not have succeeded without also having

exceptional personal ability. They had no other favor from

fortune but opportunity, which gave them the material to mold

into whatever form seemed to them best.

It was these opportunities, therefore, that made these men

fortunate; and it was their personal courage and talents that

enabled them to recognize the opportunities by which their

countries were made illustrious and happy. Those who by similar

noble conduct become princes acquire their principalities with

difficulty but maintain them with ease. The difficulties they

experience in acquiring their principalities arise in part from

the new ordinances and customs they are obliged to introduce to

found their state and maintain their own security.

When leaders depend upon their own strength, they rarely

incur danger. Thus it was that the leaders who came with arms

in hand were successful, while those who were not armed were

ruined. Neither Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, nor Romulus would have

been able to enforce their laws and institutions for any length

of time if they had not been prepared to enforce them with arms.

To further reinforce his point, Machiavelli introduces the story

of Girolamo Savonarola.

Savonarola was a Dominican friar who had much influence in

Florence from 1494 until his death in 1498. Admired by the

people, he was a reformer who advocated high standards of

personal morality. However, Savonarola failed in his attempt to

establish a new order of things as soon as the people ceased to

believe in him. He didn't have the means to keep his believers

firm in their faith, nor did he have the power to make skeptics

believe. Without a powerful military to protect him, Savonarola

was soon overthrown and his reforms were swept away.

In contrast to Savonarola, Machiavelli cites Hiero II of

Syracuse, a figure from the third-century. He began as a

private citizen of considerable ability. After the people of

his city, located on the coast of Sicily, made him ruler because

of his demonstrated talents, Hiero disbanded the old military

force and created a new one loyal to him. Then he abandoned his

old allies and alliances. Although he had much trouble in

winning a principality, once he had done so he had little

difficulty in maintaining it. Here, Machiavelli declares, is an

example of a prince who relies more on his own strength and

ability, than on good fortune, to achieve his objectives.

NOTE: The example of Savonarola is interesting. Machiavelli

is said to have witnessed Savonarola's execution and to have

openly wept. If Machiavelli were really the diabolical person

that popular opinion considers him, would he have done this?

It's also important here to understand Machiavelli's definition

of fortune, especially when he later contrasts it with virtue.

Fortune presents opportunities. A prince may be presented with

several opportunities, but the superior prince will

unhesitatingly take full advantage of each opportunity. "Strike

while the iron is hot" is Machiavelli's advice.

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: CHAPTER 7

That Machiavelli should devote a considerable portion of this

chapter to Cesare Borgia should not surprise you. He has

alluded to Cesare in the first six chapters and here

acknowledges that he knows no better lesson he could give a new

prince than holding up to him the example of Cesare Borgia's

conduct.

To preface his long narrative on Cesare's career, Machiavelli

first describes the position of Francesco Sforza. By legitimate

means and natural ability, Sforza rose from being a private

citizen to become Duke of Milan. Once he attained that

position, it was very easy for him afterward to maintain it. On

the other hand, Cesare, commonly called Duke Valentino, acquired

his state by the good fortune of his father--but lost it when he

no longer was sustained by that good fortune.

NOTE: As you read the long historical description that

follows, pay careful attention to Machiavelli's praise of Cesare

as a perfect example of the prince who was wise, skillful, and

worthy of imitation. The description is still valuable to us

today because it paints an accurate picture of Machiavelli's

Italy in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. It

can also help you understand Machiavelli's political and

personal views on individual freedom, the rights of a ruler, and

political negotiations. Can you think of modern rulers who were

in situations similar to Borgia's? This might help to clarify

Machiavelli's point of view in holding up Cesare as a model.

What strengths do you think Borgia and your examples exhibited

in their rules? What weaknesses?

Machiavelli's account of Cesare's rule mentions that Pope

Alexander VI, Borgia's father, encountered many difficulties

when he tried to use his power over the Church to help his

illegitimate son. He couldn't grant him ecclesiastical states,

because the other Italian city-states would object; and strong

military forces were in the hands of the powerful Orsini and

Colonna families, who were enemies of Alexander. The only

solution, thought Alexander, was to disturb the existing order

of things and to create chaos and civil conflict so that the

powerful city-states that might oppose him would be too

concerned for their own survival to object.

Cesare urged his father to form an alliance with France's

Louis XII. Venice unwittingly fell into the web of the

conspiracy when it invited French protection, and Alexander

sealed the alliance by agreeing to dissolve Louis's former

marriage if he would lend French troops to aid in his son's

conquest of the province of Romagna. All this political

intrigue and strategic maneuvering by Alexander and Cesare reads

like a modern mystery novel, with the major characters involved

in disguise, deception, and ironic twists of plot.

With the conquest of Romagna, Cesare finally had his own

state. But he also inherited two problems in his quest to push

his possessions still further: He doubted the loyalty of the

Orsini troops who had helped him defeat the rival Colonna family

and capture Romagna, and he didn't trust the French, who had a

long history of betraying their allies and breaking alliances.

Cesare moved swiftly to weaken the influence of both the Orsini

and Colonna families. Using bribery, flattery, and political

appointments to win over their followers, Cesare consolidated

his power, while at the same time looking for an opportunity to

crush the Orsini family. Finally, the Orsinis were subdued by

Cesare and Alexander at Magione and then completely routed when

the French joined the Borgias' Italian troops. Cesare

ceremoniously assumed the role of duke of Romagna.

Having conquered Romagna, Cesare found that the region was

under the influence of a number of petty tyrants, and that it

was infested with corruption, torn by crime, and given over to

every sort of violence. One of his first acts to reestablish

order was to appoint Remirro de Orco as governor. De Orco, a

ruthless and energetic man, effectively crushed all opposition

to Cesare's rule. After a while, however, Cesare began to fear

that de Orco's cruelty might tarnish his own reputation. He

therefore commissioned a tribunal to investigate de Orco's

alleged crimes and cruelties. While the tribunal was gathering

evidence of the governor's use of torture and violence, Cesare

ordered his loyal followers to seize de Orco, cut him in half,

and leave his body in the town square.

Why do you think Cesare acted in this manner? According to

Machiavelli, Borgia wished to show the people--to win their

confidence--that if any cruelties had been practiced, they had

not originated with him, but had resulted from the initiative of

his minister.

As the saga of Cesare continues, you now find that he was

just consolidating his power when the ill winds of fortune

struck: Cesare's father died and was succeeded by Pope Julius

II, who was opposed to the Borgias.

Cesare reacted immediately to save his threatened kingdom.

He had already made plans for such a crisis, and was able to

move quickly. His plan of action had involved four deliberate

measures: First, he murdered all the families of those he had

despoiled, to prevent the new pope from restoring them to their

possessions. Second, he cultivated friendships and bribed

priests in Rome who might be able to keep the pope in check.

Third, he attempted to gain control of the College of Cardinals.

These three steps had already been completed at the time of his

father's death. When his father died, he took the fourth

measure, which was to try to acquire enough power and

possessions to resist the first attack of his enemies.

At first there was little opposition to Cesare's daring plan.

Julius II was still cementing his own support, the city-states

were already weakened from fighting with Cesare, and France and

Spain were now fighting each other to win the city of Milan.

Against this bloody backdrop, Cesare was able to seize more

Italian territory, plunder more city-states, and eliminate more

of his opponents.

With the death of his father, however, Cesare began to fail.

The French and Spanish reconciled their differences, turned

their forces toward Cesare's stronghold in Romagna, and mounted

stiff challenges to Cesare's military forces in Tuscany.

Julius's forces launched attacks against Cesare in Rome and in

the smaller city-states surrounding his vast kingdom.

Eventually, Cesare, in failing health, retreated to Spain, where

he died.

NOTE: Machiavelli paints a glowing portrait of Cesare's

skill and leadership, but in doing so fails to describe this

historical figure accurately. Cesare did, indeed, win many

significant battles because of his abilities--but he also

suffered more defeats than Machiavelli admits. With the

exception of Romagna, he had to face almost constant civil

unrest and rebellion throughout his territories. Because of his

admiration for Cesare's accomplishments, Machiavelli fails to

give due weight to the historical evidence. Do you think

Borgia's failures call into question the validity of

Machiavelli's blueprint for power?

Upon reviewing Borgia's record, Machiavelli first asserts

that he can't find fault with Cesare's rule. Endowed with great

courage and having a lofty ambition, Cesare couldn't have acted

otherwise under the circumstances. Upon reflection, however,

perhaps Cesare can be blamed for the election of Julius II as

pope. Although he couldn't have made a pope of his own liking,

he could have hindered the election of a cardinal whom he had

offended, or who, if he had been elected, would have had

occasion to fear him. Remember, either fear or resentment makes

men enemies. Cesare, then, in failing to prevent the election

of Julius II, committed an error that proved the cause of his

ultimate ruin.

^^^^^^^^^^

THE PRINCE: CHAPTER 8

Chapter 8 develops Machiavelli's views that one may rise to

power either by wicked or by devious means. To underscore his

theme, Machiavelli describes in detail the careers of two

infamous rulers--one from antiquity, the other a contemporary of

Machiavelli--who used wickedness, revenge, and brutality to

enhance their power.

Agathocles of Sicily was poor; but he was ambitious as well

as courageous and earned success as the leader of the local

militia. He seized power in Syracuse in 316 B.C. by cunning

and deception. Hiding his loyal soldiers in the town council,

Agathocles summoned all the senators, nobles, and rich citizens

of Syracuse to a supposedly crucial meeting. On a secret

signal, his soldiers sprang from their hiding place and

slaughtered the stunned guests. Then, Agathocles proclaimed

himself king of Syracuse as he assumed absolute power.

In the years of his reign, 316 to 289 B.C., Agathocles

defended Syracuse against attack by the Carthaginians, then left

a portion of his forces to sustain the battle, and crossed the

sea with another force to attack Africa. Although Machiavelli

praises Agathocles for his courage and valor, he doesn't

consider him a great prince because all Agathocles gained was

power, not the popular respect and admiration that should

accompany a true prince's reign. He did achieve leadership

through his high rank in the army, but he massacred his fellow

citizens, betrayed his f