Machiavelli: predicting a thirst for power
“It is far safer to be feared than loved,” is often said to be the most powerful phrase Machiavelli ever coined when he brought his slightly over-inked pen to some now-decrepit piece of Renaissance parchment destined for the personal effects of some Italian noble or lord, perhaps a prince. But in truth, it’s not those words that count, as one cannot comprehend the depth within unless they explore the entire work.
Many people will comb Machiavelli’s writings looking for some piece of information that unlocks the secret behind the book and its genius. But, that’s just it. As may surprise many people, Machiavelli was the genius behind his work, and his mind for society and politics was and still is second to none, and how can he do anything more than present in a book or pamphlet the fruits of his labours over his many years in such an environment?
The book, Machiavelli’s The Prince, is still a fascinating and enlightening read more than 500 years after it was first published.
After serving under the Florentine republic for some time, Machiavelli saw the end of it when the Medici family returned to power, but his most memorable work was yet to come. Seeing the end of his career in politics, he decided to write a book about how to gain and maintain power, often in the face of adversity. A guide, if you will to the head of the Medici family that summed up the primary points of being in power at such a troubled time, and, while lathered in context, The Prince is still widely regarded as one of the most legendary pieces of writing produced by any author or scribe over the centuries let alone Machiavelli himself, certainly when regarding social commentary. This was not without a motive, of course, and to Machiavelli returning to politics was his ultimate aim he wished to get to by wooing the Medici head.
There are many interpretations of The Prince in history, some suggest its meaning as deliberate tactics to incite rebellion while others suggest he was being literal as to actually aid the Medici family. The conclusion that can be observed by an individual is entirely subjective, and must require individual interpretation, but it must be noted that Machiavelli was a huge purveyor of republic (if there ever was such a thing). Despite this however, one thing can definitely be observed: his quite obvious “man-crush” on Cesare Borgia.
Despite the fact Roderic Borgia (Pope Alexander VI) is acclaimed to be the most corrupt pope in history, with many children to boot, he managed to retain his papacy for some length of time, allowing him to elevate his offspring to a higher status. One such example is Cesare Borgia, who Machiavelli cites in many chapters as being what one might call a paradigm of the perfect prince he is referring to in his book, or as close to one anyone is said to have been. This happened very little, so Machiavelli referred to Cesare Borgia many times due to the necessity for a good example.
With Cesare Borgia being a “perfect prince” it makes you wonder why fairytales don’t show all these executions Machiavelli urges the reader to order and how ruthless princes really were, which brings us back to the meaning of the book, and whether it is literal, or a warning to anyone who reads it.
It is not clear if the intention is that of wanting the reader to steer clear of any of the things he urges them to do, or whether he genuinely believed that what he wrote was a good idea. It is of my opinion that the latter is not correct, as he was a republican, and didn’t much like the idea of monarchy, but was genuinely writing a factual piece of writing and left it to the reader to infer the meaning for better or for worse.
Machiavelli, of course, had no ability to see into the future, but he could see the common traits humans had held for thousands of years citing references such as Hannibal, Caesar, and other sources from ancient history up to (then) modern times. He could also see that these traits would continue, transcending time as human nature rarely changes, certainly on a social level with regard to interaction and reaction due to certain events. It is because of this that we can draw a relatively firm conclusion on the idea of the social basis for The Prince.
Human nature generally transcends time as a constant in our lives, and so we can gather that he meant for the book to be relevant for some time after his death (in 1527), as it has been for that period, but the power of his metaphor was unintended as he had no idea of the shape the world would take beyond his lifespan.
I would recommend The Prince to anyone no matter your ability or social standpoint, as your reading of it can be used to shape how you think about the world and how you appreciate and communicate with other people in it. How is up to you. This is the reason so many copies have been purchased over the years, will be purchased for many more, and the reason everyone should own a copy.
Machiavelli could not see into the future, but he could predict how we would live in it.
Alex Parry, Year 12
Many people will comb Machiavelli’s writings looking for some piece of information that unlocks the secret behind the book and its genius. But, that’s just it. As may surprise many people, Machiavelli was the genius behind his work, and his mind for society and politics was and still is second to none, and how can he do anything more than present in a book or pamphlet the fruits of his labours over his many years in such an environment?
The book, Machiavelli’s The Prince, is still a fascinating and enlightening read more than 500 years after it was first published.
After serving under the Florentine republic for some time, Machiavelli saw the end of it when the Medici family returned to power, but his most memorable work was yet to come. Seeing the end of his career in politics, he decided to write a book about how to gain and maintain power, often in the face of adversity. A guide, if you will to the head of the Medici family that summed up the primary points of being in power at such a troubled time, and, while lathered in context, The Prince is still widely regarded as one of the most legendary pieces of writing produced by any author or scribe over the centuries let alone Machiavelli himself, certainly when regarding social commentary. This was not without a motive, of course, and to Machiavelli returning to politics was his ultimate aim he wished to get to by wooing the Medici head.
There are many interpretations of The Prince in history, some suggest its meaning as deliberate tactics to incite rebellion while others suggest he was being literal as to actually aid the Medici family. The conclusion that can be observed by an individual is entirely subjective, and must require individual interpretation, but it must be noted that Machiavelli was a huge purveyor of republic (if there ever was such a thing). Despite this however, one thing can definitely be observed: his quite obvious “man-crush” on Cesare Borgia.
Despite the fact Roderic Borgia (Pope Alexander VI) is acclaimed to be the most corrupt pope in history, with many children to boot, he managed to retain his papacy for some length of time, allowing him to elevate his offspring to a higher status. One such example is Cesare Borgia, who Machiavelli cites in many chapters as being what one might call a paradigm of the perfect prince he is referring to in his book, or as close to one anyone is said to have been. This happened very little, so Machiavelli referred to Cesare Borgia many times due to the necessity for a good example.
With Cesare Borgia being a “perfect prince” it makes you wonder why fairytales don’t show all these executions Machiavelli urges the reader to order and how ruthless princes really were, which brings us back to the meaning of the book, and whether it is literal, or a warning to anyone who reads it.
It is not clear if the intention is that of wanting the reader to steer clear of any of the things he urges them to do, or whether he genuinely believed that what he wrote was a good idea. It is of my opinion that the latter is not correct, as he was a republican, and didn’t much like the idea of monarchy, but was genuinely writing a factual piece of writing and left it to the reader to infer the meaning for better or for worse.
Machiavelli, of course, had no ability to see into the future, but he could see the common traits humans had held for thousands of years citing references such as Hannibal, Caesar, and other sources from ancient history up to (then) modern times. He could also see that these traits would continue, transcending time as human nature rarely changes, certainly on a social level with regard to interaction and reaction due to certain events. It is because of this that we can draw a relatively firm conclusion on the idea of the social basis for The Prince.
Human nature generally transcends time as a constant in our lives, and so we can gather that he meant for the book to be relevant for some time after his death (in 1527), as it has been for that period, but the power of his metaphor was unintended as he had no idea of the shape the world would take beyond his lifespan.
I would recommend The Prince to anyone no matter your ability or social standpoint, as your reading of it can be used to shape how you think about the world and how you appreciate and communicate with other people in it. How is up to you. This is the reason so many copies have been purchased over the years, will be purchased for many more, and the reason everyone should own a copy.
Machiavelli could not see into the future, but he could predict how we would live in it.
Alex Parry, Year 12