Machiavelli's Polititcal Treatise

Machiavelli's political treatise The Prince is an often brutal and brutally honest reflection of the political realities in which Machiavelli lived. He applies a rather strict and regimented structure to his treatise, as he lays out the most efficient ways for a Prince, or leader, to gain glory through power. Machiavelli structures the first half of The Prince based on the differing kinds of city states that one may have the chance to govern. These include "How many kinds of principalities there are," "Concerning hereditary principalities," "Concerning mixed principalities," "Concerning those who have obtained a principality," "That which concerns a prince on the subject of war," and "Concerning Liberality and meanness." From there, Machiavelli attempts to define the general qualities of rule, as well as the general qualities of a ruler. The very last few chapters feature Machiavelli discussing the most specific aspects of princedom, from what kind of staff to keep around, to avoiding malicious people. Finally, Machiavelli closes with an appeal to the Medici family who controlled much of Italy, including the papacy, at the time of Machiavelli's writing. He appeals to the Medici to unite the numerous city-states that made up the Italian political landscape, into one cohesive nation state. Although this did not happen in the immediate aftermath of the publication of The Prince, which occurred in 1532 - 5 years after Niccolo Machiavelli's death eventually his exhortations were heeded when Italy was finally unified in the mid 19th century.

One interesting aspect of The Prince is that despite the fact that it was written clearly for the ruling class, Machiavelli wrote his text in the Italian of Dante Alighieri, the Italian of the common people. The more conventional approach would have been to write the treatise in Latin, this being the language of the church and the ruling class at the time. Certainly, Machiavelli had it in his power to write the text in Latin, and so it seems as though he must have desired as wide an audience as possible for The Prince.

Machiavelli is very careful to define his terms throughout The Prince. To start, he discusses the various types of principalities available. By principality, Machiavelli refers rather strictly to those domains ruled by a single man or family. Whether that man inherited his principality, or gained his principality through military action, or was simply given his principality, Machiavelli does not judge his target prince. He provides advice on how to stay in power regardless. The specific and incredibly realistic advice almost takes on a mocking tone, at points. For instance, in his chapter "concerning the ways to govern cities or principalities which lived under their own laws before they were annexed," Machiavelli provides the following advice:

And he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget. And whatever you may do or provide against, they never forget that name or their privileges unless they are disunited or dispersed, but at every chance they immediately rally to them, as Pisa after the hundred years she had been held in bondage by the Florentines.

Machiavelli is saying that despite the best intentions of the prince, city-states with a proud tradition of self-rule will never buckle to the imposed whims of an outside ruler. He is absolutist in his analysis.

The next series of chapters address similar issues as Machiavelli discusses the various ways in which a prince may obtain a principality. Whether through "one's own arms and ability," or "the arms or good fortune of others," or through "wickedness," Machiavelli makes very clear that the acquisition of a principality by an outsider is almost always a doomed proposition. However, that said, Machiavelli reserves particular skepticism for those who acquire their principalities either through the good fortune of others or through wickedness. As Machiavelli discusses the best hopes for a prince to hold onto his principality, regardless of how he attained it, he makes a very specific distinction between a new principality and an existing one. A prince who ploughs new ground with a new principality will always stand a greater chance to one who acquires an existing principality. Machiavelli specifies such princes of the past as Moses, Romulus, and Cyrus in discussing the great glory reserved for those who establish a new principality. The pride of the members of an existing principality is such that they will not often submit to the rule of an outsider.

Now, Machiavelli does make for an exception in the next few chapters when he discusses the nature of a civic principality. That is, a principality that is ruled primarily by its own people although clearly even civil principalities or republics still have a leader in place. It is in this section that Machiavelli reveals an interesting aspect to his intention in writing this treatise when he declares that a principality is either set up by nobles or by the people. Machiavelli goes on to say that a principality set up by nobles is typically not long for this world because nobles can never be satisfied. The people, on the other hand, can be satisfied by their civil society - "you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, while the former only desire not to be oppressed." Machiavelli is careful to stress that if a noble wishes to remain in power, he must treat the people or else they will rise up and take back their society.

As Machiavelli discusses the various types of principalities, that consistent theme remains present. He becomes more specific, however, in the later chapters as he discusses the tools of princedom - soldiers, secretaries, and flatterers. In discussing soldiers, Machiavelli makes a distinction between soldiers and mercenaries. Mercenaries, in particular, are dangerous because "either they are capable or they are not." However, if the mercenaries are capable, Machiavelli offers even more caution. Machiavelli states that effective mercenaries cannot be trusted because they always aspire to their own greatness. Secretaries receive similar contempt from Machiavelli, although they can be useful, the best ones only seek power for themselves and so Machiavelli counsels against trusting them. As for flatters, they serve no clear purpose and can only confuse the truth that the prince requires in order to hold the people's good will. After all, holding onto

...