Last week, I had to read Machiavelli's famed "The Prince" for my Renaissance history class; it was a good thing, actually, to be compelled to read it, as it was something that I had always meant to get to but never found the time. First, I was surprised by just how short it is, just over ninety pages in the Penguin edition that I had. Second, and perhaps most importantly of all, I can't help but feel like it wasn't written almost five hundred years ago. It reads in many places like it was written yesterday. It seems that, as a political culture, we have learned more from Machiavelli than many of us would wish to admit.
That is not to say that there isn't much he wrote about that is good and useful. He explicitly condemned the use of mercenaries in wartime, asserting rightly that they owe no loyalty other than to themselves and their pay. Give them a little more and they'll stay, or perhaps as the Sforza did in Milan, simply take over the government themselves.
It is for his notion that morality should be treated separately from politics that has earned him the reputation of some incarnate demon. He wrote that morality can be a stumbling block to retaining power, though it can certainly be useful in gaining it. However, from a study of history, especially of the period, Machiavelli only put into writing what many figures of his time were doing, especially the Medici, the Sforzas and the Borgias, especially the Borgia Pope Alexander. Henry VIII may or may not have read "The Prince", but he didn't need the Italian to tell him how to reign with brutal efficiency.
In short, Machiavelli gets a bad rap thanks to "The Prince," but it is important to remember that he was only saying what everyone else was already doing. It is also overlooked that, while the work was dedicated to the current Medici ruler of Florence, Machiavelli wrote it while in exile outside of the city, banned from politics for his work defending the Florentine republic that the Medici had cast down. His work in service of democratic ideals shouldn't be overlooked, and, for all its reputation, "The Prince" provides a good deal of useful advice.
That is not to say that there isn't much he wrote about that is good and useful. He explicitly condemned the use of mercenaries in wartime, asserting rightly that they owe no loyalty other than to themselves and their pay. Give them a little more and they'll stay, or perhaps as the Sforza did in Milan, simply take over the government themselves.
It is for his notion that morality should be treated separately from politics that has earned him the reputation of some incarnate demon. He wrote that morality can be a stumbling block to retaining power, though it can certainly be useful in gaining it. However, from a study of history, especially of the period, Machiavelli only put into writing what many figures of his time were doing, especially the Medici, the Sforzas and the Borgias, especially the Borgia Pope Alexander. Henry VIII may or may not have read "The Prince", but he didn't need the Italian to tell him how to reign with brutal efficiency.
In short, Machiavelli gets a bad rap thanks to "The Prince," but it is important to remember that he was only saying what everyone else was already doing. It is also overlooked that, while the work was dedicated to the current Medici ruler of Florence, Machiavelli wrote it while in exile outside of the city, banned from politics for his work defending the Florentine republic that the Medici had cast down. His work in service of democratic ideals shouldn't be overlooked, and, for all its reputation, "The Prince" provides a good deal of useful advice.
Comments
Post a Comment