Skip to main content

MACHIAVELLI'S THE PRINCE

“The books that the world calls immoral are books that show the world its own shame.” ― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray. 

 


Niccolò Machiavelli's "The Prince" has remained widely hated and controversial for a long time but continues to be intriguing and deeply interesting to read.  I have been wanting to read this for long and finally got my hands on it this Saturday.

The problem with The Prince is, it is shocking and hard to swallow. Machiavelli, a popular and proud diplomat was left to live a life that felt like a punishment to him and while he writes the prince he relapses into his dramatic life as a diplomat, he draws on his experiences and knowledge about the political system and the ways various rulers came into and held on to power.

The book does not aim to preach, it is not supposed to be morally or politically correct and it is better to go into it without putting that burden on it. It is an analysis of the methodology of remaining into power.

Machiavelli says , “But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of a matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.”

The book starts with a letter to Lorenzo de’Mecidi, the then ruler of Florence. Machiavelli dedicates this book to the ruler and urges him to free Italy .

The book is divided into twenty-six short chapters. The beginning describes the different kinds of states and how one can come into power in those states, then the author goes on to explain how the ruler can retain the occupied states and hold on to power. Machiavelli takes various examples to prove his arguments, his favourite being Cesare Borgia, whom he mentions multiple times alluding to his cruelty, swift and firm decision making and shrewdness pertaining to the circumstances.

Further in the book Machiavelli talks about the importance of maintaining an army and the differences between mercenaries, armies, and auxiliary forces. The last part of the book is the author talking about the various good and bad qualities that a ruler can possess or seem to posses and what their role can be in keeping him in power.

When The Prince talks about the qualities of a ruler, it only matters in the context of power. Qualities whether good or bad, are good if they keep you in power. The judgement is not moral but is circumstantial. The author keeps the ruler in a state of urgency, where he must decide and he must decide according to the circumstances, what action to take and this decision making itself goes on to decide the fate of the king.

Machiavelli is pessimistic, he calls the lot of men “sad lots” quite a lot. He recognizes the need to be evil and cruel in a world that is not very good, where most men will not keep their promises and most times being feared is better than being loved.  He often takes a jab on historians who are hypocritical in their arguments and conclusions where they praise the ends and criticize the means.

Although the Prince is a handbook for a ruler to stay in power, the book recognizes only one true power , that is the will of the people. Machiavelli repeatedly cautions the reader, that he must always remain on the good side of people. A ruler must be well liked, praised and feared by the people and his main responsibility is always to take care of the people and keep them content.

The prince is funny, insightful, and unique. A lot of the tactics mentioned in the book can be recognized in the present world being used. One of my favourites is when Borgia had his minister beheaded and his corpse put on display in order to distract the people from their hatred towards Borgia himself.

What does a common folk have to learn from The Prince? A lot. Especially, to be self-sufficient, smart, balanced and to be aware of  the evils that exist in the political arena.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ORIENTALISM: WESTERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE ORIENT

Recently I found myself getting interested in philosophy, specifically political philosophy. My sources of information are scattered, consisting largely of books and articles written by Western experts. I am often impressed by the confident authority exercised by the European and American academics while discussing the cultural and political scenario of the previously colonized nations. Sir Edward Said's Orientalism served as my introduction into the literature of postcolonial thought.  Edward Said, who died aged 67, was one of the leading literary critics of the last quarter of the 20th century. As professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, New York, he was widely regarded as the outstanding representative of the post-structuralist left in America. Above all, he was the most articulate and visible advocate of the Palestinian cause in the United States, where it earned him many enemies. This book is an analysis into the concretely established system of
1 comment
Read more

Reading The Politics by Aristotle

   Once I had finished reading The Republic by Plato, I developed an interest in the entire building a city thing. I picked up The Politics by Aristotle as my next read. It took me months to finish reading the Politics, reading and rereading the chapters and googling words throughout the book. The Republic was a dialogue which was fun to get through, The Politics however, is a treatise, it is a really long essay (almost 300 pages) , and after reading it I sit face to face with my laptop to write this review while I am completely overwhelmed because, let’s face it , how am i supposed to review something like this? It's a classic and I doubt that I even understood it enough to review it in its entirety. The Politics is divided into 8 books, which consist of multiple chapters each. Collectively they answer different questions such as: what is the best form of governance? Why have a government at all? Aristotle proposes that all societies are established for a purpose, that is to le
2 comments
Read more

The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir

As my first read of 2024, I picked up Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, I had been wanting to read this after reading The Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft, which was a bit too old and I needed to read something contemporary on the topic. Once, I had come across a question," Is the representation of women in politics less than men, because women generally lack an interest in politics?". Do men have an inherent interest in the "real world"?  How different are women from men actually? What is it like being a woman? What is a woman?   Being a woman is much more than being a female. One should not separate the female from the female situation when forming any thoughts upon the woman.  The Second Sex talks about this in expansive description and analysis. The book is divided into two volumes:  1. Volume I: Facts and Myths  2. Volume II: Lived Experience    FACTS AND MYTHS  The text begins with an examination of the biological explanations a
Post a Comment
Read more