Machiavelli The Prince Chapter 10 Analysis

The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli was created as a gift to Lorenzo de ' Medici, this gift was what Machiavelli considered to be most precious, it served as an “opportunity of understanding in the shortest time all that I have learnt in so many years.” Written initially in Italian, Machiavelli used this gift as a chance to teach young Medici to how be a successful prince, but first let us better understand a bit more about Machiavelli’s early life and the events that occurred that lead him to write this primary source. .

The last of the three major themes is cruelty. Machiavelli says that its better for a leader to be feared than to be loved. Love can be a lie but fear cannot.

Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 16th-century. His methods of acquiring and maintaining rule over people are not relevant in today’s modern American society. There are many principles that are still true in politics today, but the methods of ruling can no longer be used in American society today.

Machiavelli concentrated more on the way things should be and how to manipulate them for his own personal gain rather than for the betterment of the state. He was well-known for being a political thinker who believed that outcomes justified why things happened. A key aspect of Machiavelli’s concept of the Prince was that “men must either be caressed or annihilated” (Prince, 9). What Machiavelli meant by

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

Major’s article, however, suggests that Machiavelli derived many of his ideas concerning human nature from classical and Christian authors. Major contends that only Machiavelli’s response to human nature is unique. Parel illustrates that Machiavelli did use Christian and classical sources while forming his own concept of justice. These articles also illustrate how Machiavelli viewed self-preservation and fear. Parel argues that Machiavelli believes the crux of human experience is the fear of the unknown. Majors also illustrates how anticipating the unknown was important to the success of the Romans. Both articles also suggest that Machiavelli’s viewed the usage of force as being essential to his concepts of morality and justice. They also both argue that Machiavelli did not believe humans could be inherently moral or just. Both articles mention the importance of self-preservation and highlight that Machiavelli believed war and self-preservation were intertwined. The main difference between the articles is the author’s viewpoint on how Machiavelli used Christian and classical

“It is much safer to be feared than loved.” This quotation was just a specimen of the harsh and very practical political annotation of the legendary historian, Niccolò Machiavelli – philosopher, patriot, diplomat, advisor and statesman. He was born as the son of a poor lawyer in 1498, but he never let boundaries restrict him. He still received an excellent humanist education from the University of Florence and was soon after appointed as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence.2 His political importance to Florence would soon give him the opportunity to write what is disputed as one of the most significant works in history, The Prince.

Machiavelli’s focus on pragmatism and realism seems to eliminate a worry about ethical concerns. For example, Machiavelli’s pragmatism, “distinguish(es) between cruelty well used and cruelty abused. ” (Machiavelli 30). One may argue Machiavelli’s distinction smuggles in a level of morality. In reality it is clear that this distinction is focused on the preservation of power in order to allow, “their subjects … to let bygones be bygones” (Machiavelli 30). Machiavelli makes no moral distinction between the cruel actions he merely makes a distinction upon what will best allow a ruler to maintain power. In The Discourses the emphasis of good policy being that which creates stability again ignores morality finding that new rulers should “remake everything else in the state from scratch” to do this they should, “make the rich poor and poor rich.” (Machiavelli 131). He even gives substance to wicked deeds finding they involve, “a certain nobility” (Machiavelli 132). This dramatic level of apathy to the right of the individuals or what are good actions demonstrate his emphasis of preservation of stability over morality.

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince, one can't help but grasp Machiavelli's argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli's various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however

Through his word choice it makes it clear that it is ideally the best choice to be cruel when needed because it is cruel to completely pretend that it is not necessary. The strength, intelligence, and experience clearly show Machiavelli’s ideal to pursue a just society that keeps everyone in check and unified with one another.

Machiavelli has another argument “concerning those who become princes by evil means.”# He believes that cruelty can also be used to benefit the prince but only in modesty. If a prince frequently relies on cruel acts then he will not live in power for long. Proper use of cruelty is only achieved when it is done “out of the need for safety” and when it is done swiftly as to make sure that the act is quickly forgotten, and the people can return to a feeling of safety.# His idea that cruelty should be swift is excellent, this way the citizens will feel more at ease with there prince, because if he were to drag out the atrocities then the people may feel the need to revolt to protect their personal freedoms and civil rights. Many people may think these are evil ideas, but it is completely practical, during Machiavelli’s era (and even today) a prince will always face a moment in this rule that he will have to act in a cruel manner, in no way is this statement cruel it is just a practical way of dealing with a inevitable situation. He also believes that “benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer.”# As much as people may be discusted by this

In essence, Machiavelli’s ideal principality sustains a genuine sense of morality behind the violence that “must be subjected in order to maintain stability.” Looking at his plans subjectively,

Niccolo Machiavelli was the first to clearly decipher politics from ethics by studying politics in such depth and thought. He created the basis of what politics should be and how they are runned for today. His book The Prince is primarily a handbook for all rulers to follow to be the most successful in their reign. His book is considered political realism which means he speaks about only the truth of politics, so it can be used for the practice of governing. Machiavelli’s book is the handbook for obtaining and maintaining power even for today’s modern politics.

Speaking of such qualities as ruthless and mercy, Machiavelli argues that every ruler would like to be regarded as merciful and not cruel. Another thing is that often in order to retain power the ruler has to show cruelty. If the state is threatened with chaos or mess, the task of the prince is to prevent this even if it is necessary to arrange some reprisals. After all, with respect to the rest of the citizens, these executions will become a noble deed since riots and chaos would bring suffering to them (Machiavelli 24). Machiavelli provides an example of Cesare Borgia whose cruelty led to peace in the state. In that way, the

Niccolo Machiavelli’s abstract work of The Prince discusses politics and government and focuses in not only acquiring power, but also how to maintain it. Throughout his work, one of the most prevalent yet disputed themes is between the acquirement of states between principalities and republics. The Prince shows a predominant and constant debate on which group will excel in acquiring power. However, despite Machiavelli’s harsh criticisms on principalities, his work does not solely praise or focus on the excellence of republics. In fact, as Machiavelli continues to speak and provide examples about the successes and failures of both republics and principalities, it becomes clearer that the lone purpose of The Prince is to merely provide tactics in political governance, instruction on how to maintain power once it is acquired, and most importantly, advice on how to become a great leader.