Transcription
Hello and welcome to this summary of The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli.
When Nicolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513, he was seeking to address two main issues. First was the simple fact that he wanted a job. He'd been a senior figure in the Florentine Republic but had been sidelined after the return of the Medici family in 1512. Writing The Prince for the new ruler of Florence, Giuliano de' Medici, was his way of saying that he could still play a role in public life.
The second was that he wanted someone to bring greater stability to Italy. During Machiavelli's lifetime, places such as Venice, Rome, Florence, Naples, and Milan were independent and often came into conflict with one another. What's more, powerful neighboring states such as France and Spain were not averse to sending troops to Italy to advance their own interests. So, what was required was a prince who might unite Italy and repulse foreign influence effectively. And that man, suggests Machiavelli, could be Giuliano de' Medici, if he pays attention to the guidelines set out in The Prince.
Now, against this background, the 26 chapters of The Prince can be divided into two. The first half, chapters 1 to 14, deal with the types of principalities that a new prince might find himself in charge of, the specific challenges he might face in retaining power, and how he might organize his troops. What is most interesting about these chapters, he's not the bulk of the advice, which is fairly conventional, but the remarks he makes in chapters 7 and 8.
In chapter 7, he says there are no better precepts or general rules to offer a prince than the ones taken from the example of Cesare Borgia, a powerful mercenary soldier operating in Italy at this time. In particular, he notes that Cesare sent a cruel, efficient man, Ramiro de Lorca, to restore order in the Romagna area. Now, once this was achieved, Cesare then had Ramiro murdered and his body cut into pieces and left in the main piazza along with a bloody knife. Now, this achieved two things. First, it had shifted the blame for the cruel way the people had been treated onto Ramiro. Second, the savagery of his death announced that Cesare was not a man to challenge. Thus, the people of the Romagna were brought under control, but Cesare wasn't hated by them.
Now, what's surprising about these rules is that they break the conventional moral virtues such as kindness and compassion, and they endorse violence and murder as valid methods of achieving political ends. Then, in chapter 8, he develops this point by saying that whilst violence has a role, continual violence and murder, although they can help achieve power, do not bring glory. In fact, he says, cruelty is only really useful if it's used once, at the beginning of a prince's rule, and not afterwards. Now, in this way, the people will forget the initial cruelty and won't hate the prince.
However, whilst the advice in chapters seven and eight is somewhat unconventional, it's what Machiavelli recommends in the second half of The Prince that has given the book its lasting resonance, relevance, and notoriety. Chapter 15 begins by saying that the remaining part of the book will look at the way a prince must regulate his conduct towards his subjects and allies. So, first thing here, note that we're not talking about his enemies, we're talking about his friends and allies and citizens. And the first thing he does is to make clear that he's going to talk about life as it really is, not as we might want it to be. So, in plain English, he's saying that whilst there have been other books of advice, they're worthless because they're not based on what really happens in life.
Now, this is an important point because he argues that there is a gulf between how one should live and how one does live. And if a prince fails to understand that this gulf or large gap exists, he will fail to rule successfully. "For the fact is," he goes on, "a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous." So, the problem, as Machiavelli sees it, is that humans are in general not virtuous. And that in this situation, ironically, what have been seen as virtues in the past now become vices, and vice versa.
He then spends some time giving some examples, and he begins by asking this question: which is better, generosity or miserliness? Now, we might think that generosity is a good thing, but Machiavelli says that if a prince develops a reputation for generosity, he will come to grief. The reason is, if his generosity is good and sincere, then he tends to be generous in a way that's not noticed, and this won't give him a reputation for generosity. An alternative is to be seen to be generous, but then he must be ostentatiously lavish, which means spending a lot of money. Now, sadly, the people who benefit from this extravagance are often the very few. Eventually, the money runs out, and the prince is forced to impose extortionate taxes on the citizens in order to balance the books. Now, this will then make the citizens hate the prince, and since he's now impoverished, he'll also be despised. So, as a result, Machiavelli concludes that the prince should not be generous and should instead be mean with his money. Now, this will lead to him being called a miser from time to time, but ironically, he will be recognized as being generous ultimately because he saved money and does not have to tax the citizens.
In chapter 17, he asks another question: is it better to be cruel or compassionate? Now, here he repeats the example of Cesare Borgia, who used cruel methods, including murder, to bring the Romagna under control. Again, traditionally, this would be frowned upon, but he argues that this cruelty was actually more compassionate than not intervening and allowing disorder to continue and inflict greater harm on the people. So, by intervening and being cruel, he was actually being kind.
He then poses a third question: is it better to be loved than feared, or the reverse? Now, Machiavelli again turns traditional moral attitudes on their head. Ideally, a prince would like to be loved, but he says it's difficult to be both loved and feared. So, it's far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both. But how does he reach this conclusion? It's based on a very particular reading of human nature, which is that people are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers. They shun danger and are greedy for profit. In this context, men will support a prince while there's no danger, but desert him when danger approaches. What's more, he says, men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared. And he says this because fear can always be strengthened by the dread of punishment. It's difficult to make people love you, and remember again that this is being said in the context of maintaining order in the states. And the only sure way of controlling others, he argues, is through fear.
This is not to say that a prince needs to go around terrifying his people. In fact, whilst he must be feared, he must avoid being hated. Which, in turn, poses the question: how does a prince avoid being hated? Machiavelli has a surprising answer: don't steal the property belonging to your citizens. In fact, he goes on to say that people value their property more than their family. He says, "Men sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony." Patrimony here means the property inherited from the father. So, the point reinforces Machiavelli's assertion that people are self-centered and they can't be trusted.
Chapter 18 then discusses another traditional virtue, keeping one's word, and argues that whilst it's a good thing in general, princes who have given their word lightly are actually the ones who've achieved great things. Now, of course, "given their word lightly" is actually a euphemism. What it really means is not keeping promises. But again, let's follow his line of reasoning to work out why he thinks it's okay to break a promise.
He begins in a strange place. He says that a prince can fight in two ways: by law or by force. The first way, by law, is natural to men, whilst force is natural to beasts. Now, this would suggest a prince should use the law, but Machiavelli points out that the law is sometimes inadequate. If a prince comes under attack, people don't follow the law. So, in these circumstances, he must also be prepared to act like a beast, and he must learn from two beasts in particular: the fox and the lion. He learns from the fox because it uses intelligence to survive, and he learns from the lion because it uses courage and fights off opponents. And the sensible prince needs to be able to use both of these animal qualities if he's to succeed. As Machiavelli puts it, "One must be a fox in order to recognize traps and a lion to frighten off wolves." Those who simply act like lions are stupid.
Of course, says Machiavelli, if men were all good, then there would be no need for a prince to act like a fox and to tell lies. But unfortunately, as we've heard, he thinks men are not good. In fact, they're wretched creatures who wouldn't keep their word to a prince. As a result, a wise prince won't keep his word either. And he then goes even further: "One must know how to colour one's actions and to be a great liar and deceiver." In addition, he says, a prince should not deviate from what is good if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil if that is necessary.
None of this means, however, that the people should believe that the prince is lying. In fact, he should appear to be a man of compassion, a man of good faith, a man of integrity, a kind and religious man. But how will citizens be taken in by this? "Work they suspect that their prince is a liar?" Not in Machiavelli's opinion, because "people judge by their eyes rather than by their hands," and because "everyone sees what you appear to be, but few experience what you really are." So, it is possible to show them an honest face whilst in fact lying. And as he goes on to say, "the common people are always impressed by appearances and results." Again, we see his advice here based upon a particular reading of human nature, for if people were good and trustworthy, a prince would have no need for such underhand tactics.
In chapter 19, Machiavelli then draws our attention to a key point. Despite saying that a prince can lie, not keep his word, make people fearful, be miserly, and even commit murder, there are two things the prince must avoid: and that is inspiring contempt and being hated. A prince will be hated, as we've heard, if he steals the property or women of other men. He will be despised if he's fickle, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, or irresolute.
Now, what these observations indicate is that the prince has to have a clear approach to resolving issues fairly between those ruled by him. Now, these might include up to three groups: the noblemen, the populous or common citizens, and possibly the soldiers if a prince has a standing army. This is not easy, but again, he comes back to the key qualities of a fox and a lion. A leader needs to know how to appear compassionate and to have integrity, but must still be able to inspire fear in all of these groups. And if you can do that, then he will be respected by all.
In chapter 23, he then addresses a common problem for leaders: why flatterers must be ignored and how to gather good advice without undermining one's authority. Machiavelli argues that flatterers can be sidelined when a leader demonstrates that he's prepared to hear the truth. Flatterers are, of course, good at telling leaders they're right the whole time, but how does a leader get to hear the truth without everyone weighing in with their opinions so that it undermines the prince's authority? The answer, he says, is to surround oneself with wise men, allowing only those the freedom to speak the truth to him, and then only concerning matters on which he asks their opinions. What's more, once he has sought advice, he should act on the matter immediately and stick to his decision, otherwise, this undermines faith in his judgment, and he will be despised. And as we have already heard, a prince should always avoid being despised because that indicates he's weak.
There are two further related points that are particularly worth noting in The Prince. The first is the idea of preparation, or lack of it. Machiavelli warns his reader that "a common failing of mankind is never to anticipate a storm when the sea is calm." What he means is that when things are going well, most people think that will continue forever. But the sensible prince makes plans for downturns when things are going well, and this will give him the best chance of survival.
But even then, there is one further complication: events that are totally unexpected and so cannot be foreseen or planned for. He characterizes such changes as being brought on by fortune, a female goddess who typically raises people up and then knocks them back down again. He says that this makes some people believe that events are controlled by fortune and by God in such a way that men have no influence whatsoever. Machiavelli completely rejects such fatalism and asserts that to abandon our fate to outside forces is to deny our free will. There is a compromise, and he believes that it's probably true that fortune is the arbiter of half the things we do, leaving the other half, or so, to be controlled by ourselves. Arbiter here means to have ultimate authority over something.
The interesting point he then makes is that no single type of man can succeed in every circumstance. Sometimes a circumspect or careful man will be best suited, and at other times an impetuous or daring man will be better. But on balance, Machiavelli thinks that it is better to be impetuous than circumspect because "fortune is a woman, and if she is to be submissive, it is necessary to beat and coerce her." In addition, he suggests that the ideal prince should be young because women are impressed by their daring. Now, this personification is clearly sexist and misogynistic, but the underlying point is that when dealing with unpredictable events, the impetuous and bold character has a greater chance of success because he tries to impose himself on events rather than passively accepting them.
This then is the essence of Machiavelli's book. It is conventional in the sense that it offers advice to rulers. It is unconventional and revolutionary in that it suggested that advice he's giving is based on how the world actually is, not on how we would like it to be. It's a reading of human nature that paints people as wretched liars and easily led, and he advocates lying and murdering whilst appearing to be compassionate, kind, and generous. It helped to give birth to the term "Machiavellian," meaning cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous. But the fact that its teachings still have resonance today is a testament to its lasting influence on political and moral life. And perhaps gets us to ask the question: is there some truth to what Machiavelli says about humanity?
Give a thumbs up if you enjoyed this video and subscribe now so that you never miss any of my future posts.