“Since Fortuna has seen to it that I cannot talk about either the silk or the wool trade, or profits or losses, I have to talk about politics. I need either to take a vow of silence, or to discuss this” (qtd. Atkinson and Sices 225), asserted Niccolo Machiavelli  in one of his famous exchanges to Francesco Vettori, when the latter had expressed grief in man’s poor undertanding of things. (Atkinson and Sices 224). Likewise as tribute to this man who achieved much more in death than in life, I will speak of this subject, and not his private life, humor, career, family, literary style or his friends, though all of them and more, come into play when considering Machiavelli’s politics. And though I wish to imitate him in writing of his politics rather than other subjects, I will not do so with the poise and eloquence or even the wit that he was able to use. Machiavelli similarly began many of his written opinions, by noting how humbly and through what limited intelligence he would proceed. However, in order to begin to understand the artist of power, it must be noted that he did not believe this was true, and neither did he believe that the reader, after completing his work, would believe so. The author asserts, that in the case with this essay, it is most true.

            Niccolo Machiavelli, 1469-1527, was born in Florence and lived a life quite devoid of “Fortuna” (as he liked to say) relative to his passion, ambition and intellect. It is safe to say that if he had not written his literary works, especially The Prince, (mostly written after his fall from grace), that Niccolo Machiavelli would have gone down in the annals of history as a little known (if known at all) Renaissance Florentine bureaucrat who had worked for one of the countless establishments, quickly replaced, in the fragmented northern Italian political scene.

            From what is known about him, intrigues, conspiracies[1], murders, revolutions, and a life of evil cannot be counted among his accomplishments. Nonetheless, this bureaucrat of the second Chancellery, having written the works that he did, especially The Prince, has been a household name, at least of the educated, for nearly half a millennium. This popularity can in general, be better described as infamy rather than fame, and every vice, evil and connotation of wrong has been attributed to him to the extent that the "Machavil" Richard III of Shakespeare who many critiques claim to be the personification of evil, and our today's "Machiavellian" sheds light on how great the infamy. Machiavelli himself, a proponent of free speech, when "undertaking to defend an argument which,[...] all writers have attacked" declares "I do not, nor shall I ever, think it wrong to defend an opinion with reasons without employing either authority or force." (Bondanelle and Musa 281). It is for this sin alone, that he has been and is remembered, with the infamy of his name.

            Considering this author whose words are read so many years after his death, and this Florentine diplomat who has been praised by as varied people as Mussolini, Napoleon, Clausewitz and Antonio Gramsci (Bondanelle and Musa 39), as well as cursed by multitudes including the Church, what then, were his political opinions? Are they simply the advocation of evil that the Church put on the blacklist, or are they the amoral but often profound views that the casual reader may find in his work? Still, are they the opinions of brilliance and unbiased truth that others have attributed to him? In considering this question, without being unnecessarily academic, we find that what exactly his opinions are, like most subjects worthy of many books and essays on them, is not so obvious. Like much of history however, by finding evidence, and without straying somewhere from the path of logic, we can look into Machiavelli's mind, if we can be so bold, and at least with some degree of certainty know some of the thoughts that stirred this extraordinary man's pen.

            At first look, and perhaps even at more, there seems to be some powerful contradictions in Machiavelli's views. The Prince, by far his most well known work, is of the Middle Ages -Renaissance’s popular genre, known as "Mirror of Princes". Interestingly enough, Machiavelli, though in all his works including The Prince quotes from a vast source of historical and contemporary sources, ignores all of these prior works, in name and in content. While the former, dealt with the issues of making a Prince just, moral, kind, generous, and most of all a good Christian, Machiavelli's Prince seems to have little use for all of those virtues. In fact, his ideal Prince is full of "virtu", but the word has various different meanings for its author, and this precise meaning remains one of the basis for heated debate around Machiavelli. The Prince is organized into practical sections all talking about principalities, including how many types there are, how they are created, maintained and lost by the virtu and Fortuna of the Prince. It is a very realist view, and deals mostly with what methods work and which do not, by drawing from historical examples, while little deals with morality and the justifying of these methods.

            His most comprehensive but lesser known piece, The Discourses, deals with Republics, mostly drawing from Livy as well as from many other sources for examples. Many have been perplexed by how the same author can (within the same years) write a treatise on how autocratic rulers can, through often harsh measures, maintain power and another advocating Republicanism.

            Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa in their introduction deftly point out that an immoral man could easily write two such contradictory books (Bondanelle and Musa 20). They then advise the reader to carefully read Machiavelli's own words before accepting any interpretation. Interpretations abound and range from all extremes, including stating that either The Prince, The Discourses, or both were not meant by the author, and that in fact Machiavelli was showing liberty to the people by showing them what tyranny really was. The bulk of the evidence on Machiavelli's political beliefs are within these two works, and so a careful study of them, including their intentions is necessary to disentangle the web of ideas to find, if in truth they are strings thrown and knotted together into this confusion, or can be and are disentangled into a continuous thread.

            Some early admirers of Machiavelli, and until very recently, argued that The Prince was not written in order to secure a job with the Medici, to whom it is dedicated[2] (Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino). Thinking that this would imply that he did not believe in its contents and was being either ironic, or just trying to say what the ruler would want to hear to get a job. With the new evidence of his letters emerging, and simply from the introduction to The Prince itself, it seems pretty clear that Machiavelli did in fact, want to get a position from the Medici, and he hoped this work would help that. However, this by itself does not answer the question but further complicates things.

            It is not possible that Machiavelli was telling Lorenzo what he wanted to hear in order to get a job. First, he did not get this position so the book did not contain what was necessary for him to do so. This would then have to mean that Machiavelli misjudged what it was Lorenzo wanted to hear, and having the understanding of human nature and politics that he did, this seems unlikely. Lorenzo himself was not the man most suitable to give Machiavelli any position. Guliano, the original Medici that The Prince was to be dedicated to, suddenly died in 1516[3]. Guliano was the only Medici at the time to be at least, indifferent and not hateful of Machiavelli, and was the one who secured his release from prison[4] (Atkinson and Sices 218), when efforts Vettori, claimed to have existed, by his part had failed (Atkinson and Sices 221). His benefactor gone, Machiavelli considered The Prince worthy of official publication, even if not likely resulting in his benefit. Having been part of a government that kept the Medici in exile for 15 years, and having been arrested and tortured for plotting against them, it is even more likely to believe that Machiavelli did not write the book at all for the purposes of his own career, than that he simply stated the opinions Lorenzo would want to hear. This would be a foolish and petty attempt much falling into the category of flatterers that The Prince itself warns against qtd. Bondanella and Musa 155).

            The fact that the book was, in fact so radical, for both Prince and the masses, as well how it broke with tradition of the genre as was explained earlier, makes it so that it is virtually impossible that this is what Lorenzo or any other Prince of the time would have expected or wanted to hear in a book of its kind. The Prince contains nothing but cruel words about the current state of Italy, its Kingdoms, and Princes. It has as its trademarks the fact that it takes no middle road and is quite the opposite of hypocritical.  The Introduction states, especially in its last two paragraphs, how sincere a work this is:

I have neither decorated nor filled this work with fancy sentences [as we know that Niccolo was very capable of], with rich and magnificent words, or with any other form of rhetorical or unnecessary ornamentation which many writers normally use in describing and enriching their subject matter; for I wished that nothing set my work apart or make it pleasing except the variety of its material and the seriousness of its contents (qtd. Bondanella and Musa 78)

The author goes on to apologize for what he will soon go on to say, exactly because he knows that this is not what Lorenzo or anyone else would expect:

Neither do I wish that it be thought presumptuous if a man of low and inferior station dares to debate and regulate the role of princes; for just as those who paint landscapes place themselves in a low position on the plains in order to consider the nature of the mountains... and high atop mountains in order to study the plains, in like manner to know well the nature of the people one must be a prince, and to know well the nature of  princes one must be of the people[5] (Bondaneella and Musa 78).

            Still, it is clear that Machiavelli does want to obtain a position, as that same last paragraph continues, "And if your Magnificence will turn your eyes at sometime from the summit of your high position towards these lowlands, you will realize to what degree I unjustly suffer a great and continuous malevolence of Fortune." Due to this, his intentions in writing The Prince cannot be ignored. First, an analysis of what he does say is needed. The first note that must be made in any such attempt is that all words quoted and read from Machiavelli's hand or from any of his contemporaries must be taken, like all things, in context. This is especially true when such words are used to deduce truths about relationships between these men and others. This context includes a myriad of political and cultural realities of the time, their knowledge and perception of other times, as well as their intended audiences for their words. Very specifically and important however, is the common literary style that was used.

            Most people involved in Machiavelli's existing correspondence were, to some degree at least, humanists of some sort and all revered the ancients and classics. The existence of such free city states like Venice and Florence, mercenaries and the Princes that they supported was all a product of the disintegrating of Medieval culture and a newly revived love for antiquity. Machiavelli, in The Discourses, when, as he does often, trying to dispel a commonly held belief, says, "Men always praise ancient times and condemn the present, but not always with good reason” (Bondanella and Musa 287). Here, he is arguing against (at least the reasons behind) this idea of praising the past and it gives the impression that it is very wide spread. It must be fair to say that the extent to which this may be true today, is less. The idea of progress or at least the hope for it, certainly makes there be a substantial number of people today in all levels of education that do not wish to live as the Romans did two thousand years ago. It is especially true that all newer thought movements whose ideas were previously repressed for much of history have an even less idyllic conception of ancient times or any past age. Having considered this about Renaissance Northern Italy, it is evident that such traits enter her prevalent citizen’s writing.

            When debating points of importance (and sometimes of not), Machiavelli as well his group of correspondents, write in a very systematic, logical (or attempting logic), polite, humble (usually) and praising way. Even between Biagio and Machiavelli, peers and friends of the same class, words like "Illustrious" and "excellent" are not uncommon. Arguments are built up in a logical ladder that would leave some modern readers hard pressed to answer. When the topic is serious, feelings and passions have no place in the conversation, and when the topic is friendly, among "compares", the tone is masculine, humor is witty, harsh and certainly far from today's politically correct standards. The logical statements often putting things in terms of yes or no, and the high praise all must be put into perspective so as to not misjudge intent, and more importantly, how others would have perceived the writing.

            The Prince, like its introduction states, is very clear-cut, direct, and logically structured. The types of principalities are discussed, the various ways of acquiring and maintaining each, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of them. The arguments themselves are also presented in such a fashion with historical and contemporary examples for support, and the author has a few favorite devices. Foremost, is his "either, or". Since all things, by whatever means we may judge them either are, or are not; Machiavelli uses this to strengthen his sometimes unconventional and even harsh arguments by denying any an alternative to the reader. His works are filled with this effective debating tool, and not only are they written with such literary simplicity and eloquence, but also combined with words and ideas that would be often considered opposites, thereby making the reader amaze at the fallacy of commonly held beliefs and the understanding of the author. An example lies early in chapter III, when he is arguing that a Prince who lives in the newly acquired province he intends to rule, will be able to do so with less difficulty because the subjects, having greater access to the Prince, "thus, wishing to be good subjects, they have more reason to love him, and wanting to be otherwise, have more reason to fear him" (Bondanella and Musa 82).

The power of such arguments is unquestionable, since for example, all citizens would either be supporters of that Prince or not supporters, he shows that for either case the act of being present is beneficial. The juxtaposition of contrasting words like love and fear, are also one of his trademarks. That is not to say of course, that all of The Prince's arguments are therefore logically unquestionable. Taking the above quote, several things are assumed, and may or may not be so. Could a Prince commit more offenses to people while being present in that province, thus decreasing those subjects which were supporters? Could those who fear the Prince or are not supporters, harm him less if he is not present than if he is?  However, as Machiavelli's ink flows in the logical ladder towards his coldly efficient conclusions, the reader cannot help but feel how well the author knows human nature. He once wrote that Priests.

            To see what true opinions of Machiavelli are contained within The Prince, one must see that there may in fact be not many in the sense, of what he may condone or not. The reader can quickly begin to see that the book is empirically stating patterns of political occurrences, and not condoning much, at least at first. Chapter III (pg 81) speaks of France having taken and lost Milan twice and the mistakes that her Prince had committed. If anything is clear by reading Machiavelli, is that the last thing he wants is the French infantry (that he respected) controlling the Italian soil. This is something that would have been obvious to the contemporary Italian reader, and of course, the less Magnificent Lorenzo. So when Machiavelli, the political scientist, writes in his famous treatise about one or another's mistake, gain, loss, victory, defeat, prudence and perhaps even virtu, one must see that he is talking about it from an objective perspective and commenting on the methodology of the ruler(s) in relation to keeping and expanding power. This is exactly what The Prince is meant to be, a handbook for power.

Bibliography (work in progress)

1. Machiavelli, Niccolo.  The Portable Machiavelli. Trans. Peter Bondanella, Mark Musa. New York; Penguin, 1979.

2. Machiavelli, Niccolo. Machiavelli And His Friends: Their Personal Correspondence. Trans. James B. Atkinson, David Sices. Illinois; Northern Illinois University Press, 1996.