"The Prince" by Niccolò Machiavelli
Abstract
To all those who read this post, let my purposes be stated: it is first a simplified, non-complex analysis of "The Prince" as a whole, and, in the meanwhile, a taste to what dialectical analysis is. The first purpose of making this is simple: to have it as a simple resource for both philosophy and history students, while assuming that they have no prior knowledge of this or any of his works. For the second-fold, it is for me to exercise my understanding of dialectics (n.b.* not dialect) while re-establish the literary theme and original intent of my account.
Henceforth, any historical mentioning will be used to facilitate the understanding of and to the reinforcement of "The Prince," even from a dialectical analysis of said work. Otherwise, I will try to stay as accurate and in depth as Secondary Literature can get with explaining works. But I cannot promise such, with the limitations but genuine privileges/aids Steemit has for writers nowadays. And let it be known, in this final sentence: that this post works to do better than my year-old post and cover more ground than what I previously covered, for now I possess the book again and permanently so.
Machiavelli himself and the book origin
Machiavelli himself
Niccolò Machiavelli was born in 1469 and died at 1527 in Florence. (Which has to be always noted that Italy at that time hadn't existed, and the closest it had gotten was with the Ostrogoth monarchy and Eastern Roman campaigns.) Machiavelli himself was a diplomat, historian, philosopher, politician and, most importantly, a writer in 16th century Italy. As a writer he had wrote many books of politics, and one of which is the magnum opus: The Prince. This book for that time for both philosophers of laws and princes took a heavy interest of the work as we humans nowadays stare in awe of somethings Machiavelli has to say. It goes to say, but it is necessary that one has to mention that Machiavelli was a Classical Republican and defended it to the death, but of course more in the line of Italian Republicanism and his love for selfless leaders.
Why he wrote what he wrote
Why he wrote is within the first few pages of The Dedication section (§), which is an earnest gift to and for Lorenzo de Pierro di Medici. To go from there, to say that this book was nothing more than a reflection of 15-16th century Italian thought and activity is to be an understatement to what the book is about and that analysis is undialectical itself. For "The Prince" sets out to be more than a guideline for Princes and rulers of the sorts to follow what he had to say. Especially when considering that he talks about the material conditions of the time: the types of princedoms, multiple big nations having a choke-hold on Italian politics, sectarianism that spread throughout Northern and Center Italy, a rechristened Papacy ready to take charge in Italy and so on and so on. Even when he was in the prison cell writing this**, he never gave a hint of resentment for the princes for it would be contradictory to his thought and his work. What he wrote was to be a simple but beautiful collection of analyses of how Princedoms and their politics work, and were in documented history.
Style
With all the talks about historical and materialist thinking, how did he combined all the relevant facts about princedoms into a coherent, beautiful and simple work? The style of delivery in this work is one not of idealistic analysis of the abstract ruler, he clearly doesn't just look at the History of Ideas, analyze things one-sidely and think in voidist terms. Which would leave Machiavelli to possess a pretty materialistic analysis of princedoms, where he clearly goes beyond making voidist generalizations and wants to cover the history, material reality and qualities that inter-depend on each other. Meanwhile one can prove that he, rather subtly, uses a Dialectical frame of mind where he doesn't take a one-sided view of things and analyzes all relevant views as to find the correct view on the matter. Liken to that of Socrates with his Dialectical method of analyzing all arguments that related to a topic as to find the Truth out of such.
Content
To be feared or to be loved?
One of the many talking points in the later §s of "The Prince" is the topic of fear and love. For what makes it significant in Machiavelli's world to include this in his work? If one were to be ignorant of the material conditions of 16th century Italy, this wouldn't seem an important issue for any analysis of the notion of ruling a duchy or republic. Yet, Machiavelli goes out of his way to analyze Italy in general as to why these two qualities are important in ruling.
And in the analysis of the notion of ruling, he delivers to us the answer that is universally applicable to all scenarios: that you must be loved and feared. However he reminds us how difficult it is to handle both by again citing actual human leaders that had to enforce the quality of fear to maintain their rule, thus fear became the dominant trait of what makes the best prince possible***. And, in this madness of this section, he invokes the line of “the ends justify the means” without ever being explicit about it.
Yet clearly when we study his Classical Republicanism, it seems that it is better to be loved? Why is it that he says to the Prince that he must be feared? With the quarks of politics and how aristocratic/nobles worked within Feudalism, it layed no time for the Prince to consider gaining the trust of established aristocracies/nobles that have to won over. They had to submit to the new or conquering Prince, else they will pose great difficulty to him and can route the peasantry to their side through proagandous means to oust the Prince. Yet in places without an establish Old Order, it is easier to play ball with both being loved and feared, but better to be loved as it make the resistance of the conquering army greater and quell the people's sentiments.
The ends justify the means?
From the previous § of this post, I noted that Machiavelli pulled off a wonderful philosophical trick of making his audience agree to the notion of "the ends justify the means" even in the times he was in. Yet why does he, with all these absolutes of the topics of ruling, make them relative to this singular point, or appearing to be so in this work?
It shouldn't be a surprise why he would do such: for it was the dominant thought of feudal barons and princes at the time that was losing appeal. The rulers in feudal times had their interests as a class, regardless of rival rulers posing threats to their stability, and needed to make sure it was upheld in order to maintain this class by subjugating the peasants into working under them. As such, there was no peaceful establishment of power of a Prince, all was won through violence, even today we cannot oust people without relying on manpower to achieve such.
Yet how does the ends justify the means in this sense and why does Machiavelli justify it? In this period of time, the ends of maintaining the Base (the rising mercantilism and establish guild-manor system) supported the Superstructure (ideology/culture) of that time which supported the means of tax and grain collection, peasant suppression and oppression and imposing fear to all those who wished to depose the noble of the province. For remember, that this work is clearly focuses on what Princes ought to be when ruling in perilous up-roaring times like these. No matter the means, the consequences always are weighted more as they hold relevance of the future of the kingdom/duchy.
For if the means lead to a fallout of the Kingdom, does it mean the means were good? Well clearly the ends will say the means cannot be justified as they lead to the annihilation of a kingdom. For the ends can only understand the means. Let's take another one: if a nation won its freedom, does justify all the losses made? But one cannot say this is all that is to be discussed: we have to discuss the losses of the enemies and how inflicting those losses were on the revolting nation's side, but we have to understand if they really were means or byproducts of the means which are two different topics, and, in all this, whether the ends has also unforeseen consequences that'll be revealed later as the nation progresses. For we cannot ignore these factors, yet people do often when thinking of Machiavelli and the "ends justify the means" phrase.
The two beasts of the ruler
At this same portion of the book, after he had went in great length to discuss the importance of love and fear he comes to focus in on how a leader should act in every situation. Like if it were a game of chess in our times, but a more of a game of images that comes down to two important animals: the fox and the lion.
For the image of the fox is the clever animal of the bunch because it can spot and avoid traps if need be. But it lacks the ability to scare of and defend from the wolves who dare to threaten the power of the ruler. This can be seen, as he earlier on describes, with Kingdoms like France where the nobles/aristocracy are always unstable in their position and never satisfied with their desires, the lack of being better than someone else. And this image, which is part of a bigger and truer image, plays out its importance as it often times comes handy in politics.
And of the other beast is the lion, which does what the fox fails to do but, like a Taoist symbol of Yin Yang, it lacks the ability to avoid traps made by the sorts who like to steal power bit by bit. And like many of his later objects of analysis, it comes down to be a dualistic relationship between one opposing point and another when it comes to the general topic of ruling. And this object, like many others, are no exception to this rule. For the lion acts upon the traitors and plotters in his kingdom, asserts their power status on the new subjects of his kingdom and ensures that the Old Order is kept in check for any abuses of their power. The Prince cannot live without such, but cannot abuse such for it will give determination to what he is keeping under control to fix his abuse of power.
Yet when I talk of dualistic, I do not mean that they stand at individual from each other completely. They are more liken to active opposition where two particulars belong to a universal, yet they "push" each other away which ironically makes the particulars in the universal stand out more while making them stronger in capacity to do their jobs as being the particulars to the universal.
Fortuna and skill
Earlier in his work as he lists out historical rulers and first rulers and how they won't have the same success in his times with their tactics, he mentions a lot of Fortuna (luck) and skill. Fortuna plays a role in a ruler's power, if Fortuna isn't on the ruler's side and condemns such ruler, then the ruler will be ousted and no longer ruling. Rare that they can bounce back from such, as many elements are now breaching through their power and making impossible to recapture what was lost. Fortuna often times grants the silliest of people power, but often for a more complex set up to allow other people eventually supersede them and rightfully so have a long rule of history, even beyond the grave.
Yet skill equally plays a huge role as they can often resist Fortuna and win her back over time. For skill can do what Fortuna cannot, that is manage carefully what is done throughout and make actual of what has to be done to continue with the current trend and resist opposing trends. For Fortuna can bless a ruler to be hard to oust, but, if a ruler lives only on luck, they'll sooner or later use it all up and no longer stay on the throne. Skill, however, is what the ruler possesses and uses at the moment and future consequences of such moment, and can win Fortuna back by showing the dedication to their status.
On the people he covers
It's no surprise that Machiavelli covers on a lot of people, from Ancient Rome and Greece to modern day Western and Central Europe to even the Ottomans. This is where in particular one might think that knowing the history of such is useful. And that one would be correct in assuming so, but Machiavelli explains them enough were that knowledge isn't needed but adds more unto Machiavelli's analysis than anything. So fear not knowing these people, but fear not possessing such as they will enrich Machiavelli's points.
And the modern times
Though you may be hard-pressed to find semi-related to topics to apply the "The Prince" today, it does have a good reason for this. If it wasn't already emphasized, it is the fact that, like a good Aristotelian that Machiavelli is, he had studied the World for what it had became for him and predicted for what it could be. Like many great thinkers of Machiavelli's time, they were revolutionary in thought, like a zeitgeist (time-spirit), especially as they developed and applied Humanism and Secularism in the Renaissance.
However, we humans today don't exist in the Renaissance so how can we relate to Machiavelli and understand him? His many points, even the ones not listed here from "The Prince," from that time are still relevant today because we still face these issues. Not because of Trans-historic reasons but because the conditions he faced were negated in many ways but updated and reproduced in many others that they can bear relevance to today. Anyways, in other words, Machiavelli's theory still needs an update for the modern times as not everything can be particularly applied here like he did in late-15th/early-16th century Italy, unlike what he stated of being equally loved and feared no matter where you are. Nor can they be universally applied as well for there are things we have to throw into the bunch here, like the Base or economy, and terms that needs to be updated for modern verbiage.
For how we approach to modernize Machiavelli is the great question of today as we still see rulers who still follow and/or need Machiavelli's advice more than ever... but equally Machiavelli needs these rulers as to understand our contemporary conditions. As this is where Dialectical-Materialism and Historical-Materialism can step in and truly bring Machiavelli to light while also adding unto what he couldn't foresee.
Fin
Footnotes
*n.b. nota bene = "note well." Essentially, pay special attention to and keep in mind.
**prison cell situation... back when the Florentine republic was dissolved, he was accused of conspiracy against the Medici family by the family itself and was thus thrown into prison, but got out three weeks later after denying involvement in it.
***In his time when it became the rule, not the exception to be feared in Italy.