{"id":3112,"date":"2005-06-10T06:24:53","date_gmt":"2005-06-10T10:24:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=3112"},"modified":"2024-10-27T18:22:05","modified_gmt":"2024-10-27T22:22:05","slug":"the-books-the-prince-niccolo-machiavelli","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=3112","title":{"rendered":"The Books: \u201cThe Prince\u201d (Niccolo Machiavelli)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Next in my Daily Book Excerpt:<\/p>\n

\"webMachMansfieldHBFC0226500438.jpg\"Next book in my politics\/philosophy section section:<\/p>\n

The Prince<\/a>\"\"<\/i>, by Niccolo Machiavelli.<\/p>\n

We first had to read this in high school. I remember it as drudgery. I flat out didn’t get it. I read it again a couple years later, and the light dawned in on me. I “got” the book, I got its importance. Especially with all of my reading about the Founding Fathers, and their thoughts on government, and the workings of power, and the general corruptibility of man … One of my favorite things about all “those guys” was how they were the opposite of idealists. They were deep-down hardened skeptics, actually – at least about mankind and human nature. Hence: the checks, the balances … because man is not to be trusted with power. Ever.<\/p>\n

Every time I read the book, it seems like there’s something new there. Or it even seems like there are new sections altogether. I think: “Wait a sec … did I ever actually read this section??” My relationship with the book is ongoing, it’s one of those books that changes along with you.<\/p>\n

It was difficult to choose an excerpt, because there was so much to choose from. I really like the section on armies. I love all the political and military history stuff … but I’m gonna post, now, an excerpt from the famous chapter: “On Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether It Is Better to be Loved or Feared”.<\/p>\n

The edition that I have starts with an awesome introduction about the history of people’s responses to this book. How “Macchiavellian” became a certain type of descriptive term pretty much in his lifetime. How the work is misunderstood, essentially. How it seems as if the only thing people remember from the book is “the ends justify the means”, so let’s call it a night. But that’s not all there is, and the context of the book itself – why he wrote it – helps illuminate his concerns, his struggles.<\/p>\n

He was exiled (long story … look it up), and during his exile, he wrote The Prince<\/i>. Here is a bit from a letter he wrote to a friend (I just love this – the details):<\/p>\n

I am living in the country since my disgrace. I get up at dawn and go to the little wood where I see what work has been done … [Then comes a long section where he discusses sitting outside, on a hill, reading Dante, Petrarch, Tibullus, Ovid. Then he goes to spend the afternoon at the inn, with the miller, the butcher, a cook, some bricklayers …<\/i>] [Spent the afternoon] with these boors playing cards or dice; we quarrel over farthings. When evening comes I return to the house and go into my study. Before I enter I take off my rough mud-stained country dress. I put on my royal and curial robes and thus fittingly attired I enter into the assembly of men of old times. Welcomed by them I feed upon that food which is my true nourishment, and which has made me what I am. I dare to talk with them, and ask them the reason for their actions. Of their kindness they answer me. I no longer fear poverty or death. From these notes I have composed a little work, The Prince<\/i>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I find that totally extraordinary. What a description. My favorite part is how he needed to change into his old court robes, even though he was now exiled from the court, in order to get to work in his study. Wow. Like – a sense of humility, awe, and respect … when sitting down to contemplate Dante or Ovid. Sitting there in your mud-stained trousers would be the ultimate insult, and in order to “dare to talk with them”, he had to be appropriately dressed. I love that.<\/p>\n

Tycho Brahe, apparently, used to put on his court robes every time he looked through a telescope.<\/p>\n

I think that’s really cool.<\/p>\n


\nEXCERPT FROM The Prince<\/a>\"\"<\/i>, by Niccolo Machiavelli.<\/b><\/p>\n

From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared more than loved. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting. For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger, and covetous of gain; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours; they offer you their blood, their goods, their life, and their children, as I have before said, when the necessity is remote; but when it approaches, they revolt. And the prince who has relied solely on their words, without making other preparations, is ruined; for the friendship which is gained by purchase and not through grandeur and nobility of spirit is bought but not secured, and at a pinch is not to be expended in your service. And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligation, which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.<\/p>\n

Still, a prince should make himself feared in such a way that if he does not gain love, he at any rate avoids hatred; for fear and the absence of hatred may go well together, and will be always attained by one who abstains from interfering with the property of his citizens and his subjects or with their women. And when he is obliged to take the life of any one, let him do so when there is a proper justification and manifest reason for it; but above all he must abstain from taking the property of others, for men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. [I guess Marx and Lenin didn’t read their Machiavelli, huh?<\/i>] Then also pretexts for seizing property are never wanting, and one who begins to live by rapine will always find some reason for taking the goods of others, whereas causes for taking life are rarer and more fleeting.<\/p>\n

But when the prince is with his army and has a large number of soldiers under his control, then it is extremely necessary that he should not mind being thought cruel; for without this reputation he could not keep his army united or disposed to any duty. Among the noteworthy actions of Hannibal is numbered this, that although he had an enormous army, composed of men of all nations and fighting in foreign countries, there never arose any dissension either among them or against the prince, either in good fortune or in bad. This could not be due to anything but his inhuman cruelty, which together with his infinite other virtues, made him always venerated and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, and without it his other virtues would not have sufficed to produce that effect. Thoughtless writers admire on the one hand his actions, and on the other blame the principal cause of them.<\/p>\n

And that it is true that his other virtues would not have sufficed may be seen from the case of Scipio (famous not only in regard to his own times, but all times of which memory remains), whose armies rebelled against him in Spain, which arose from nothing but his excessive kindness, which allowed more licence to the soldiers than was consonant with military discipline. He was reproached with this in the senate by Fabius Maximus, who called him a corrupter of the Roman militia. Locri having been destroyed by one of Scipio’s officers was not revenged by him, nor was the insolence of that officer punished, simply by reason of his easy nature; so much so, that some one wishing to excuse him in the senate, said that there were many men who knew rather how not to err, than how to correct the errors of others. This disposition would in time have tarnished the fame and glory of Scipio had he persevered in it under the empire, but living under the rule of the senate this harmful quality was not only concealed but became a glory to him.<\/p>\n

I conclude, therefore, with regard to being feared and loved, that men love at their own free will, but fear at the will of the prince, and that a wise prince must rely on what is in ihis power and not on what is in the power of others, and he must only contrive to avoid incurring hatred, as has been explained.<\/p>\n