Although very short and concisely written, Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince can be considered the first and definitive work of modern political philosophy. The book itself helped set the foundations of European political philosophy for nearly 450 years to come. At first look, Machiavelli’s logical guide for the preservation of a prince’s power seems to be an amoral approach to politics. To some, it may even seem cruel because of Machiavelli’s complete disregard for the plight of the common people. However, there is much more to The Prince than such a superficial analysis of Machiavelli’s political philosophy. To fully understand what Machiavelli wanted to say with The Prince, its historical and political contexts must first be understood as well as Machiavelli’s personal motivations and a full analysis of the ideas he presents.

The political situation in Italy while Machiavelli was alive played an extremely influential role in his writing The Prince. After the Peace of Lodi in 1454, the five major city-states of Italy – Venice, Florence, Milan, the Papal States, and Naples – had an alliance system that preserved a “balance of power” between the

The reason that The Prince became such an influential book was because Machiavelli’s views on how a Prince should act were essentially effective during the time period he lived in. He presented his ideas in a clear and logical way, which made it easy for anyone to read and interpret. Simply stated, Machiavelli believes that “…for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.” (Machiavelli ch. XVII). Therefore, it is ultimately better to be feared than to be loved. If a prince is loved, his people’s loyalty is only skin deep. When hard times come around, and they always do, the commoners will quickly become disloyal. If they fear their Prince though, then they will stick behind him and support him because they know the consequences they may suffer. This fickle view of common people presents them as inherently superficial, selfish, and treacherous. The suggestion that only fear can command the loyalty of such people shows that Machiavelli believes that human nature is intrinsically bad. However, this view is only a small example of the greatest fallacy in The Prince: Machiavelli’s reliance on assumptions about human nature to prove his points. Although he bases his political arguments on firm historical facts, Machiavelli often derives his theories from personal assumptions without offering any facts to support these assumptions. For the most part though, the idea that it is better to be feared than loved did work at a time when most of the commoners were uneducated and poor.

When considering why and in what context Machiavelli wrote The Prince, it is much easier to analyze his political theory concerning principalities. In all that he does, a prince should take the course of action that provides the best possible outcome for his state and the maintenance of his power. The Prince has had an influence on just about every ruler in history that has read it. It set the basis for political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, whose Leviathan discusses a similar yet more developed form of government. As long as human nature remains as it always has been, Machiavelli will always have an influence on the rulers of the World.

According to Machiavelli, it is best for a prince to be reputed for miserliness than for generosity because generosity only leads to hatred which should be avoided at all costs. At one point Machiavelli states, “…it is better to have a name for miserliness, which breeds disgrace without hatred, than, in pursuing a name for liberality, to resort to rapacity, which breeds both disgrace and hatred” (Machiavelli ch. XVI). What Machiavelli is saying is that if a prince is generous, he will eventually become poor and lose his means to support his liberal image. The prince will therefore resort to overtaxing his people to support his generous nature and inevitably breed hatred among his subjects. To avoid this cycle, Machiavelli plainly advises to be parsimonious in the first place and only be regarded as such without being hated. In this instance, Machiavelli seems to be a little generous himself in judging human nature by acknowledging that it is right for commoners to be discontented with a prince who overtaxes them. This is a rare occasion in which Machiavelli asserts that the will of the common people does matter; however the appeasement of the people is ultimately only for the purpose of perpetuating a prince’s power.

Along with being feared and miserly, Machiavelli also believes that a prince should either be benevolent or destructive, and nothing in-between. A passage from The Prince ex

Some topics in this essay:
XIV Machiavelli, XXVI Aside, XVI Machiavelli, III Basically, Saddam Hussein, Machiavelli’s Prince, Gulf War, Plato’s Republic, Papal Naples, Italian Prince, human nature, machiavelli ch, political philosophy, machiavelli believes, prince’s power, machiavelli’s prince, common people, preservation prince’s power, reality human, preserve power, eventually led, “the justify means”, context machiavelli wrote, reality human nature,