• Author / Uploaded
• Nimra Saif

Citation preview

Book Review Introduction: Book: The Prince is a political treatise written in 1513 by an Italian political theorist and diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli. It comprises of 26 chapters, which were originally letters and reports sent to Florentine government as a plea to regain his position as a secretary to the republic. Initially it was dedicated to Giuliano de’ Medici and then rededicated to his successor Lorenzo Medici. The concept of realpolitik is reinforced in this book. It is yet undecided that this book is actually a depiction of author’s sentiments or a satirical criticism of contemporary politics. Author: Nicolo Machiavelli was born at Florence on 3rd May 1469. He was son of Bernardo Machiavelli, a lawyer of some repute. His parents were members of the old Florentine nobility. His life falls into three periods, each of which singularly enough constitutes a distinct and important era in the history of Florence. His youth was concurrent with the greatness of Florence as an Italian power under the guidance of Lorenzo de’ Medici. The downfall of the Medici in Florence occurred in 1494, in which year Machiavelli entered the public service. During his official career Florence was free under the government of a Republic, which lasted until 1512, when the Medici returned to power, and Machiavelli lost his office. The Medici again ruled Florence from 1512 until 1527, when they were once more driven out. This was the period of Machiavelli’s literary activity and increasing influence; but he died, within a few weeks of the expulsion of the Medici, in 1527, without having regained office. Theme: The crux of the book is to expound how a Prince might acquire and retain supreme power in a state. Central Idea: The Prince is a judgement of reality; how politics functions, how those with some power intend to achieve more and those with a lot of power aspire to retain it. Statesmanship and warcraft: Machiavelli dismantles the conventional perception of war as an inevitable, but not conclusive, element of the development of states, and instead proclaims that successful war is the base upon which states are built. Goodwill and hatred: To stay in power, a prince must prevent the animosity of his people. It isn’t mandatory for him to be adored, it is often preferable for him to be feared by his subjects. Goodwill is a political apparatus to safeguard the stability of the prince’s regime. Freewill: Part of Machiavelli’s aspiration in writing The Prince is to investigate how much of a prince’s victory or defeat is induced by his own volition and how much is driven by nature or the

setting in which he lives. He endeavors to compromise between free will and determinism by asserting that fortune manipulates half of human conduct and leaves the other half to free will. Virtue: Machiavelli defines virtues as qualities that are praised by others, such as generosity, compassion, and piety. Every action the prince takes must be considered in light of its effect on the state, not in terms of its intrinsic moral value. Military prowess: The prince should be expert in the military and through this he will be able to ensure successful negotiations with other nations. He also argues for united army which is a unique thought because at that time Italy was a collection of feuding city-states. Main Arguments: In this book, Machiavelli advocated the amoral dispute of power which is not restrained by conventional religious standards. He replaced the traditional provision that a successful ruler embraced Christian virtues with an outlook that he must possess ample strength at his disposal to enact his indisputable control. A ruler should honor traditional standards of virtue, meanwhile giving the appearance of doing so he can execute ruthlessness and commit dishonesty when it satisfies his interests. He appealed for expulsion of barbarians (non-Italian invaders) and restoration of unity of purpose and harmony. In the beginning, he discusses different forms of governments to be found in the states i.e principalities and republics. He does not argue as to which form is better. He just remarked that he’ll concentrate on principalities. He assigns most of his concentration to new princes because a monarch from a long ancestral dynasty is more beloved and has less chances of disturbing his subjects. He explains how new princes can safeguard their position and the threats that need to be averted. He mentioned multiple examples from ancient and contemporary history to strengthen his arguments. Machiavelli is unsure as to how the states with their own laws of government and prior taste of liberty should be dealt with. He later concludes that the decisive way of possessing them is either to ravage them or for the victor to go and live among them. States captured by a prince dauntlessly driving his own troops to conquest may in the beginning present a greater hurdle but, once they are overcome by force, they will settle down under his command. Whereas those seized with the help of others or by Fortune may prove problematic to hold. Machiavelli denounces the atrocities of those who attained power by deceit and cruelty whilst expressing appreciation for their achievement. He claims that if hard measures are unavoidable then all of them must be taken at once and then administer justly to attain the confidence of subjects. Inversely, in case of princes chosen by nobility and the people, their primary concern in order to preserve power must be to govern according to the desires of their subjects. The other condition for security is to have adequate amount of money to be able to put a resilient army in field and to fortify the major cities against an invasion. As far as an ecclesiastical state is concerned, Machiavelli’s main advice is ‘Don’t mess with the church!’. Machiavelli summarizes his opinions about how princes should obtain and preserve control of their states by emphasizing on the significance of exceptional military skills. They should personally command the army, exercise and train it well in peacetime and learn the art of warfare scientifically. In addition to this, he also endorsed hunting expeditions to enable them to study distinctive terrains and

toughen up their bodies. Machiavelli obsessively disliked mercenary and auxiliary troops: he describes auxiliary troops as soldiers lent by a foreign power. Both kinds are expected to place their own interests before that of the employer states’. They are expected to be defeated if persuaded to engage in war. In an unlikely event of victory, matters can get worse as they may become capable enough to oust the prince. Armies must be employed from within the state if Prince wishes to withstand the expected reverses of Fortune. The next section of book can be viewed as a satire on the traditional mirrors of a prince: which are proponents of the cardinal virtues - prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude – as well as qualities such as clemency and liberality. According to Machiavelli, A prince must possess cunning of a fox and strength of a lion in his dealings of affairs. It is necessary for him to avert unpopularity which can later give rise to conspiracies if a significant proportion of his subjects dislike him. He further states that it is equally important to possess a fine court, encourage traders and artists, ‘at suitable periods amuse his people with festivities and spectacles’. The choice of advisors and ministers also mirrors the character of Prince. Machiavelli requests Medici to expel foreign armies from Italy because according to him the greatest evil then was domination of foreign powers. Throughout the Prince there is a continuous tension between virtue and fortune. Machiavelli gave the attributes of a Goddess to Fortune but he himself did not really believe in existence of such supernatural force. He often used Fortune as a metaphor for political upheaval. The ambiguity of virtue as it was used by Machiavelli contributed to the hostility that the treatise received. Analysis: This book is based on realist perspective and is still relevant to the contemporary political and International relations of state. He has given a political reality rather than the theory and I agree with how he views the world and duties of a ruler. I disagree on the proposal of use of force against one’s own subjects. Conclusion: This is a very comprehensive book without unnecessary or irrelevant details. It contains solid arguments with references from history and has an easy vocabulary so it’s easy to understand. I will highly recommend this book to my fellows.