Author Context

Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy on May 3, 1469. His family owned
farm and rental properties and Machiavelli's father, Bernardo, practiced law.
Machiavelli received a quality, classical education, characteristic of the humanist
traditions of Renaissance Italy. As a young boy, Machiavelli showed great
interest in the works of ancient Latin writers, such as Dante, Livy, and Cicero.

In Machiavelli's youth, Florence was ruled by Lorenzo de' Medici, or Lorenzo the
Magnificent, the great liberal statesman, patron of the arts, and man of letters.
After Lorenzo's death, Florence went through a period of political instability,
starting with the French invasion of Charles VIII (1494) and ending with the rise
and fall of Savaronola, a Dominican friar, who through his
prophetic sermons established a theocratic state until its fall in 1498. At the age
of 29, Machiavelli, who never held a governmental position before, became
second chancellor of the newly established Republic of Florence. Machiavelli's
position gave him access to the major political and military players of Europe.
As a diplomat, Machiavelli traveled extensively and met such leaders as Louis
XII of France, Cesare Borgia, Emperor Maximilian II, and Pope Julius II. During
his diplomatic missions, he took notes of these men, which would prove useful
in writing The Prince. Machiavelli was considered a tireless worker and
eventually became a trusted advisor to thegonfaloniere, or chief magistrate,
Piero Soderini. But in 1512, the Republic of Florence fell to the Spanish army of
the Holy League. The Medici family regained control of Florence and Machiavelli
was dismissed from his position. A year later, he was accused of taking part in a
conspiracy against the Medici rulers. Imprisoned and tortured, he was
eventually cleared of the charges and released.
Over a decade of living and breathing politics came to an abrupt end and
Machiavelli had a difficult time adjusting to civilian life. He was forced to
withdraw to a small farm in San Casciano near Florence. In a letter to his friend,
Francesco Vettori, Machiavelli describes how he ends his uneventful days.
Changed into his courtly robes, he writes, "I enter the ancient courts of bygone
men where, having received a friendly welcome, I feed on the food that is mine
alone and that I was born for." Even the malice of fortune could not extinguish
Machiavelli's passion for politics. In 1514, he finished The Prince. Originally
intended for Giuliano de' Medici, Lorenzo the Magnificent's son, Machiavelli,
rededicated the work to Lorenzo the Magnificent's grandson, Lorenzo de' Medici
after learning of Giuliano's death.
Early reactions to The Prince were critical of its blunt political Darwinianism.
They were shocked by the ideas expressed through the terrifyingly accurate
portrayals of the rulers described. Many attributed the work to the devil and
even accused Machiavelli of being one. Shakespeare, in one of his works,
mentions "the murderous Machiavel." Even modern commentators, the most
influential being Leo Strauss, have labeled Machiavelli as a teacher of evil.
Modern English vocabulary defines something "Machiavellian" as being
synonymous with cunning and deceit. Whether or not Machiavelli deserves such
infamy is still open to debate. But there is no denying the impact it has had on
political thought and ethics. It has a secure place in the canon of the
classics. The Prince must be evaluated within the context of his other works,
most notably, The Discourses (1517) and The History of Florence (1525).
Although his tone is always incisive, Machiavelli's other works reveal a "gentler"
side. In addition to his work on politics and history, Machiavelli wrote several
plays.Mandragola (1520) is considered one of the best plays of the Renaissance.
Machiavelli died in 1527 at the age of 58.
Plot Summary

ccolo Machiavelli, in dedicating his book to Lorenzo de' Medici, urges the young
prince of Florence to read his work and follow its advice. He also asks the
prince to consider his bad turn of fortune (his exile from Florentine politics).
Having made his case, Machiavelli goes right to the main focus of his work-how
principalities can be acquired, governed, and preserved. Machiavelli identifies
three main types of principalities: hereditary, new, or mixed.
The hereditary principality passes down power through the ruling family. It is
not difficult to maintain as long as the hereditary prince continues to rule as
before. New principalities are created through military or civil acquisition. Mixed
principalities (new territories added to an existing one) are of two kinds. If the
new territory shares the same language and customs as the old one,the
prince must extinguish the former ruling line and rule as before. If the new
territory does not share the language and customs, the prince should either
reside in it or set up colonies consisting of his own citizens or soldiers. Whether
he chooses to reside in it or set up colonies, he must protect weaker neighbors,
weaken powerful ones, and not let powerful forces enter his territories.

There are four ways a new prince can acquire a principality: by one's own arms,
by the arms of others, by evil means, and by civil means. A principality that is
won by a prince by his own arms is most secure. Machiavelli lists great princes
who came topower through their own abilities: Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and
Theseus. They ruled effectively because they were all armed, unlike Savaronola,
a Dominican friar who lost power because he did not take up arms. A
principality acquired by the arms of others needs a prince with both fortune and
virtue. Cesare Borgia is an example of a prince who came topower through
fortune, but lost his power through an unfavorable change in fortune, even
though he was a great leader and did almost everything right. Princes who
come to power through evil means may gain power but not glory because of
their conduct. Those who come to power by civil means (election by the nobles
or the people) must remember to win the support of the people because they
are crucial in times of adversity. Machiavelli also mentions the ecclesiastical
principality with the pope as the ecclesiastical prince. In describing how the
position of pope has come to wield much power, Machiavelli does not make a
great distinction between a religious prince and a territorial prince.
Machiavelli identifies three kinds of armies: mercenary, auxiliary, and native.
Since mercenary forces are hired hands that fight for a wage, they are
unreliable in the face of battle. Auxiliary forces, or forces borrowed from an ally,
are dangerous if they are victorious because the prince who uses them is under
their obligation. Machiavelli strongly encourages every prince to use his own
native troops. History has shown that princes who accomplished great things
always used their own troops. In fact, a prince's sole activity is the art of
warfare. He must always engage himself in the physical and mental exercises of
warfare, especially in times of peace.
Regarding how a prince should rule and act, Machiavelli states that in an ideal
world, it is virtuous for a prince to be good. But in reality, princes who distance
themselves from ethical concerns and do whatever it takes for the benefit of
their states rule best. Therefore, it is better to be parsimonious than generous,
cruel than loving, crafty than honest. Machiavelli's general rule is to be as good
as circumstances allow, but be willing to resort to any means necessary for the
good of the state. A feudal prince must be wise in controlling the nobles and
keeping the people content. Even fortresses are useless if the prince does not
have the support of his people.
A prince gains esteem and glory through his courage. He must undertake great
enterprises that allow him to display his abilities. When two neighbors are at
war, a prince must never be neutral; he must take sides. The prince must have
the wisdom to choose the least risky venture and act on it courageously.
Wisdom is also needed in picking and satisfying his closest advisors and
avoiding flatterers.
Machiavelli laments the decline of the Italian city-states and attributes it to the
use of mercenary and auxiliary armies instead of native forces. In concluding
that virtue, or abilities and fortune must come together for success, Machiavelli
implores Lorenzo de' Medici to be the leader Italy has been waiting for-a prince
to unite the Italians, drive the barbarians out of Italy, and restore his beloved
nation to her former glory.
Major Characters

Niccolo Machiavelli: The author of the book, he served as a government

official in the Republic of Florence until the Medici family regained control.
Forced out of his position, Machiavelli utilized his new found extra time to write
The Prince. He dedicated the book to Lorenzo de' Medici in hopes that the prince
would read it and restore Florence, Italy, and possibly his political career to
former glory. Machiavelli draws upon ancient and modernexamples of leaders in
order to draw conclusions, generalizations, and opinions regarding how to
acquire, govern, and maintainpower.

Lorenzo de' Medici: The Duke of Urbino and the grandson of Lorenzo the
Magnificent, he is the recipient of Machiavelli's work. Machiavelli originally
intended to dedicate the work to Lorenzo the Magnificent's son, Giuliano de'
Medici, but he died in 1516. Machiavelli dedicates the book to Lorenzo de'
Medici in hopes that the young prince would restore Italy to its former glory.
Machiavelli believes that Lorenzo de' Medici is in the best situation to unite the
Italians because of his family's great influence in Florence and over the Church-
Lorenzo's uncle being Pope Leo X.
King Ferdinand II : The king of Spain at the time Machiavelli wrote The
Prince, King Ferdinand established his throne by marrying Isabella, uniting the
kingdoms of Castile and Aragon. Known as The Catholic, King Ferdinand was
closely associated with the Church, joining the Holy League in order to defeat
France. He also succeeded in driving the Moors out of Spain in the name of
religion. Machiavelli refers to King Ferdinand throughout the book, using him as
an example of a ruler who has, through his shrewd political maneuverings,
accomplished great things. King Ferdinand is said to preach peace and faith but
his actions clearly betray his words. Yet, Machiavelli considers the king's
apparent hypocrisy to be acceptable and even necessary. Machiavelli also
praises King Ferdinand for undertaking great endeavors as to arouse awe in his
subjects.
Francesco Sforza: Francesco Sforza is the primary example of a new prince
who acquires his principality by his abilities. He was a soldier who rose through
the ranks to become Duke of Milan in 1450 with the help of the Venetians.
Machiavelli has high regard for Francesco Sforza because he was a mighty
military leader. His sons, however, lost the throne because they rejected the life
of military discipline. Machiavelli criticizes the castle Francesco Sforza built in
Milan because the family's reliance upon it has kept them insulated from the
people. This violates one of Machiavelli's most cherished rules: do not be hated
by the people.
Cesare Borgia: The son of Pope Alexander VI who inherited muchpower and
territory from his father, known as Duke Valentino, Cesare Borgia is considered
by Machiavelli to have been a most capable leader and the embodiment of what
a prince should be. Machiavelli suggests that an ambitious prince looking for a
recentmodel to follow should imitate Cesare Borgia. Machiavelli uses many
events of Cesare Borgia's life to illustrate how and why he was successful.
Machiavelli believes that Cesare Borgia would have succeeded in uniting all of
Italy had he not fallen ill. Examining Cesare Borgia's life, Machiavelli concludes
that in order for a prince to ultimately succeed, he needs both ability and
fortune.
Pope Alexander VI: Father to Cesare Borgia, Pope Alexander VI was a great
leader who used his position and abilities to empower his son and consequently,
the power of the Church. Cesare Borgia inherited much power and territory from
his shrewd father. Machiavelli considers Alexander VI a master at the art of
political deception. Through the military success of Cesare Borgia, Pope
Alexander VI not only brought respect and prestige to the position of the pope
and the Church, he helped establish his son as the most powerful prince in Italy
until they both fell ill. Pope Alexander died soon after and Cesare Borgia,
deathly ill, could not prevent his eventual downfall.
Pope Julius II: The successor to Pope Alexander, he continued to increase
the power of the Church through military conquests and political maneuverings.
Machiavelli commends the Pope for finding a novel way to raise money-the sale
of ecclesiastical offices. Pope Julius succeeded in expanding the territorial
boundaries of the Church and driving the French out of Italy by joining the Holy
League. Machiavelli uses Pope Julius as an example of a ruler who succeeded
because his political methods corresponded well with the times. Known to have
acted impetuously in his military decisions, Machiavelli suggests that Pope
Julius's successes were largely due to his impetuousness. Machiavelli concludes
that being impetuous is usually better than inaction.

Chapter 1
The kinds of principalities and the means by which they are acquired
Machiavelli identifies two types of states, or dominions that hold power over
men: republics and principalities. Principalities can be either hereditary (rule by
family succession) or new. For the former type, he gives as a recent
example, King Ferdinand II of Spain and for the latter, Francesco Sforza of
Milan. These principalities may be accustomed to previous rule (hereditary) or
freedom (new). They may be acquired by fortune or ability.
Chapter 2
Hereditary principalities
Machiavelli focuses on principalities because he has discussed republics in
another work (Discourses). His basic plan is to convey how principalities can be
best governed and preserved. Given the nature of hereditary principalities,
Machiavelli believes that they are easier to maintain than new principalities
because a hereditary prince does not have rule much differently than before.
Even an ordinary prince can retain power unless unusual forces deprive him of
it. But even if a hereditary prince loses power, he can easily regain it if the new
ruler falters even a bit. The hereditary prince has an easier time gaining the
love of his subjects than a new prince does because the people feel
a natural affection for him. Unless the hereditary prince is unusually cruel, his
subjects will prefer a traditional ruler to a new one.
 Chapter 3
New principalities and mixed principalities-new territories added to existing
ones-face difficulties because the residents expect the new ruler to be better
than the one before. Experience usually proves otherwise, as the new ruler
must be wary of those he overthrows and at the same time, please those who
brought him to power. These friendships are hard to satisfy because those who
helped him come to power expect a lot in return. It is easier to hold on
topower of a rebellious territory the second time around because the reinstated
prince can use the rebellion as an excuse to implement stricter rule.
Newly conquered states may be from the same region and share the same
language as the old territories or they may not. When they share a common
culture and language, the new prince should establish his rule by extinguishing
the line of former princes and maintaining the status quo, specifically the
territories' laws and taxes. Then these new territories will be more quickly
assimilated with the old territories.
When the customs and language are different, the ruling prince needs fortune
and ability. The best strategy is for the prince to reside in the new territories so
that he can quickly put down rebellions and instill loyalty or fear into his new
subjects. A foreign prince is less likely to attack a territory when a prince is a
resident. The next best strategy is to send out colonies or, in a less efficient
case, a portion of the army into the conquered territories to maintain order and
settle the state. The only drawback to this method is having to displace a few
subjects in order to house the colonists or the army, but this is not a major
concern because the displaced are usually poor and without much influence.
Machiavelli coldly adds, "men must be either pampered or annihilated." (p. 16)
If an army is sent, there is more potential for trouble because troops are more
difficult to maintain and their presence causes resentment among the people.
Topic Tracking: Fortune 3
Topic Tracking: Virtue 3
A prince residing in a territory with different customs and language must be
aware of protecting his weaker neighbors and weakening the powerful ones.
Also, he must not allow a foe of equal strength to enter his territories. The
Romans, for example, were able to conquer and expand because they often
exploited the weaker parties within a territory by using them to overthrow the
rulingpower. Once in power, the Romans set up colonies, protected the weaker
powers without increasing their strength, and weakened the powerful ones
without getting rid of them. A wise prince should do likewise, always ready to
remedy a situation before it is too late. Machiavelli likens the maladies of a state
to the hectic fever. The disease, at its early stage, is easy to cure but hard to
diagnose. At a later stage, it is easy to diagnose, but impossible to cure.
Similarly, a problem within a state can be detected and dealt with early or else
it can become impossible to remedy. Machiavelli praises the ancient Romans for
quickly dealing with their problems instead of avoiding confrontations. Wise
men counsel that one should enjoy the benefits of time, but according to
Machiavelli, time is not always beneficial.
Topic Tracking: Power Politics 2
Machiavelli examines the case of King Louis XII of France, who invaded Italy in
1499. He suggests that the king made several mistakes. First, the king got rid
of the weaker forces that originally sided with him; second, he strengthened the
powerful (the Church); third, he brought in a strong partner (Spain); fourth, he
did not reside in Italy; and fifth, he did not establish colonies. The French king
could have prevented further defeat had he not reduced the power of the
Venetians (a strong counter-force), who were essential in maintaining a balance
of power. Machiavelli, having discussed these matters with a cardinal, re-
emphasizes the fact that the French often make the political mistake of letting
other forces, such as the Church or Spain, gain too much powerwhile weakening
the power of balancing forces. Machiavelli concludes with a general rule that he
who causes another to become powerful ruins himself.
Chapter 4

Why Alexander's successors were able to keep possession of Darius' kingdom

after Alexander's death

Given that newly acquired states are difficult to control, Machiavelli discusses
how the successors of Alexander the Great in the Asiatic lands were able to
retainpower after his death. Machiavelli identifies two ways of governing a
principality. One way is for a single prince to rule over the whole territory
with ministers and functionaries acting as his servants, as is the case in Turkey.
The other way is for a prince to rule along with barons who hold inherited
positions and have their own loyal subjects, as is the case in France. Machiavelli
points out that the Kingdom of the Turks would be difficult to conquer because
in order to win, one must mount a battle against a strong, united force. But
once defeated, it would be easy to keep because the new conqueror needs only
to extinguish the ruling family, the source of the kingdom's unity. The Kingdom
of France, on the other hand, would be easy to conquer, but difficult to keep. To
defeat France, one needs only to find a discontented baron, among many, who
is willing to be an ally, but once in power, a conquering prince will find a host of
problems to deal with. In a state like France, a prince is never free from having
to please friends and extinguish enemies.
The Asiatic lands conquered by Alexander was like the Turkish government,
therefore, it was easy to control even after the emperor's death. The Romans,
on the other hand, experienced difficulties controlling territories with
governments similar to the French. Therefore, one can assess the likelihood of a
prince's success in controlling a newly acquired principality by the type of
government the territory has had. This is as much a determining factor of
success or failure as the prince's abilities.
Chapter 5

How to govern cities and principalities that, prior to being occupied, lived under
their own laws
There are three ways of keeping a principality that is accustomed to living under
its own laws: destroy it, reside in it, or allow a form of self-government that is
friendly to the prince and take tribute from it
But the only sure way is to destroy it because there is always a chance that
its residents will rebel in the name of freedom, which once tasted is never
forgotten. Thus, a territory that is used to having a ruler will be easier to control
than a more liberal territory, such as a republic.

Chapter 6

Concerning new principalities acquired by one's own arms and ability

Machiavelli notes that ambitious men often imitate other great men so that
even if they fall short, they can come close, just like an archer who, judging his
target to be too far, aims for a target farther off. In addressing new princes,
Machiavelli assumes that for a private citizen to become a prince, either ability
or fortune must play a major part. As examples of those who became princes
through their ability rather than fortune, Machiavelli lists Moses, the biblical
leader of the Exodus, Cyrus, founder of the Persian Empire, Romulus, the
legendary founder of Rome, and Theseus, the legendary hero of Athens. What
these men have in common is more than their abilities. They all capitalized on
the opportunities that lay before them.
For men who become princes by their abilities, the greatest difficulty is in
winning their dominions. After the hard part is done, their abilities allow them to
rule effortlessly. According to Machiavelli, it is often necessary for a new prince
to set up new, innovative methods of government. But Machiavelli warns that in
such a case, the prince will find many enemies among those who oppose
change. On the other hand, the prince will find the supporters of change to be
passive because people generally do not want to trust something until it is
firmly established.
The only effective way to establish a new system is to use force. Machiavelli
gives as an example Savaronola, the Dominican friar who held power over
Florence with his fiery sermons, but lost control because he was unarmed when
his message was no longer welcomed. Machiavelli observes, "From this it
follows that all armed prophets have succeeded and all unarmed ones have
failed; for in addition to what has already been said, people are by nature
changeable." Chapter 6, pg. 27 He notes that princes such as Moses, Cyrus,
Romulus, and Theseus could not have succeeded without taking up arms. Hiero
of Syracuse is a modern example of a private citizen who used his abilities to
rise to power. Although he had to work hard to establish power, once in control,
his abilities allowed him to easily maintain it.
Chapter 7

Concerning new principalities acquired with the arms and fortunes of others

Machiavelli turns his attention to private citizens who acquire principalities

through fortune, such as through a bestowed gift or bribery. These so-called
princes make no effort in acquiring power, but they inevitably face many
difficulties in preserving it. Without a loyal army or any traditions to stand on, a
prince of a new state that relies on fortune does not have a good chance of
surviving. In reviewing the two ways of becoming a prince, either through
ability or fortune, Machiavelli offers two illustrations. Francesco Sforza, the
Duke of Milan, is an example of a prince who rose to power through his abilities.
He maintained his power with ease because he had to overcome many obstacles
in establishing his state. Cesare Borgia, or Duke Valentino, is an example of one
who acquired his position and territory through fortune-by inheriting it from his
father, Pope Alexander VI. But he lost it through fortune as well, although he
did everything right. Using Cesare Borgia's life as a case study, Machiavelli
constructs an interesting argument-that ultimate success is dependent upon
both ability and fortune. Cesare Borgia is the model prince that all other princes
who come to power by fortune should imitate. Machiavelli writes:
"Therefore, if you are a prince in possession of a newly acquired state and deem
it necessary to guard against your enemies, to gain allies, to win either by force
or  fraud, to be loved and feared by your subjects, to be respected and obeyed
by your troops, to annihilate those who can or must attack you, to reform and
modernize old institutions, to be severe yet cordial, magnanimous and liberal,
to abolish a disloyal militia and create a new one, to preserve the friendship of
kings and princes in such a way that they will either favor you graciously or
oppose you cautiously-then for such purposes you will not find fresher examples
to follow than the actions of this man."  Chapter 7, pg. 34
Topic Tracking: Fortune 5
Topic Tracking: Virtue 5
Aside from the mistake of supporting the election of a new pope who would
eventually come to haunt him, Cesare Borgia did everything right and would
have prevailed had it not been for the untimely death of his father and his own
failing health.
Chapter 8
Concerning those who become princes by evil means
A private citizen may become a prince in two ways that cannot be characterized
by ability or fortune. One is through wicked means and the other is through
election by his fellow citizens. Machiavelli gives an ancient and modern example
of the former kind without making morality its core issue. Agathocles of Sicily is
an example of a potter who rises through the military ranks to become its
commanding officer. At an opportune time, he kills off the ruling powers of
Syracuse and becomes king. Thus, his rise to power was not through fortune,
though it cannot be attributed to virtue either because of the extreme cruelty of
his acts. "By such methods one may win dominion but not glory," Chapter 8,
pg. states Machiavelli, although he does acknowledge the fact that some rulers
must resort to evil deeds. The modern example is Oliverotto da Fermo, who
killed his uncle in order to take power. Machiavelli provides these two examples
to explore the use of proper and improper cruelty. Proper cruelty is done early
and at one stroke so that the deed accomplishes the desired goal without
making the citizens feel constantly threatened. Improper cruelty is one that is
repetitious, which makes the citizens always wary of danger. As a general rule,
harm should be inflicted all at once while benefits should be given little by little.
Both harm and benefits should not serve as quick solutions for desperate
circumstances.
Chapter 9

Concerning the civil principality

Another way that a private citizen may become a prince without ability or
fortune is through the support of either the common people or the nobles. From
the conflicting desires of the common people (not wanting to be oppressed) and
the nobles (wanting to oppress), there are three possible scenarios or forms of
government:principality, liberty or license (in political terms: monarchy,
democracy, or anarchy). A civil principality results when the nobles anoint one
from their ranks to rule over the people, or when the people select one of their
own to protect themselves against the nobles. He who comes to power through
the nobles is less secure than one who comes to power through the people
because the other nobles consider themselves equal to the prince, while the
people seek only to be protected from oppression. A prince must group nobles
according to whether they support him or not. In dealing with nobles who are
not supportive, the prince should judge whether it is because of their inherent
lack of strong character, or because they are ambitious and care more about
their own interests. Those of the former character, especially the competent,
can be used because they are not a threat. But the ambitious and cunning
nobles should be looked upon as enemies to be carefully watched.
Whether a prince comes to power through the people or the nobles, he must
win the support of the people, which is easily accomplished by not harming
them. Machiavelli stresses the importance of keeping the good will of the people
because they are crucial in times of trouble. He qualifies this statement by
saying that a prince should not expect the people to bail him out of trouble. If a
prince is a man of courage and ability, the people will inevitably stand behind
him even in times of adversity. A prince must therefore, be closely associated
with his people. He must not rely too heavily on his magistrates to lead them,
lest they become too dependent on his advisors, rather than on him. If the
people are dependent upon the prince in times of peace, they will be loyal to
him in times of danger as well.