What was the intention of Machiavelli's 'The Prince'?

[FieldHound]

Is it just a straight-up literal guide for princes? Is it satire? Is it intended to educate the common people, as a sort of warning of how the ruling class operate? What is your personal opinion?

[Dodo]

It is deemed a "realist" piece and an important work on ethics as well as political philosophy.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I'm actually curious about this myself. I've heard everything from it being satire, to a subversive work denouncing autocracy, to a philosophical work of proto-egoism, to just some random thing he wrote on a lark and never intended to have published.

[Hermes]

I thought that this article was interesting, but I've only read excerpts from the work, myself, so I can't verify anything they claim.

But even as Machiavelli was creating his masterpiece, he had fears it would be misinterpreted, seen by the court as less a letter of forgiveness to the Medicis than a master plan for Machiavelli and other ambitious types to orchestrate their own takeovers. After “The Prince” was written in 1513, his fears were almost immediately realized, the treatise was quickly vilified, and Machiavelli labeled “an agent of the devil.”


Now, however, just before the 500th anniversary of the presentation of “The Prince” to the Medicis in Florence, theorists and political scientists not only believe that in parts it was indeed misread, but also that it, in fact, marks the starting point for modern politics, serving as a highly persuasive treatise on diplomacy and the behind-the-scenes maneuvering required to curry favor in an ever-changing political landscape. “One must be a fox in order to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves” — it was just this sort of pragmatic thought that has made him so important across the centuries. Leaders from John Adams to Bill Clinton have been influenced by Machiavelli, reciting from his work or studying his texts to put in context their own political times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/tr...chiavelli.html

[Asero]

I have a personal copy of the Prince. It's a really good book. I think more people should read it. I personally think all it was, was a pamphlet Machiavelli sent to the Medicis as advice towards the new patriarch of the family to get back in good graces.
It's a monumental piece in social sciences, and Machiavelli's other work, The Discourses on Livy (which I plan to read after the Prince), is a monumental work in classical republicanism.
Machiavelli himself, was a proto-bourgeois revolutionary, and should be regarded as such; he personally believed in many things that would eventually become universal thought in bourgeois-capitalist society, and he inspired many of the classical famous bourgeois revolutionaries, especially the ones of the American and French revolutions. He believed that a Prince, which is Machiavelli's word for "politicians," does not derive his power from God or the Church, but rather the Prince's power derives from his ruthlessness, military might, intelligence, skills and talents, and his ability to conjure a popular image to use at his advantage. 'That the Prince should derive his legitamacy of power from the people rather than God, advocating for a seperation between church and state, and preferring democracy over aristocracy. Machiavelli was the first to come up with the modern idea of the "state." He was one of the first to say the necessity for a state to maintain a strong citizen-army rather than depend entirely on mercenaries. He was one of the first bourgeois nationalists, who envisioned, in his dreams of the future, of a united Italy. He was a visionary.

[Hrafn]

It's quite genius, regardless of intent.

[Leo]

Machiavelli's stated intention was the unification of Italy and the establishment of a nation. The last chapter says it all.

[Rafiq]

Is it just a straight-up literal guide for princes? Is it satire? Is it intended to educate the common people, as a sort of warning of how the ruling class operate? What is your personal opinion?

I recommend reading works by Gramsci and Althusser - I have yet to see a more comprehensive and detailed analysis than that of the latter. Here's a pdf of Machiavelli and Us by Louis Althusser.

It is an excellent read.

Machiavelli's stated intention was the unification of Italy and the establishment of a nation. The last chapter says it all.

This was Machiavelli's hope, however it would be wrong to reduce book to this intention. The unification of Italy and the establishment of a nation-state, or what have you, is merely consequential. The Prince is simply an analysis of the nature of power - the only intent is to convey a comprehensive analysis of it.

[Leo]

This was Machiavelli's hope, however it would be wrong to reduce book to this intention. The unification of Italy and the establishment of a nation-state, or what have you, is merely consequential. The Prince is simply an analysis of the nature of power - the only intent is to convey a comprehensive analysis of it.

Well, as I said, this was his stated intention in the book. He didn't think it was a mere hope, he thought it was a realistic possibility. Whether this was his real intention or not is another possibility though on paper, his book was an elaboration of what it took to achieve this goal.

The Prince is an analysis of the nature of political power, whether Machiavelli's intent was to put forward a comprehensive academic analysis on this subject or whether he saw it as a tool for a higher purpose is another issue. His tone in the last chapter of The Prince is strongly nationalistic though.

[Zhi]

His intention was to make the ruler of Veince or wherever he was exiled from 'rule' better. As covered before some think it was pure satire others think it was a genuine handbook to insult the Prince's decision.

[liberlict]

It wasn't satire. It was straight up cajolery to impress the ruler of the Florentine Republic. You can tell by his other writings that he had a philosophy and it was realpolitik. Whether he actually believed all the garbage he wrotte or he was a sycophant is valid question though.

[Zealot]

Machiavelli wasn't writing satire or a handbook. It's essentially a work of political science. In the book, he explores and analyses different political systems and the reasons for their successes or failures. It's been a while since I read it but, IIRC, he wrote it to curry favor with the Medici family who had recently taken power (again). Machiavelli had been an official in the previous government and the Medici had arrested and tortured him on claims of conspiracy until finally releasing him. What he really wanted was to enter back into politics again but ultimately he had to settle for writing about it instead.

[socialistlawyer]

Machiavelli is standard book for tactics and strategies among the Left to grab power from elitist bourgeoisie presidents and prime ministers of capitalist governments. There is nothing wrong in that given that bourgeoisie leaders practice those diabolically conspiratorial teachings that the author impart to any leader who wants to perpetuate himself in power. They were also basic reading for Soviet moles like Philby, Burgess, Maclean, and Blunt. "You see the speck in my eye, you don't see yours"- socialistlawyer to CIA director Bush Sr.

[Dialectical Wizard]

The main intent was to regain the favour of the Medici, but the most interesting Il Principe-interpretations are; the theory of Machiavelli being a 'republican democrat' a view that mostly dates back to the 17th and 18th century. That Il Principe was not a handbook for tyrants, but that he indirectly wanted to make clear to the people which unscrupulous methods political leaders use to gain power and to consolidate their power. Machiavelli is not an apologist for tyranny here, but a democrat who resolutely choses the side of the people. The second interpretation is that of Machiavelli as a 'nationalist', as a precursor of the Risorgimento. This theoretical insight is mainly derived from the Italian literary critic Francesco De Sanctis .