The Prince

by Niccolò Machiavelli

We cannot, however, agree that The Prince is the most famous book on politics without immediately correcting this to say that it is the most infamous. It is famous for its infamy, for recommending the kind of politics that ever since has been called Machiavellian. The essence of this politics is that “you can get away with murder”: that no divine sanction, or degradation of soul, or twinge of conscience will come to punish you. If you succeed, you will not even have to face the infamy of murder, because when “men acquire who can acquire, they will be praised or not blamed” (Chapter 3). Those criminals who are infamous have merely been on the losing side. Machiavelli and Machiavellian politics are famous or infamous for their willingness to brave infamy.

The grave issue raised by the dispute whether Machiavelli was truly “Machiavellian” is this: does justice exist by nature or by God, or is it the convenience of the prince (government)? “So let a prince win and maintain a state: the means will always be judged honorable, and will be praised by everyone” (Chapter 18). Reputation, then, is outward conformity to successful human force and has no reference to moral rules that the government might find inconvenient. If there is no natural justice, perhaps Machiavelli can teach the prince how to rule in its absence—but with a view to the fact that men “profess” it. It does not follow of necessity that because no natural justice exists, princes can rule successfully without it.

In the spirit of accuracy, I have not provided long historical notes to explain Machiavelli’s examples. The Prince is not a history book. It was written, we believe, in 1513, and it was dedicated, we know, to Lorenzo de’ Medici. But it was written for the future and addressed above all others, including Lorenzo, to “whoever understands it” (Chapter 15). This does not mean that readers who want to understand The Prince can ignore Machiavelli’s examples and merely make a list of his sensational assertions. On the contrary, those assertions are always modified, sometimes even contradicted, by the examples. But the examples will not serve as examples if the reader does not look carefully at the information Machiavelli gives him. He may miss the point if he allows this information to be superseded by the superior historical knowledge of our day.

For this has to be noted: that men should either be caressed or eliminated, because they avenge themselves for slight offenses but cannot do so for grave ones; so the offense one does to a man should be such that one does not fear revenge for it. But when one holds a state with men-at-arms in place of colonies, one spends much more since one has to consume all the income of that state in guarding it. So the acquisition turns to loss, and one offends much more because one harms the whole state as one’s army moves around for lodgings. Everyone feels this hardship, and each becomes one’s enemy: and these are enemies that can harm one since they remain, though defeated, in their homes.

So they decided to make war with Philip and Antiochus in Greece in order not to have to do so in Italy; and they could have avoided both one and the other for a time, but they did not want to. Nor did that saying ever please them which is every day in the mouths of the wise men of our times—to enjoy the benefit of time—but rather, they enjoyed the benefit of their virtue and prudence. For time sweeps everything before it and can bring with it good as well as evil and evil as well as good.