A Goodreads user
asked:
Niccolo Machiavelli seems confused (and hence, confusing to me). Of course, he has written a lot of evil in the book, and then he writes something as quoted below. What's the account/motivation behind him writing the following? "It cannot be called ingenuity to kill one's fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; by these means, one can acquire power but not glory."
To answer questions about
The Prince,
please sign up.
Mary
The prince is a frank exposition on the division between the idealism we profess and the reality that we live. My recollection is that Machiavelli often summarizes that division in passages like the one you have quoted. He acknowledges the reality then "tempers" it by contrasting the more real - power - with the more ideal - glory.
Another quote along this line (if I remember correctly) is "We should always seek to emulate our savior, Jesus Christ, and forgive our enemies ... but if we do, we will be killed."
Another quote along this line (if I remember correctly) is "We should always seek to emulate our savior, Jesus Christ, and forgive our enemies ... but if we do, we will be killed."
Meltem
I think I should start off with saying that this book was addressed to Lorenzo de Medici and in some sense it was written to get back into their good graces. This work is in contrast to his other works. The previous two chapter explain other ways how a prince came to power and the does not want to leave the last, however 'wicked' it is (in his view). His thoughts on this matter is quite clearly expressed by the following sentence:
"Nevertheless, his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickedness do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men."
One can gain power this way, but according to Machiavelli's reasoning he will not be able to keep it, because he pleases no one. As in another example by Machiavelli, Oliveretto rose to power by wickedness however was strangled because of it.
In this work Machiavelli writes about how a prince should acquire land by, in some ways, cruelty. He is seen to be somewhat more of a realist, using examples throughout history as well. But do keep in mind that he is more of an idealist in other works.
I hope I understood it correctly and explained it so it would be intelligible to you.
"Nevertheless, his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickedness do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men."
One can gain power this way, but according to Machiavelli's reasoning he will not be able to keep it, because he pleases no one. As in another example by Machiavelli, Oliveretto rose to power by wickedness however was strangled because of it.
In this work Machiavelli writes about how a prince should acquire land by, in some ways, cruelty. He is seen to be somewhat more of a realist, using examples throughout history as well. But do keep in mind that he is more of an idealist in other works.
I hope I understood it correctly and explained it so it would be intelligible to you.
Sarah Koob
I have to say to be honest I think it would be very dangerous for somebody with a personality disorder or any criminal intentions who also posses intelligence to read this book it to some degree is a hand guide on how to be a master at detachment of the soul and humanity
Alma Ramos
A lot is lost in translation from its original language (Latin) to English. (The Bible is a perfect example as well.)
Sinta
Machiavelli makes a distinction between personal and public morality. He sees the role of the Prince to be necessarily amoral, as the Prince must pursue any means to preserve the state. However, this does not mean you must be personally amoral or immoral. It is possible to have a good personal moral framework and an amoral public moral framework.
Arghya
Machiavelli writes some things from two fronts- from the eyes of people and for the Prince himself. What he says here is that the Prince should show himself as a loyal, majoritarian, religious and as a merciful, good person in front of the masses; whether he does wrong or right to claim power. Simply put: You should know how to do bad in some circumstances but should show yourself as a good guy in front of people.
Just like, let's say a guy, who watches movies and stuff but shows his friends that he studies hard, or else he won't be able to achieve "glory".
Just like, let's say a guy, who watches movies and stuff but shows his friends that he studies hard, or else he won't be able to achieve "glory".
James
His argument makes perfect sense. In this part of the book, he explains that if you seize power purely through grabbing it and not tempering the consequences, then you will have trouble down the line.
He basically points to the fact, as he does several times in the book, that a prince must at least appear to be loyal, faithful, pious and merciful. Note, they must 'appear', not necessarily be. Duplicitous behaviour is parcel of absolute rule and a theme the book raises often (perhaps the best is the Lion/Fox example).
He cites a specific ruler as an example of this and also points out that the Holy Roman Emperor of the time (one of the Maximilians) was bucking the trend by being none of those.
In short, Machiavelli's statement above relates to the duplicitous nature of ruling principalities and how appearances are as important as action. Those princes who took action without caring about appearances usually didn't have long reigns. (An example of this from me, not from the book, is from Machiavelli's home town, the tyrant Alessandro de Medici ).
He basically points to the fact, as he does several times in the book, that a prince must at least appear to be loyal, faithful, pious and merciful. Note, they must 'appear', not necessarily be. Duplicitous behaviour is parcel of absolute rule and a theme the book raises often (perhaps the best is the Lion/Fox example).
He cites a specific ruler as an example of this and also points out that the Holy Roman Emperor of the time (one of the Maximilians) was bucking the trend by being none of those.
In short, Machiavelli's statement above relates to the duplicitous nature of ruling principalities and how appearances are as important as action. Those princes who took action without caring about appearances usually didn't have long reigns. (An example of this from me, not from the book, is from Machiavelli's home town, the tyrant Alessandro de Medici ).
Ayberk
He doesn't need to be christian...
And about morality, you must research more
And about morality, you must research more
Bobby Shabangu
The book is divided into two, the first part about how to acquire power and the second part is about how to keep power once you acquire the power.
I'm certainly sure that he wasn't a Christian at all. He would fit well within our lifetime.
I'm certainly sure that he wasn't a Christian at all. He would fit well within our lifetime.
Derek Patterson
The way I understand it he's telling you not to do any of those things because though you will gain power, you won't become famous, you'll become infamous and hated by your subjects.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more