While in many other contexts Machiavelli's Prince is seen as a text that is translatable between cultures, societies, and eras, the last chapter of the book instead focuses his ideologies on the specific realities of Italy in his lifetime. In a way, this last chapter brings the reader and Machiavelli's own arguments back to the original goal of the text, as intimated by the Prince's dedication; to suggest ways for Italian rulers and leaders, specifically Lorenzo de Medici, to gain power in ways that benefit their own people and contribute to the collective well-being of Italy in the face of colonization. This part of the book, where he imagines Lorenzo recognized as Italy's "liberator" (Machiavelli, 129) and the Medici family given a position of preeminence and security above all the rest of Italy can also be seen as a clever way to appeal to what he believes are Lorenzo's own desires and to be, himself, accepted back into Florence's nobility. In arguing for the possibility of this future, he attempts to draw contemporary Italy as the direct spiritual descendants of the Israelis, Persians, and Athenians who fought off their invaders, and were only able to realize the importance of their unity and strength in the face of upheaval. In some ways, this last chapter illuminates goals of Machiavelli's that partially mirror some of Plato's in the Republic, primarily that Machiavelli also believes the spirit of a community reflects the spirit of their leader.
Personally, I agree with your analysis about the purpose and goal of "The Prince," but in going back through the introduction, I found an alternate response that we might benefit from considering.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction offers up that "a minority view holds that the real position [of Machiavelli in writing "The Prince"] is more complicated: Machiavelli knew the advice he was giving was bad advice, and he hoped the Medici, by adopting it, would bring about their own ruin."
While the writer of the introduction disagrees with this view, what if Machiavelli was actually doing just that - giving bad advice on purpose? In many ways, Machiavelli's consequentialist view promotes tyrannical rule, but excuses it so long as actions take promote the general welfare of the community. By arguing that the Medici family should arm the people to retake Italy and then rule in this way (like tyrants), it seems like Machiavelli is almost setting the Medici family up for failure stemming from the eventual rebellion of the people.
Like I said, it makes more sense for Machiavelli to offer his advice sincerely, to encourage the liberation of Italy and the establishment of the Medici family as 'princes,' but given the extremity of some of his advice, it's certainly possible that Machiavellian leadership would lead to a prince's downfall.