Leo Strauss On Machiavelli

Machiavelli's Intention: The Prince
Author(s): Leo Strauss

Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1957), pp. 13-40
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1951768 .
Accessed: 12/06/2013 10:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The American Political Science Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MACHIAVELLI'S
INTENTION:
THE PRINCE*
LEO STRAUSS
Universityof Chicago
Many writershave attemptedto describethe intentionof The Prince by using the term"scientific."This descriptionis defensible,and even helpful,provided it is properlyunderstood.The presentarticleis meant to preparesuch an
understanding.
of a treatiseand a tractforthetimes.
I. THE PRINCEcombinesthecharacteristics
Let us begin at the beginning.In the Epistle Dedicatory Machiavelli gives
threeindicationsof the subject-matterof the book: he has incorporatedinto it
his knowledgeofthe actions ofgreatmenboth modernand ancient;he dares to
discussprincelygovernmentand to give rulesforit; he possessesknowledgeof
the nature of princes.As appears fromthe Epistle Dedicatory,fromthe book
itself,and fromwhat the author says elsewhere,'knowledgeof the actions of
great men, i.e., historicalknowledge,supplies only materialsforknowledgeof
what princelygovernmentis, of the characteristicsof the various kinds of
principalities,ofthe ruleswithwhichone has to complyin orderto acquire and
preserveprincelypower,and of the nature of princes.It is only knowledgeof
the latter kind that The Prince is meant to convey.That kind of knowledge,
knowledgeof the universal or general as distinguishedfromthe individual,is
called philosophicor scientific.The Princeis a scientificbook because it conveys
a general teaching that is based on reasoningfromexperienceand that sets
forththat reasoning. That teaching is partly theoretical(knowledge of the
nature of princes) and partly practical (knowledge of rules with which the
prince has to comply).
In accordance with its characteras a scientific,and not an historicalbook,
only three out of twenty-sixchapter headings contain proper names.2When
to The Princein The Discourses,Machiavelli calls the formera "treatreferring
ise."3 For the time being,we shall describe The Prince as a treatise,meaning
by that a book that sets fortha general teaching of the characterindicated.
To the extentthat it is a treatise,it has a lucid plan and its argumentproceeds
in a straightline withouteither ascending or descending.It consists at first
sightof two parts; the firstsets forththe science or the art of princelygovernment, while the second takes up the time honored question of the limits of
art or prudence-that is, the relation of art or prudence to chance in the
managementof governmentalaffairs.More particularly,The Prince consists
of fourparts: 1) the various kinds of principalities(chs. 1-11); 2) the prince
* This is a chapter from a book on Machiavelli being written for publication by the
University of Chicago Press.
1 Letter to Vettori, December 10, 1513. Figures in parenthesis hereafter indicate the
pages of the edition of Machiavelli's Opere by Flora and Cordi6 (Mondadori, Milan, 1949).
2 Of the 142 chapter headings of The Discourses, 39 contain proper names.
3 Discourses, Bk. III, chs. 1 (p. 234), 19 and 42; cf. Bk II, ch. 20, beginning.
13

14
THE AMERICAN
POLITICAL
SCIENCE
REVIEW
and his enemies (chs. 12-14); 3) the prince and his subjects or friends(chs.
15-23);' and 4) prudenceand chance (chs. 24-26). We may go a step further
and say that The Prince at firstsightappears to be not only a treatisebut even
a scholastic treatise.
At the same time,however,the book is the oppositeofa scientificor detached
work. While beginningwith the words "All states, all dominionswhich have
had and have sway over men," it ends with the words "the ancient valor in
Italian hearts is not yet dead." It culminatesin a passionate call to actionin a call addressed to a contemporaryItalian prince, Lorenzo de'Medici of
Florence,that he should performthe most gloriousdeed possible and necessary
then and there. It ends like a tract forthe times. For the last part deals not
merelywith the general question of the relation of prudence and chance. It
is concernedwiththe accidental also in anothersense ofthe term.The chapters
surroundingthe explicit discussion of the relation between prudence and
chance (ch. 25) are the only ones whose headings indicate that they deal with
the contemporaryItalian situation. The Prince is not the only classic of political philosophywhich is both a treatise and a tract for the times. It suffices
But the case of
to referto Hobbes' Leviathanand Locke's Civil Government.
The Prince is not typical: thereis a strikingcontrastbetween the dry,not to
say scholastic,beginningand the highlyrhetoricallast chapterwhich ends in
a quotation from a patriotic poem in Italian. Could Machiavelli have had
the ambitionof combiningthe virtuesof scholasticismwith those of patriotic
poetry? Is such a combination required for the understandingof political
things? However this may be, the contrast between the beginningof The
chapters,and its end, forcesus to modify
Prince, or even its firsttwenty-five
our remarkthat the argumentof the book proceeds in a straightline without
ascending or descending.By directlycontrastingthe beginningand the end,
we become aware of some kind of ascent.
To the extentthat The Prince is a treatise,Machiavelli is an investigatoror
a teacher; to the extentthat it is a tract forthe times,he assumes the role of
an advisor, if not of a preacher.He was anxious to become the advisor of the
addressee of The Prince and thus to rise fromhis low, even abject, condition.5
The movementof The Prince, indeed, is an ascent in more than one sense;
and it is not simplyan ascent.
In contrastwith The Discourses, The Prince comes firstto sight as a traditional or conventionaltreatise. But this firstappearance is deliberatelydeceptive. The anti-traditionalcharacterof The Prince becomes explicitshortly
afterthe middle of the book, and after remainingexplicit for some time, it
recedes again. Hence the movementof The Prince may be describedas an ascent followedby a descent. Roughly speaking,the peak is in the center.This
law is prefiguredin the firstpart of the book (chs. 1-11): the highesttheme
of this part (new principalitiesacquired by one's own arms and virtue) and
the grandest examples (Moses, Theseus, Romulus, Cyrus) are discussed in
chapter6, whichis literallythe centralchapter of the firstpart.
4
Cf. Prince, ch. 15, beginning.
6 Cf. the Epistle Dedicatory of The Prince.

MACHIAVELLIS INTENTION: "THE PRINCE"
II.
THE PRINCE
15
center.
combinesa traditionalsurfacewitha revolutionary
Let us follow this movement somewhat more closely. At firstsight The

Princebelongsto the traditionalgenreofMirrorsof Princes, which are primarilyaddressedto legitimateprinces;and the mostfamiliarcase of thelegitimate
princeis the undisputedheir.Machiavelli almost opens The Princeby following
customin calling the hereditaryprincethe "natural prince." He suggeststhat
the natural is identical with the established or customary,the ordinaryor
the reasonable; or that it is the oppositeofthe violent.In the firsttwo chapters
he uses only contemporaryor almost contemporaryItalian examples: we do
not leave the dimensionof the familiar.We cannot help noting here that in
The Discourses which open with his declaration that he will communicate
thereinnew modes and orders,the firsttwo chaptersare devoted to the remote
beginningsof citiesand states: we transcendimmediatelythe dimensionof the
familiar.In the third chapter of The Prince, he continues to speak of "the
natural and ordinary"and "the ordinaryand reasonable" but he now makes
it clear that the natural endangersthe established,favorsits disestablishment,
or, more generallystated, that the natural and ordinarystands in a certain
tension to the customary: since the desire for acquisition is "natural and
ordinary,"the destructionof "natural princes," "the extinctionof ancient
blood," by an extraordinaryconqueror is perhaps more natural than the
peacefuland smoothtransitionfromone ordinaryheir to another.6In accordance with this step forward,foreign and ancient examples come to the
fore:the Turks and above all the Romans appear to be superiorto the Italians
and even to the French. Provoked by the remarkof a French Cardinal that
the Italians know nothingof war, Machiavelli feltjustifiedin retorting,as he
tells us here, that the French know nothingof politics: the Romans, whose
modes of action are discussed in the center of the chapter,understoodboth
war and politics. Furthermorehe transcendsthe Here and Now also by referringto a doctrineof the physicians(formedicineis an achievementof the
ancients),7and by opposingthe wise practiceof the Romans to "what is everyday in the mouthof the sages of our times." But he is not yet preparedto take
issue with the opinion,held by more than one contemporary,that faithmust
be kept. In chapters4 through6, ancient examples preponderatefor the first
time. Chapter 6 is devoted to the most glorioustype of whollynew princesin
whollynew states, i.e., to what is least ordinaryand most ancient. The heroic
foundersdiscussedthereinacquired theirpositionby virtue,and not by chance,
and theirgreatnessrevealed itselfby theirsuccess in introducingwhollynew
modes and orders which differedprofoundlyfrom the established, familiar
and ancient. They stand at the opposite pole from the customaryand old
established for two opposite reasons: they were ancient innovators,ancient
enemies of the ancient. Chapter 6 is the only chapter of The Prince in which
Machiavelli speaks of prophets,i.e., of men to whom God speaks. In the
6 We are thus not unprepared to findthat the most extraordinary conqueror, Alexander
(the Great), is mentioned twice in the heading of the following chapter.
Bk. I, preface.
7Discourses,

16
THE AMERICAN
POLITICAL
SCIENCE
REVIEW
same chapter the firstLatin quotation occurs. Compared with that chapter,
the restofthe firstpart marksa descent.The heroofchapter7 is Cesare Borgia
who acquired his principalityby means of chance. He is presentedto beginwith
as simplya model fornew princes.But, to say nothingofthe factthat he failed
because of a grave mistakewhichhe had committed,he was not a whollynew
princein a whollynew state: he is a model forthose new princeswho tried to
make changesin ancientordersby means ofnew modes,ratherthan forthe new
princeswho, like the heroes of chapter6, triedto introducewhollynew modes
and orders.Accordingly,the emphasisshiftsfromhere on to modernexamples.8
As forchapters8 through11, it sufficesto note that even theirchapterheadings
no longercontainreferencesto new princes;the princesdiscussed thereinwere
at mostnew princesin old states. The last two chaptersofthe firstpart,like the
firsttwo chapters,containonlymodernexamples,althoughthe last two include
examplesotherthan modernItalian.
The second part (chs. 12-14) marks an ascent compared with the end of
the firstpart. The firstpart had ended with a discussion of ecclesiastical
principalitieswhichas such are unarmed.We learn now that good arms are the
necessary and sufficientcondition for good laws.9 As Machiavelli indicates
throughoutthe headingsofchapters12 through13, he ascends in thesechapters
fromthe worstkind of arms to the best. We note in this part an almost continuous ascent frommodernexamplesto ancientones. This ascent is accompanied
by threereferencesto the question as to whethermodernor ancient examples
should be chosen; in the centralreferenceit is suggestedthat it would be more
natural to preferancientexamples.'0Machiavelli now takes issue not onlywith
specificpolitical or militaryerrorscommittedby the "sages of our time," but
withhis contemporarySavonarola's fundamentalerror(withouthowevermentioninghis name): Savonarola erroneouslybelieved that the ruin of Italy was
caused by religious,and not by militarysins. He refersin this fairlyshortpart
(about ten pages) six times to ancient literaturewhile he had referredto it in
the considerably more extensive firstpart (about thirty-sevenpages) only
twice. Only in the second part does he come close to referringdeferentially
to the highestauthoritiesofpoliticalor moral thought.He refers,not indeed to
the New Testament,but to the Old, and not then to what the Old Testament
says about Moses but to what it says about David, and not to what it says about
David literallybut to what it says about David, or in connectionwith David,
figuratively.And again, he refers,not to Aristotleor Plato, but to Xenophon,
whom he regarded however as the author of the classic Mirror of Princes.
8 The tacit emphasison ancientexamplesin chapter9 has a special reason. It draws
our attentionto the impropriety
of discussingin The Princethe mostimportantmodern
example of "civil principalities"i.e., the rule of the Medici. Machiavelli leaves it at discussingthe ancientcounterpart:Nabis of Sparta. Cf. ch. 21 (p. 73).
9 Compare also the chiefexample of ch. 10 (the Germancities whichare freeto the
highestdegree) with the remarkabout the Swiss in ch. 12 (the Swiss are armed to the
highestdegreeand freeto the highest).This distinctionis developedsomewhatmorefully
in Discourses,Bk. II, ch. 19 (pp. 286-287).
"0Ch. 12 (p. 41) and 13 (pp. 43, 44). Cf. the letterto Piero Soderiniof Jan. 1512.

MACHIAVELLI
S INTENTION:
itTHE PRINCE"
17
Besides, the Old Testamentcitation in chapter 13 merelysupplies at most an

additional example of the rightchoice ofarms; Xenophon's Education ofCyrus,
mentionedat the end of chapter14, however,is the only authorityhe refersto
as settingfortha completemoral code fora prince.To say the least, the height
reached at the end of the second part recalls the heightreached in the center
of the firstpart: the second part ends and culminatesin the praise of Cyrusone of the four"grandest examples" spoken of in chapter 6. In the firstpart,
Machiavelli leisurely ascends to the greatest doers, and leisurely descends
again; in the second part he ascends quickly to the roots of the traditional
understandingof the greatestdoers.
Right at the beginningof the thirdpart (chs. 15-23), Machiavelli begins to
uprootthe Great Tradition. The emphasis is on a change in the generalteaching: the firstchapter of the thirdpart is the only chapterof The Prince which
does not contain any historicalexamples. He now takes issue explicitlyand
coherentlywith the traditionaland customaryview according to which the
prince ought to live virtuouslyand ought to rule virtuously.From here we
to the
begin to understandwhy he refrainedin the second part fromreferring
highestauthorities:the missingpeak above the Old Testamentand Xenophon
is not the New Testamentand Plato or Aristotlebut Machiavelli's own thought:
all ancient or traditionalteachings are to be superseded by a shockingnew
teaching. But he is carefulnot to shock anyone unduly. While the claim to
radical innovationis suggested,it is raised in a subdued manner: he suggests
that he is merelystatingin his own name and openly a teachingwhich some
ancient writershad set forthcovertlyor else by using theircharactersas their
mouthpieces."Yet this strengthensMachiavelli's claim in truthas much as it
weakens it in appearance: one cannot radically change the mode of a teaching
withoutradically changingits substance. The argumentascends fromchapter
15 up to chapters19 or 20 and then descends again. In chapter 17 Machiavelli
begins to speak again, aftera pause often chapters,of "new princes," and he
continuesto do so in the threesubsequent chapters;at the beginningof chapter
21 he still refersto "a quasi-new prince," but in the rest of the thirdpart this
high theme disappears completely:Machiavelli descends again to ordinaryor
second rate princes.12 This movement is paralleled by a change regarding
modernor ancientexamples.Up throughchapter19, thereis generallyspeaking
an increasein emphasis on the ancient; thereaftermodernexamplespreponderThe last two-thirdsof chapter19, which deal with the Roman
ate obviously.13
11 Ch. 17 (p. 52) and 18
referenceto literature-ch. 17
(p. 55). In the onlyintervening
(p. 54)-Machiavelli attacks "the writers,"and no longermerelyas he did at the beginningof chapter 15, "many" writers.Incidentally,"many writers"are attacked in
The Discoursesas early as in the tenth chapter; the break with the traditionbecomes
much soonerthan in The Prince.
explicitin The Discoursesproportionately
12 Cf. the relationof princesand ministers
as it appears in ch. 22 withthe relationof
Cesare Borgia and his ministeras presentedin ch. 7 (p. 24).
13 Chs. 20, 22 and 23 containonlymodernexamples.The explicitemphasison modern
examplesin ch. 18 (how princesshould keep faith) has a special reason just as had the
tacitemphasison ancientexamplein ch. 9. Machiavellidrawsour attentionto the modern

18
THE AMERICAN
POLITICAL
SCIENCE
REVIEW
emperors,may be said to mark the peak of the third part. The passage is
introducedas a rejoinderto what "many" mightobject against Machiavelli's
own opinion. Chapter 19 is literallythe center of the third part, just as the
peak of the firstpart was literallyits center(ch. 6).
This is no accident. Chapter 19 continues the explicit discussion of the
founderwhich the sixth chapterhad begun. Hence we may justly describe
chapter19 as the peak of The Prince as a whole,and the thirdpart as its most
important part.'4 Chapter 19 reveals the truth about the founders or the
greatestdoers almost completely.The fullrevelationrequiresthe universalization of the lesson derived fromthe study of the Roman emperors,and this
universalizationis presentedin the firstsection of chapter 20. Immediately
thereafterthe descent begins. Machiavelli refersthere to a saying of "our
ancients," i.e., of the reputedlywise men of old Florence, and rejects it in an
unusually cautious manner:"5 afterhaving brokenwiththe most exalted teaching of the venerableGreat Tradition,he humblyreturnsto a show of reverence
for a fairlyrecentand purelylocal tradition.Shortlyafterwardshe expresses
his agreementwith"the judgmentofmany," and immediatelybeforequestioning the wisdom of building fortresses, and before showing that' the
practice has been wisely abandoned by a considerablenumber of Italian contemporaries,he says that he praises the building of fortresses"because it has
been used fromancienttimes."'6He showseverysignofwishingto pretendthat
he believes in the truthof the equation of the good with the ancient and the
customary.Acting in the same spirit he expresses there a belief in human
gratitude,respect for justice, and honesty,'7which is quite at variance with
everythinghe said before,and especiallyin the thirdpart.
Just as the movementof the argumentin the thirdpart resemblesthat in
form of faithlessness or hypocrisy which strikingly differs from the Roman form (cf
Discourses, Bk. II, ch. 13, end). There is a connection between this thought and the
reference to "pious cruelty" in ch. 21. Machiavelli indicates that the argument of ch. 18
requires a special act of daring (p. 56).
14 Ch. 19 is the center not only of the third part but of the whole section of The Prince
which follows the discussion of the various kinds of principality, i.e., of that whole section
which in the light of the beginning of The Prince comes as a surprise (cf. ch. 1 where the
theme "the various kinds of principality" is announced with the beginnings of chs. 12,
15 and 24). Whereas the first,second and fourth parts of The Prince each contain one
Latin quotation, the third part contains two of them. Compare the beginning of ch. 6
with the beginnings of chs. 21-23 in the light of the observation made in the text.
15 Ch. 20 (pp. 67-68). The opinion described there as held by "our ancients" is described in Discourses, Bk. III, ch. 27 (p. 403) as a modern opinion held by "the sages of
our city sometime ago."
18 Shortly before, Machiavelli mentions "natural affection" for a prince. He had not
used that expression since early in ch. 4. But there he had spoken of the natural affection
of the subjects for the French barons, their lords from time immemorial; now he speaks
of natural affectionfor a new prince. The transition is partly effected by what he says in
ch. 19 (p. 60) about the hatred, founded in fear, of the French people against the French
magnates.
17 Ch. 21 (p. 72). Cf. ch. 3, end.

MACHIAVELLI)S
INTENTION:
"THE
PRINCE")
19
the firstpart,the movementofthe argumentin the fourthpart (chs. 24 through

26) resemblesthat in the second part. In contrastto the last chapters of the
thirdpart, the fourthpart is characterizedby the followingfacts: Machiavelli
speaks again ofthe "new prince,"and even "the new princein a new principality," and he emphasizes again ancient models. Philip of Macedon, "not the
fatherof Alexander,but the one who was defeatedby Titus Quintus," i.e., an
ancientprincewho did not belongto the highestclass ofprinces,is presentedas
vastly superiorto the contemporaryItalian princes who were also defeated.
While the centralchapterof the fourthpart containsonly modernexamples,it
compensatesforthis, as it were,by being devoted to an attack on a contemporary Italian belief,or rather on a belief which is more commonlyheld in
contemporaryItaly than it was in the past. In the last chapter,Moses, Cyrus,
and Theseus, three of the fourheroic founderspraised in chapter 6 are mentioned again; Moses and Theseus had not been mentioned since. In that
chapter Machiavelli speaks in the most unrestrainedterms of what he hopes
for froma contemporaryItalian prince, or, fromthe latter's family.But he
does not leave the slightestdoubt that what he hopes forfroma contemporary
.new princein a new state is not more than at best a perfectimitationof the
ancient founders,an imitationmade possible by the survival of the Italian's
ancient valor: he does not expect a gloriousdeed of an entirelynew kind or a
new creation. While the last chapter of The Prince is thus a call to a most
gloriousimitation of the peaks of antiquity within contemporaryItaly, the
generalteaching of The Prince, and especially of its third part, i.e., Machiavelli's understandingof those foundersand of the foundationof society in
general,is the opposite of an imitationhowever perfect:while the greatest
deed possible in contemporaryItaly is an imitationof the greatest deeds of
antiquity,the greatesttheoreticalachievementpossible in contemporaryItaly
is "wholly new."18We conclude thereforethat the movementof The Prince
as a whole is an ascent followedby a descent.
Application of theforegoingconsiderationsto the interpretation
of the last
chapter.
III.
It is characteristicof ThePrinceto partake oftwo pairs ofopposites:it is both

a treatiseand a tractforthe times,and it has both a traditionalexteriorand a
revolutionaryinterior. There is a connection between these two pairs of
opposites. As a treatise,the book sets fortha teaching which is meant to be
true forall times; as a tract forhis times,it sets forthwhat ought to be done
at a particulartime. But the timelesslytrueteachingis relatedto time because
it is new at the particulartimeat whichit is set forth,and its beingnew, or not
coeval withman, is not accidental. A new teachingconcerningthe foundations
of society being, as such exposed to enmityor unacceptable, a carefulmove18 The most unqualified attack
in The Prince on ancient writers in general-ch. 17
(p. 54)-occurs within the context of a praise of ancient statesmen or captains. The fourth
part of The Prince contains one Latin quotation and the only Italian quotation occurring
in the book.

20
THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
mentis needed fromthe accepted or old teachingto the new, or a carefulprotectionof the revolutionaryinteriorby a traditionalexterior.The twofoldrelation of the book to the particulartime at whichand forwhichit was composed
explainswhy the preponderanceof modern examples has a twofoldmeaning:
modernexamples are more immediatelyrelevant for action in contemporary
Italy than ancient examples, and a discussion of modern examples is less
"ipresumptuous"'9or offensivethan a discussion of the most exalted ancient
examples or of the originsof the establishedorder.This mustbe bornein mind
if one wants to understandwhat Machiavelli means by calling The Prince a
"treatise."20It is necessary also to add the remark that in describing The
Prince as the work of a revolutionarywe have used that term in the precise
sense: a revolutionaryis a man who breaks the law, the law as a whole,in order
to replace it by a new law whichhe believes to be betterthan the old law.
If The Prince is obviously a combinationof a treatise and a tract for the
times,the mannerin whichthat combinationis achieved, is not obvious: the
can be resolvedifone
last chaptercomes as a surprise.We believe this difficulty
does not forgetthat The Prince also combines a traditional surface with a
revolutionarycenter.As a treatise,The Prince conveysa generalteaching;as a
tract forthe times,it conveysa particularcounsel. The general teachingcannot be identical with the particularcounsel, but must at least be compatible
with it. There may even be a closer connectionbetween the general and the
particular:the general teaching may necessitatethe particularcounsel, given
the particularcircumstancesin which the immediateaddressee of The Prince
findshimself,and the particularcounsel may require the general teaching of
The Prince and be incompatiblewith any othergeneral teaching. But at any
rate, in studyingthe general teaching of The Prince we must never lose sight
ofthe particularsituationin whichLorenzo findshimself.We mustunderstand
the generalin the lightof the particular.We must translateeverygeneralrule
whichis addressed to princes,or a kind of prince,in general,into a particular
counsel addressed to Lorenzo. And conversely,we must work our way upward
fromthe particular counsel given in the last chapter to its general premises.
Perhaps the complete general premises differfrom the general premises as
fromthe particular
explicitlystated,and the completeparticularcounseldiffers
counsel as explicitly stated. Perhaps the unstated implications, general or
particular,providethelinkbetweenthe explicitgeneralteachingand the explicit
particularcounsel.
19 Ch. 6 (p. 18) and 11 (p. 36).
To "treat" something means to "reason" about it. (Prince, ch. 2 beginning, and
ch. 8, beginning.) Machiavelli calls his discourse on the Decemvirate which includes an
extensive summary of Livy's account of the Decemvirate and thereforein particular of the
actions of the would-be tyrant Appius Claudius, the "above written treatise" (Discourses
I 43), whereas he calls his discourse on the liberality of the senate "the above written discourse" (Discourses I 52 beginning). In Discourses II 32 (323) trattatomeans "conspiracy."
He calls Xenophon's Hiero a treatise on tyranny (II 2) while he calls Dante's Monarchia
a "discourse" (I 53). In Florentine Histories II 2, he calls the first book of that work
20
universal.
nostrotrattato

MACHIAVELLI'S
INTENTION:
"TTHE PRINCE'}
21
What preciselyis the difficulty

createdby the counselgivenin the last chapter
of The Prince? As forthe mere fact of surprise,one mightrightlysay that in
The Prince no surpriseought to be surprising.In the light of the indications
givenin the firstchapter,chapters8 to 11 come as a surprise,to say nothingof
othersuprises.Besides, one merelyhas to read The Prince with ordinarycare
in orderto see that the call to liberate Italy with which the book ends is the
natural conclusionof the book. For instance, in chapter 12 Machiavelli says
that the outcome of the Italian militarysystemhas been that "Italy has been
overrunby Charles, plunderedby Louis, violated by Ferdinand, and insulted
by the Swiss" or that Italy has become "enslaved and insulted."2 What other
conclusioncan be drawn fromthis state of thingsexcept that one must bend
every effortto liberate Italy afterhaving effecteda complete reformof her
militarysystem,i.e., that one ought to do what the last chaptersays Lorenzo
ought to do?
The last chapterpresentsa problemnot because it is a call to liberateItaly
in the way. In that chapter it is
but because it is silent about the difficulties
said more than once that the action recommendedto Lorenzo or urged upon
him will not be "very difficult";almost everythinghas been done by God;
only the rest remainsto be done by the human liberator.The chapter creates
the impressionthat the only thing requiredfor the liberationof Italy is the
Italians' strongloathing of foreigndomination,and their ancient valor: the
liberatorof Italy can expect spontaneouscooperationfromall his compatriots
and he can expect that they all will flyto arms against the foreignersonce he
"takes the banner." It is true that Machiavelli stresseseven here the need for
radical reformof the Italian militarysystem. In fact, he devotes the whole
centerofthe chapter,i.e., almosthalf of the chapter,to the militaryconditions
forthe liberationofItaly. But all the morestrikingis his completesilenceabout
its politicalconditions.What would be the use of all Italians becomingthe best
soldiersin the world if they were to turn theirskill and prowessagainst each
other or, in other words, if therewere not firstestablished a strictunity of
command,to say nothingof unityof training?
It is absurd to say that Machiavelli's patrioticfervortemporarilyblindshim
to the hard practicalproblems:His patrioticfervordoes not preventhim from
speaking in the last chapter very prosaically and even technicallyabout the
militarypreparation.The liberatorofItaly is describedas a new prince,forthe
liberationof Italy presupposesthe introductionof new laws and new orders:
he must do for Italy what Moses had done for the people of Israel. But, as
Machiavelli had been at pains to point out in the earlierchaptersof the book,
the new princenecessarilyoffendsmany of his fellowcountrymen,especially
those who benefitfromthe customaryorder of things,and his adherentsare
necessarilyunreliable. In the last chapter he is silent about the necessary
offensiveness
of the liberator'sactions as well as about the powerfulresistances
Compare also the end of ch. 13 with ch. 25. In the firstchapter Machiavelli indicates
13 subjects whose treatment might seem to require thirteen chapters, and he indicates in
chapter fifteen,eleven subjects whose treatment might seem to require eleven chapters.
21

22
THE AMERICAN
POLITICAL
SCIENCE
REVIEW
whichhe must expect. The liberatorof Italy is urged thereto furnishhimself

withhis own troopswho willbe all the betteriftheysee themselvescommanded
by their own prince: will the Venetian or the Milanese troops regard the
FlorentineLorenzo as theirown prince?Machiavelli does not say a wordabout
which the liberatormightencounteron the part of the various
the difficulties
by raising
Italian republicsand princes.He merelyalludes to these difficulties
and
to
him?"
by speakitself
oppose
will
"what
envy
the rhetoricalquestion
to
that the
he
mean
say
in
Does
Italy.
chiefs"
of
the
ing once of "the weakness
weak
those
aside
patrioticfervorof the Italian people will sufficeforsweeping
the
before
that
be?
He
implies
certainly
chiefs,however envious they might
is
as
a
banner,
merely
not
to
take
have
liberatorcan liberate Italy, he would
heading.
in
the
said in the text of the chapter,but Italy herself,as is said
It is a rare if not unique case in Machiavelli's books that the heading of a
chaptershould be moreinformativethan its body.
Apart from chapters 26 and 24 whose headings referus to contemporary
Italy, only one chapterheading in The Prince containspropernames and thus
drawsour attentionto the particular.Chapter4 is entitled:"Why the Kingdom
of Darius Which AlexanderHad Seized Did Not Rebel Against Alexander's
SuccessorsAfterHis Death."22As a consequence,the place ofthe chapterwithin the plan of the generalteaching indicated in chapter 1, is not immediately
clear. Chapter 4 is the centerof three chapterswhich deal with "mixed principalities,"i.e., withthe acquisitionofnew territoryby princesor republics;or,
in other words, which deal with conquest. The primaryexample in chapter
3 is the policy of conquest practiced by king Louis XII of France; but the
countryin which he tried to acquire new territorywas Italy. In chapter 3,
obstructingforeignconquests in Italy, a
Machiavelli discusses the difficulties
subject mostimportantto the liberatorofItaly. By discussingthe mistakesthe
French king committedin attemptingto make lasting conquests in Italy,
Machiavelli undoubtedlygives advice to foreignconquerorsas to how to go
about making conquests in his own fatherland." This might seem to cast a
reflectionon his patriotism.But one could justly say that such advice is only
the reverseside, if the odious side, of advice as to how to defendItaly against
foreigndomination or as to how to liberate Italy. It appears fromMachiavelli's discussionthat but forthe French king's mistakeshe could easily have
kept his Italian conquests. The mistakes lay in permittingthe minor Italian
a major Italian power,instead of
powers to be destroyedand in strengthening
protectingthe minorItalian powers and humiliatingthat major power.
We are forcedto wonderwhat conclusionthe liberatorof Italy would have
to draw fromthese observations.Should he destroythe minorItalian powers
and strengthenthe major Italian powers?The destructionof the minorpowers
which Machiavelli has in mind was effectedby Cesare Borgia whose actions
ofthe other
he holds up as modelsforLorenzo. But would not the strengthening
22
23
Chs. 26 and 4 of The Prince begin with practically the same word.
Cf. Discourses, Bk. I, ch. 23 (p. 153).

MACHIAVELLI'S
INTENTION:
"THE
PRINCE"
23
of keeping
major Italian powersperpetuate,and even increase,the difficulties
Italy?
of
out
the foreigner
It is this questionwhichis taken up in an oblique way in chapter4. Machiavelli distinguishesthere two kinds of principality:one like the Persian, conquered by Alexanderthe Great, in which one man is princeand all othersare
slaves, and another kind, like France, which is ruled by a king and barons,
i.e., in whichpowersexistthat are not simplydependenton the princebut rule
in theirown right.He makes this distinctionmore general by comparingthe
French monarchyto Greece prior to the Roman conquest. What he is conbetween countriesruled by a singlegoverncernedwith is then the difference
ment fromwhich all political authoritywithinthe countryis simplyderived,
and countriesin whichthereexists a numberof regionalor local powers,each
rulingin its own right.Seen in the light of this distinction,Italy belongs to
the same kind of countryas France. In discussingAlexander's conquest of
Persia Machiavelli is compelled to discuss the conquest of a countryof the
opposite kind, i.e., the conquest of France. This however means that he is
enabled to continue surreptitiouslythe discussion, begun in the preceding
chapter,of the conquest of Italy.24Chapter 4 supplies this lesson: while it is
to conquer Persia, it is easy to keep her; conversely,while it is easy
difficult
to keep her. France (forwhichwe may substito conquerFrance, it is difficult
tute in this contextItaly) is easy to conquer because there will always be a
discontentedbaron (state) that will be anxious to receiveforeignhelp against
the king (against other states within the country). She is difficultto keep
because the old local or regional loyalties will always reassert themselves
against the new prince.Secure possessionof a countryis impossibleas long as
the ancient blood of the local or regionallords or dukes or princessurvives.
One mightthinkfora momentthat what is good forthe foreignconquerorof
a countryof this sort is not necessarilygood forthe native liberatorof such a
country.But, as Machiavelli indicatesin chapter3, the superiorityofFrance to
Italy in strengthand unity is due to the extirpationof the princelylines of
Burgundy,Brittany,Gascony and Normandy.Given the urgencyarisingfrom
the foreigndominationof Italy, the liberatorcannot affordto wait until the
otherprincelyfamilieshave become extinctin the course of centuries.He will
have to do on the largestscale what Cesare Borgia has done on a small scale:25
in orderto uproot the power of the old local and regionalloyaltieswhichare a
major source of Italian weakness, one must extinguishthe families of the
obnoxiousItalian princes.
in The Princea crucialfunctionforthe additionalreason
Cesare Borgia fulfills
that he is the link between the foreignconqueror of Italy and her native,
patrioticliberator:since he was not simply an Italian, he cannot well be re24 Only at the end of ch. 4 does Machiavelli allude to Italy by mentioning the failure
of Pyrrhus, i.e., his failure to keep his conquests in Italy.
25 Ch. 7 (pp. 23-25); cf. Opere, Vol. I, p. 637; consider Machiavelli's statement on the
pernicious character of the feudal nobility in Discourses, Bk. I, ch. 55.

24
garded as a potentialliberatorof his fatherland.2'As forthe Italian republics,

we learn fromchapter 5, the last chapter devoted to the subject of conquest,
that the onlyway in whicha prince,or a republic,can be secureofthe loyaltyof
a conqueredrepublicancitywithan old traditionofautonomy,is to ruinit and
to disperseits inhabitants,and that this holds true regardlessof whetherthe
conquerorand the conqueredare sons of the same countryor not.27
IV.
The problemof theChurch.
The informationabout the political requisitesfor the liberationof Italy is

withheldin the chapter explicitlydevoted to the liberation of Italy because
Machiavelli desiredto keep the noble and shiningend untarnishedby the base
and hard means that are indispensable for its achievement. He desired this
because the teaching that the "end justifiesthe means" is repulsive,and he
wanted The Prince to end even more attractivelythan it began. The information withheldin the last chapter is supplied in the section on conquest. To
that sectionwe have to turnifwe desireto knowwhat kind ofresistanceon the
part of his countrymenthe liberatorof Italy will have to surmountand what
kinds of offenseagainst his fellowcountrymenhe will have to commit.
To liberateItaly fromthe barbariansmeans to unifyItaly, and to unifyItaly
means to conquer Italy. It means to do in Italy somethingmuch moredifficult
than what Ferdinand of Aragon had done in Spain, but in certain respects
comparable to it.28 The liberatorof Italy cannot depend on the spontaneous
followingof all inhabitants of Italy. He has to pursue a policy of iron and
poison,ofmurderand treachery.He mustnot shrinkfromthe exterminationof
Italian princelyfamiliesand the destructionof Italian republicancities whenever actions ofthis kindare conduciveto his end. The liberationof Italy means
a completerevolution.It requiresfirstand above everythingelse a revolution
in thinkingabout rightand wrong.Italians have to learn that the patrioticend
26 The term "fatherland" which occurs in chs. 6, 8 and 9, is avoided in ch. 7, the chapter
devoted to Cesare Borgia.
27 The subject-matter of ch. 5 is slightly concealed (see the unobtrusive transition
from states in general to cities, i.e., republics, near the beginning: volerli . . . ruinarle)
It almost goes without saying that nearly all examples in this chapter are ancient.
When discussing the badness of mercenary armies Machiavelli uses almost exclusively
examples which show that mercenary armies have ruined or endangered republics. He
thus shows in effect that mercenaries can be eminently good for a leader of mercenary
armies, like Sforza who by being armed became a new prince; compare ch. 12 with chs. 7,
(p. 21) and 14 (p. 46). These remarks taken together with those about the soldiers of the
Roman emperors in ch. 19 and about the impossibility of arming all able bodied Italian
subjects in ch. 20 (p. 67) reveal a possibility which deserves attention. In this connection
one should also consider what Machiavelli says toward the end of the ninth chapter,
immediately after having praised (the tyrant) Nabis of Sparta, about the superiority of absolute principalities, i.e., about the kind of principality which was traditionally called
tyranny (Discourses, Bk. I, ch. 25, end), and compare it with the confrontation of the
Turkish and the French monarchies in ch. 4 (p. 14).
28 Compare ch. 25 (p. 79) with chs. 18, end, and 21, beginning, as well as Discourses,
Bk. I, ch. 12 (p. 130).

MACHIAVELLI'S
INTENTION:
iTHE
PRINCE"1
25
hallows everymeans,howevermuch condemnedby the most exalted traditions

both philosophicand religious. The twenty-sixthchapter of The Discourses
whichsuppliesus with more than one key to The Prince, confirmsour present
conclusion.Its heading says: "a new prince,in a city or countrytaken by him
mustmake everythingnew." From its textwe learn that just as Cesare Borgia
did not become masterofthe Romagna exceptby "crueltywell used," Philip of
Macedon did not become withina shorttime "prince of Greece" except by use
of means whichwere inimicalnot only to everyhumane mannerof lifebut to
everyChristianmannerof lifeas well.29
The major Italian power which the would-beforeignconqueror,Louis XII,
mistakenlystrengthenedinstead of humiliating,was the Church. The native
liberatorofItaly on the otherhand, is advised to use his familyconnectionwith
the thenPope Leo X in orderto receivesupportforhis patrioticenterprisefrom
the already strengthenedChurch. He is advised in other words to use the
Churchruledby Leo X, as Cesare Borgia,the model,had used the Churchruled
by AlexanderVI. But this counsel can only be of a provisionalcharacter.To
see this,one has to considerMachiavelli's reflectionson Cesare's successes and
failures.Cesare's successes ultimatelybenefitedonly the Church and thus increased the obstacles to the conquest or liberationof Italy. Cesare was a mere
tool of AlexanderVI and hence,whateverAlexander'swishes may have been,
a meretool of the papacy. UltimatelyAlexanderratherthan Cesare represents
the contemporaryItalian model of a new prince.Cesare's power was based on
the power of the papacy. That power failed him when Alexander died. His
failurewas not accidental, seeing that the average lengthof a Pope's reignis
ten years,that the influenceofany Italian princeon the electionofa new Pope
is not likelyto be greaterthan that of the great foreignpowersand above all,
that the Church has a purpose or interestof its own which casts discrediton
the
the use of the power of the Church forpurposes otherthan strengthening
Church.30
29 Compare Discourses, Bk. I, ch. 26 with Prince, chs. 7 (p. 24), 8 (p. 30), 13, end, 17,
21, beginning. Just as Philip became "from a little king prince of Greece" by the use of
the most cruel means, Ferdinand of Aragon became "from a weak king the firstking of
the Christians" by the use of "pious cruelty."
30 Prince, ch. 3 (pp. 11-13), 7 (pp. 23, 26), 11 (pp. 37-38); cf. Discourses, Bk. III, p. 29.
We note in passing that in The Prince, ch. 16 (pp. 50-51), Machiavelli holds up "the present king of France," "the present king of Spain" and Pope Julius II but not the present
Pope, Leo X, who possesses "goodness and infiniteother virtues," (ch. 11, end) as models
of prudent stinginess which is the indispensable condition for "doing great things." Cf.
Ranke, Die Roemischen Paepste, ed. F. Baethgen, Vol. I, p. 273 on Leo X's extravaganceMachiavelli tells in The Prince two stories about private conversations which he had had
(chs. 3 and 7). According to the firststory Machiavelli once told a French cardinal that
the French know nothing of politics, for otherwise they would not have permitted the
Church to have become so great (through the exploits of Cesare Borgia). The second story
deals with what Cesare told Machiavelli on the day on which Pope Julius II was elected,
i.e., on which Cesare's hopes were dashed through his insufficientcontrol of the Church:
Cesare had in fact committed the same mistake as the French, but he had the excuse that
he had no choice.

26
THE AMERICAN
POLITICAL
SCIENCE
REVIEW
The liberation of Italy which requires the unificationof Italy requires

thereforeeventually the secularization of the Papal states. It requires even
more. Accordingto Machiavelli, the Church is not only throughits temporal
power the chiefobstacle to the unity of Italy. The Church is also responsible
for the religiousand moral corruptionof Italy and for the ensuing loss of
politicalvirtue.Besides, Machiavelli was verymuch in fear of the Swiss whose
militaryexcellencehe traced partly to theirsturdypiety. He draws the conclusion that if the Papal Court were removedto Switzerland,one would soon
observethe deteriorationof Swiss pietyand moralsand hence ofSwiss power.3'
He seemsto have played withthe thoughtthat the liberatorofItaly would have
to go beyond secularizingthe Papal states by removingthe Papal Court to
Switzerlandand thus to kill two birds with one stone. The liberatorof Italy
must certainlyhave the courage to do what Giovampagolo Baglioni was too
vile to do, namely,"to show the prelateshow littleone oughtto respectpeople
who live and rule as they do and thus to performan action whose greatness
obliterateseveryinfamyand everydangerthat mightarise fromit." He must
make Italy as unitedas she was "in the time ofthe Romans."32
The addresseeof The Princeis advised to imitateRomulus among others.To
imitateRomulus means to found Rome again. But Rome exists. Or could the
imitationof Romulus mean to foundagain a pagan Rome, a Rome destinedto
become again the most gloriousrepublicand the seminaryand the heart of the
most gloriousempire? Machiavelli does not answer this question in so many
words. When he mentionsfor the second time, in the last chapter of The
Prince,the venerable models whom the addressee of The Prince ought to imitate, he is silentabout Romulus.33The questionwhichhe forcesus to raise, he
answersby silence. In this connectionwe may note that whereas in The Discourses"We" sometimesmeans "We Christians,""We" neverhas thismeaning
in The Prince. At any rate,both the explicitgeneral teachingand the explicit
particularcounsel conveyed by The Prince are more traditional or less revolutionarythan both the complete general teaching and the complete particular counsel. The two pairs of opposites which are characteristicof The
Prince,namely,its being both a treatiseand tractforthe timesand its having
both a traditionaloutside and a revolutionarycenter,are nicely interwoven.
The Princeis altogether,as Machiavelli indicatesat the beginningofthe second
chapter,a fineweb. The subtletyof the web contrastswiththe shockingfrankness of speech which he sometimesemploys or affects.It would be better to
say that the subtle web is subtly interwovenwith the shockingfranknessof
speech whichhe chooses to employ at the propertime and in the properplace.
31 Discourses, Bk. I, ch. 12. Cf. the letter to Vettori of April 26, 1513. In Florentine
Histories, Bk. I, ch. 23. Machiavelli alludes to the possibility that the papacy might
become hereditary. Could he have played with the thought that a new Cesare Borgia
might redeem Italy after having himself become Pope and the founder of a papal dynasty?
32 Discourses, Bk. I, ch. 27; Opere, Vol. I, p. 638.
33 Machiavelli prepares forthe silence about Romulus in ch. 26 in the following manner:
in ch. 6 he enumerates the four heroic founders three times and in the final enumeration
Romulus is relegated to the end. Cf. Florentine Histories, Bk. VI, ch. 29.

MACHIAVELLI'S
INTENTION:
"THE
PRINCES
27
v. Lorenzo'simitationof.1Moses.
This much for the time being about the characterof The Prince. The subject of the book is the prince,but especially the new prince. In the Epistle
Dedicatory,Machiavelli indicates that his teaching is based on his knowledge
of the actions of great men; but the greatestexamples of great men are new
princeslike Moses, Cyrus,Romulus and Theseus, men "who have acquired or
foundedkingdoms." In the firstchapter,he divides principalitiesinto classes
erencesof materialsand modes of acquisitionratherthan
witha view to the diff
of structureand purpose. He thus indicatesfromthe outset that
to differences
he is chieflyconcernedwith men who desire to acquire principalities(either
mixed or wholly new), i.e., with new princes. There is a twofoldreason for
this emphasis. The obvious reason is the fact that the immediateaddressee of
the book is a new princeand besides is advised to become prince of Italy and
thus to become a new princein a more exalted sense. But what at firstglance
seems to be dictated merelyby Machiavelli's considerationfor the needs and
prospectsof his immediateaddressee, on reflectionproves to be necessaryfor
purelytheoreticalreasonsas well.All principalities,even iftheyare now elective
or hereditary,were originallynew principalities.Even all republics,at least the
greatestrepublics,were founded by outstandingmen wielding extraordinary
power i.e., by new princes.To discuss new princesmeans then to discuss the
originsor foundationsof all states or of all social orders,and therewiththe
nature of society. The fact that the addressee of The Prince is an actual or
potential new prince conceals somewhat the eminent theoreticalsignificance
ofthe theme"the new prince."
The ambiguitydue to the fact that The Prince deals sometimeswith princes
in general and sometimeswith new princesin particular,is increased by the
ambiguityof the term"new prince." The termmay designatethe founderof a
dynastyin a state already established,i.e., a new princein an old state, or a
man who "seizes" a state like Sforza in Milan or Agathocles in Syracuse or
Oliverotto in Fermo. But it may also designate a new prince in a new state
or "a whollynew princein a whollynew state," i.e., a man who has not merely
acquired a state already in existencebut has foundeda state. The new prince
in a new state in his turn may be an imitator,i.e. adopt modes and orders
inventedby anothernew prince,or in otherways followthe beaten track. But
he may also be the originatorof new modes and orders,or a radical innovator,
the founderof a new type of society,possiblythe founderof a new religion-in
brief,a man like Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, or Romulus. Machiavelli applies to
men of the highestorderthe term "prophets."34That termwould seem to fit
Moses ratherthanthe threeothers.Moses is indeedthe mostimportantfounder:
Christianityrestson a foundationlaid by Moses.
At the beginningof the chapterdevoted to the grandestexamples,Machiavelli makes it unambiguouslyclear that he does not expectthe addresseeof The
31 Prince, ch. 1, 6 (pp. 17-19), 8 (pp. 29-30), 14 (p. 48), 19 (p. 66), 20 (p. 67), and 24
(p. 77); cf. Art of War, Bk. VII (pp. 616-617).

28
Prince to be or to become an originator:he advises his reader to become an

imitatoror to followa beaten trackor to be a man ofsecond rate virtue.This is
not surprising:an originatorwould not need Machiavelli's instruction.As he
states in the Epistle Dedicatory, he wishes that Lorenzo would "understand"
what he himself"had come to know and had come to understand": he does not
expect him to have come to know the most important things by himself.
Lorenzo may have an "excellent" brain; he is not expected to have a "most
excellent"brain." However thismay be, being "a prudentman," he is exhorted
to "followthe track beaten by great men and to imitate those who have been
most excellent,"i.e., men like Romulus and Moses.
On the other hand, the precepts which Machiavelli gives to Lorenzo are
abstractedfromthe actions,not of Romulus or Moses, but of Cesare Borgia;8f
for,to say nothing of other considerations,Lorenzo's hoped for rise depends
upon his familyconnectionwiththe presenthead of the Church,and therewith
on chance,just as Cesare's actual risedepended on his familyconnectionwitha
formerhead ofthe Church; whereasRomulus and Moses rose to powerthrough
virtue as distinguishedfrom chance. By imitating Cesare Borgia, Lorenzo
would admit his inferiority
to Cesare: Machiavelli's book would be somewhat
out of place if meant fora man of Cesare's stature and lack of scruples.Still,
Lorenzo is advised to imitate men of the stature of Romulus and of Moses.
As appears fromthe last chapter however,that imitationis expected less of
Lorenzo himselfthan ofthe illustrioushouse to whichhe belongs.
In the last chapter the emphasis is altogetheron Moses. Machiavelli says
therethat God was a friendof Moses, Cyrus and Theseus. The descriptionis
applied to Moses withgreaterproprietythan to Cyrusand to Theseus. Lorenzo
is then exhortedto imitateMoses. The notion of imitatingthe prophetsof old
was familiarto Machiavelli's contemporaries:Savonarola appeared as a new
Amos or as a new Moses, i.e., as a man who did the same thingswhichthe Biblical prophetshad done,in new circumstances.This is not to say that thereis no
differencebetween the imitation of Moses as Savonarola meant it and the
imitationof Moses as Machiavelli understoodit.
In orderto encourageLorenzo to liberateItaly, Machiavelli remindshim of
the miracleswhich God had performedbeforetheireyes: "The sea has been
divided. A cloud has guided you on your way. The rockhas given forthwater.
Manna has rained." The miraclesof Lorenzo's time,whichindeed are attested
to by Machiavelli alone, imitatethe miraclesof Moses's time. More precisely,
they imitate the miracleswhichwere performed,not in Egypt, the house of
bondage, but on the way fromEgypt to the promisedland-to a land to be
conquered. DifferingfromSavonarola, Machiavelli does not predictthat Florence, or herrulerwill become the rulerof Italy,37for the success of the venture
depends now alone on the exercise of human virtue which,because of man's
Cf. Prince, ch. 22.
Ch. 7 (pp. 21-22).
37 Letter to [Ricciardo Bechi] March 8, 1497.
35
36

MACHIAVELLI S INTENTION: {THE PRINCE
29
free-will,cannot be foreseen.What may be imminent,Machiavelli suggests,

is the conquestofanotherpromisedland, ofthe land whichhe has halfpromised
to Lorenzo. But alas, the imitationof Moses is bad forLorenzo; forMoses did
not conquerthe promisedland: he died at its borders.
In thisdarkway, Machiavelli,the new sibyl,prophesiesthat Lorenzo willnot
conquerand liberateItaly.38He did not regardthe practicalproposalwithwhich
he concluded The Prince, as practicable. He had measured the forcesof contemporaryItaly too well to have any delusions.As he states in the two Prefaces
of the companion book which in this respect takes up the thread where The
Prince drops it, "of that ancient virtue [whichis political] no trace has been
left" in Italy. Not the shortrange project suggestedat the end of The Prince,
but ratherthe long range project indicated throughoutThe Discourses offers
hope forsuccess. Many writershave dismissedthe last chapter of The Prince
as a piece of mererhetoric.This assertion-provided it werefollowedup by an
intelligentaccount ofthe enigmaticconclusionof The Prince-could be accepted
as a crude expressionof the fact that that chaptermust not be taken literally
or too seriously.
Machiavelli does not leave it at indicatinghis opinionby makingus thinkof
the inauspiciouscharacterof the imitationof Moses as faras the conquest of a
promisedland is concerned.While stressingthe imitativecharacterofthe work
to whichhe exhortsLorenzo he stressesthe factthat the liberatorofItaly must
be an originator,an inventorof new modes and orders,and hence not an imitator.He himselfgives some hints regardingfar reachingpractical innovations.
But it is clear that the innovator or the inventorin these matterswould be
Machiavelli, not Lorenzo. The crypticpredictionof Lorenzo's failurein case
he should make the attempt to liberate Italy, can thereforebe restated as
follows: only a man of genius, of supreme virtue, could possibly succeed in
liberatingItaly; but Lorenzo lacks the highestformof virtue. This being the
case, he is compelledto relytoo much on chance.
Machiavelli indicatesand conceals how much Lorenzo would have to relyon
chance by the religiouslanguage which he employs in the last chapter. He
mentionsGod as oftenthere as in all other chapters of The Prince taken together.He calls the liberatorofItaly an Italian "spirit"; he describesthe liberation of Italy as a divine redemptionand he suggests its resemblanceto the
resurrectionof the dead as depicted by Ezekiel; he alludes to the miracles
wroughtby God in Italy. However much we mightwish to be moved by these
expressionsof religioussentiment,we fail in our effort.Machiavelli's certainty
ofdivineinterventionremindsus of his expectationof a spontaneousall-Italian
risingagainst the hated foreigners.Justas that expectationis at variance with
what earlier chapters had indicated about the certaintyof powerfulItalian
38 The shift in Prince, ch. 26, from Lorenzo to his family can be understood to some
extent from the point of view indicated in the text. As for the unreliability of promises
stemming from passion, cf. Discourses, Bk. II, ch. 31; for the popularity of grand hopes
and valiant promises, cf. Discourses, Bk. I, ch. 53.

30
THE AMERICAN
POLITICAL
SCIENCE
REVIEW
resistanceto the liberatorand unifierof Italy, so the expressionof religious

sentimentis at variance withearlierexplicitremarks.
Accordingto these remarks,fear of God is desirable or indispensable in
soldiersand perhaps in subjects in general,while the prince needs merelyto
appear religious; and he can easily create that appearance, consideringthe
credulityof the large majority of men. In the last chapter itselfMachiavelli
calls the God-wroughtcontemporaryevents which resemble certain Biblical
miracles,not "miracles" but "extraordinary"events "withoutexample" :" He
thus denies the realityof those Biblical miraclesand therewith,foran obvious
reason, the reality of all Biblical miracles. Without such a denial, his own
free inventionof the contemporary"extraordinary"events would not have
been possible; those invented miracles have the same status as the Biblical
miracles.Accordingto The Prince, miraclesare happeningswhich are neither
common nor reasonable. They are happenings which cannot be traced to
secondarycauses but only to God directly.Near the beginningof chapter 25
Machiavelli suggeststhat what is generallymeant by God, is in truthnothing
but chance. Hence the suggestionmade in chapter26 that a numberofmiracles
have happened in contemporaryItaly is the figurativeequivalent of the assertion made explicitlyin chapter25 that chance is particularlypowerfulin contemporaryItaly.
More specifically,many "miraculous losses" have been sustained in contemporaryItaly.40In the last chapterhe enumeratesseven astonishingdefeats
suffered
in the immediatepast by Italian troops.4'Since thereis no defeatwithout a victor,one may speak withequal rightof "miraculouslosses and miraculous acquisitions" being the necessary consequence of the preponderanceof
Fortuna's power in contemporaryItaly.42This means that, given the poverty
ofthe Italian militarysystemand the ensuingrule ofchance,a well advised and
industrious prince might have astounding contemporarysuccesses against
other Italian princes,just as Pope Julius II had such successes against his
cowardlyenemies.In particular,Lorenzo mightsucceed in buildingup a strong
powerin Tuscany. But the thoughtofdefeatingthe powerfulmilitarymonarchies which dominate parts of Italy, remainsforthe time being a dream.43
39This is not to denythe factthat the miraclesattestedto by Machiavelliare without
example insofaras theirsequence differsfromthe sequence of the Mosaic miracles.
40 Prince,ch. 3 (p. 13), 12 (pp. 39, 41), 18 (pp. 56-57) and 25 (pp. 80-81); cf.Discourses,
Bk. I, ch. 27. One can expressthe progressof the argumentin the last part of The Prince
as follows:1) everythingdepends on virtue (ch. 24); 2) very much depends on chance
but chance can be kept down by the rightkind of man (ch. 25); 3) chance has done the
mostdifficult
part of the workrequiredforliberatingItaly, and only the restneeds to be
done by meansofvirtue(ch. 26).
41 The seven real defeatsmustbe taken togetherwiththe fourinventedmiraclesif one
wantsto grasp Machiavelli'sintimations.
42 Discourses,Bk. II, ch. 30, end.
43 In the "highest" part of The Prince Machiavelli speaks of "us Florentines"(chs.
15 and 20), while in the otherparts of the book he sneaksof "us Italians" (chs. 2, 12.
13 and 24).

MACHIAVELLI'
S INTENTION:
"THE
PRINCE"
31
vi. The ambiguityofMachiavelli'srole.

One cannotunderstandthe meaningofthe last chapterand therewithof The
Prince as a whole without consideringthe position,the characterand aspirations of the otherpartnerin the relationship,not to say in the dialogue, which
constitutesthe book. In proportionas the status of Lorenzo is lowered, the
stature of Machiavelli grows. At the beginning,in the Epistle Dedicatory,
Lorenzo appears as dwelling in the wholesome heights of majesty whereas
Machiavelli must inhale the dust at his feet; the favoriteof Fortuna is contrastedwith her enemy. Machiavelli presentshimselfas a man who possesses
informationwhich princes necessarilylack and yet need. He describes that
informationin a way which is surprisingnot only to those who are forcedby
dispositionor trainingto think of statecraft.He claims to possess knowledge
of the nature of princes: just as one sees mountains best froma valley and
valleys best froma mountain,so one must be a princein orderto knowwell the
nature of peoples and one must be a man of the people in orderto know well
the nature of princes. In other words, while Lorenzo and Machiavelli are at
oppositeends of the scale of Fortuna, they are equal in wisdom: each possesses
one half of the whole of political wisdom; they are born to supplementeach
other.
Machiavelli does not say that they should pool their resourcesin order to
liberateItaly. Nor does he wish to hand over his share of political wisdom to
Lorenzo as a pure gift.He desiresto receivesomethingin return.He desiresto
betterhis fortune.Looking forwardto the end ofthe book, we may say that he
desiresto betterhis fortuneby showingLorenzo how to betterhis own fortune
throughbecomingprince of Italy. For, as he has already said in the Epistle
Dedicatory, chance, and Lorenzo's other qualities, promise him a greatness
whicheven surpasseshis presentgreatness.He dedicates The Princeto Lorenzo
because he seeks honorableemployment.He desiresto become the servant of
Lorenzo. Perhaps he desires to become an occasional or temporaryadvisor of
Lorenzo. Perhaps he is even thinkingof the position of a permanentadvisor.
But the absolute limit of his ambition would be to become the ministerof
Lorenzo, to be to Lorenzo what Antonio da Venafro had been to Pandolfo
Petrucci,princeof Siena.
His desire would be wholly unreasonable if he did not see his way toward
convincinghis master of his competence.The proofof his competenceis The
Prince.But competenceis not enough.Lorenzo mustalso be assured ofMachiavrelli'sloyalty or at least reliability.Machiavelli cannot refer,not even in the
Epistle Dedicatory, to the fact that he once had honorable employmentin
whichhe loyallyserved. For he was a loyal servantof the republicanregimein
Florence, and thisfactby itselfmightcompromisehim in the eyes ofhis prince.
He facesthisdifficulty
forthe firsttimein the chapteron civil principalities,
i.e., on the kind of principalityof which Lorenzo's rule is an example. He discusses therethe question of how the princeought to treat the notables among
his subjects. He distinguishesthree kinds of notables, the central one consistingofmen who do not committhemselvesentirelyto the cause ofthe prince

32
THE
AMERICAN
POLITICAL
SCIENCE
REVIEW
because they are pusillanimousand have a natural defectof courage.Machiavelli advises the prince to employ men of this kind provided they are men of
good counsel, "for in prosperityyou are honored on account of this, and in
adversityyou have nothingto fearfromthem." Men of good counsel will have
the requiredpusillanimityifthe powerofthe princehas strongpopularsupport:
the fewwho can see with theirown eyes "do not dare to oppose themselvesto
the opinionofthe many who have the majesty ofthe state on theirside."
Since Machiavelli was suspected of having participated in a conspiracy
against the Medici, it was particularlynecessaryforhim to show throughThe
Prince that men of his kind would never have the temerityto engage in such
dangerousundertakings;for they would think only of the probable outcome
of the deed and not of its possible intrinsicnobility.He almost presentsthe
spectacle ofa conversationbetweenhimselfand a potentialconspiratoragainst
the prince in which he tries to convince the conspiratorof the folly of his
imaginings-a spectacle the verysuggestionof whichmust have edifiedand reassuredLorenzo ifhe shouldhave read The Prince.Eventually Machiavelli does
not refrainfromspeaking explicitlyabout how a new princeshould treat men
who in the beginningof his reignhad been suspect because of theirloyaltyto
the precedingregime. He urges the princeto employmen of this kind. "Pandolfo Petrucci,prince of Siena ruled his state more with those who were suspected by him than with others." The mere fact that such men are compelled
to live down a past makes them willingto be reliable servantsof the prince.
But by provingso completelyhis reliabilityin addition to his competence,
Machiavelli mightseem to have overshot the mark. His potential employer
might well wonder if a man of his clevernessif employed as an advisor or
minister,would not receive all creditfor wise actions of the governmentand
thus by contrastbringcontempton the less wise prince. Machiavelli assures
him,as well as he can, by settingup the infalliblegeneralrule that a princewho
is not himselfwise cannotbe well advised.44
Consideringthe great hazards to which Machiavelli exposed himself by
tryingto enterthe serviceof a new prince,one may wonderwhetheraccording
to his principleshe ought not to have preferredpoverty and obscurity.He
answersthisquestionin The Discoursessince it cannotbe answeredwithproprietyin The Prince. Men in his position,he indicates,live in continuousdangerif
they do not seek employmentwith the prince; in tryingto give advice to the
prince,theymustindeed "take thingsmoderately,"i.e., theymustavoid standing forthas the chief or sole promotersof a bold scheme. Only if the bold
scheme is backed by a strong party can some risks safely be taken.45The
particular counsel which Machiavelli gives to Lorenzo explicitly,i.e., the
"Prince, chs. 9 (p. 32), 18 (p. 57), 19 (pp. 58-59), 20 (pp. 68-69) and 23 (pp. 76-77).
In each of the two chapters, 20 and 21, Machiavelli gives five rules to princes; the fourth
rule in chapter 20 concerns the employment of men who were suspect at the beginning
of the reign of a new prince; in the fourth rule given in ch. 21 the prince is urged to honor
those who are excellent in any art.
4' Discour8es, Bk. III, ch. 2, end, and ch. 35 (pp. 422-423).

MACHIAVELLI'S INTENTION: "THE PRINCE"
33
counselhe givesin the last chapterof The Prince,is moderateboth because it is

silent about the extrememeasuresrequiredforthe liberationof Italy and because it cannotbut be verypopular withverymany Italians.
VII. Is THE PRINCE amoral or immoral?
We have not yet consideredMachiavelli's strangesuggestionthathe possesses

one-half of political wisdom, namely, knowledge of the nature of princes,
whereasLorenzo may possess the otherhalf,namely,knowledgeof the nature
of peoples.
He makes thissuggestionin the same contextin whichhe declareshis intention to give rules forprincelygovernment.But to give rules to princes as to
how they ought to rule, means to teach them how they ought to rule their
peoples. Machiavelli cannot thenteach princeswithoutpossessinggood knowledge of the nature of peoples as well. In fact,he gives plentyof evidence ofhis
possessingsuch knowledgein as much as he transmitsit in The Prince to his
princelypupil. He knows everythingof relevance that the prince knows and
in addition he knows much of relevance of whichthe princeis ignorant.He is
not merelya potentialadvisor of a princebut a teacher of princesas such. In
fact,since more than one of his preceptsis not requiredforprincesat all, because princeswould know such thingswithouthis instruction,he also informs,
throughThe Prince,subjects of princes,about what they oughtto expect from
their princes or about the nature of princes.46As an advisor of a prince, he
addresses an individual; as a teacher of political wisdom,he addresses an indefinitemultitude.He indicateshis dual capacity and the correspondingduality
ofhis addresseesby the way in whichhe uses the second personofthe personal
pronoun: he uses Thou when addressingthe prince, and even the man who
conspiresagainst the prince,i.e., when addressingmen of action, while he uses
You whenaddressingthose whose interestis primarilytheoretical.47
Machiavelli mentionsonly one teacher of princes: Chiron the centaur who
broughtup Achillesand manyotherancientprinces.Machiavelli's ownmodel is
a mythicalfigure:he returnsto the beginningsnot only by makingthe heroic
foundershis most exalted themeand the foundationof societyhis most fundamentaltheme,but likewisein understandinghis own doing. His model is halfCompare Discourses, Bk. I, ch. 30 (p. 163) with 29 (pp. 160-161).
Apart fromthe Epistle Dedicatory and ch. 26 where Machiavelli, speaking of Lorenzo
to Lorenzo uses the plural of reverence, he uses the second person plural only in connection
with verbs like "seeing," "finding," "considering," and "understanding." There are, I
believe, 11 cases of the latter kind in The Prince,while in The Discourses, if I remember
well, there are only two, Bk. I, ch. 58 (p. 221), and Bk. II, ch. 30 (p. 317); in The Discourses
which are addressed to potential princes, the need to distinguish between doers and
thinkers does not arise to the same extent as in The Prince. In the chapter of The Prince
uses Thou when speaking of the prince to the
on flatterers-ch. 23 (p. 75)-Machiavelli
prince, while he uses the third person when speaking of the prudent prince: he is not a
flatterer. Ch. 3 (pp. 10-11) beautifully illustrates how Machiavelli the teacher works
together with his readers in examining certain things as well as how his contribution
differsfrom that of his readers.
46

34
THE AMERICAN
POLITICAL
SCIENCE
REVIEW
beast, half-man.He urgesprinces,and especiallynew princes,firstto make use

of both natures, the nature of the beast and the nature of man, and in the
repetition,simplyto imitatethe beast, i.e., to use the personofthe foxand the
lion or to imitatethesetwo natures.48The imitationofthe beast takes the place
ofthe imitationof God.
We may note here that Machiavelli is our most importantwitness to the
truththat humanismis not enough; since man must understandhimselfin the
light of the whole or of the originof the whole which is not human, or since
man is the being that must try to transcend humanity,he must transcend
humanityin the directionof the sub-humanif he does not transcendit in the
directionof the super-human.Tertium,i.e. humanismnon datur: there is no
thirdalternative.We may look forwardfromhereto Swiftwhose greatestwork
culminates in the recommedationthat men should imitate the horses,49to
Rousseau who demanded the returnto the state of nature,a sub-humanstate,
and to Nietzsche who suggestedthat TRUTH is not God but a Woman. As for
Machiavelli,one may say withat least equal rightthathe replacesthe imitation
of the GOD-MAN, Christ, by the imitation of the BEAST-MAN, Chiron. That
BEAST-MAN iS, as Machiavelli indicates,a creationof the writersof antiquity,a
creatureofthe imagination.Justas Scipio by imitatingCyrusin factimitateda
creatureofXenophon,50the princesby imitatingChironwillin factimitate,not
Chiron,but the ancient writers,if the carryingout of a teachingcan justly be
called an imitationof that teaching. But whatevermay be true of princes or
otheractors,certainlyMachiavelli by teachingprinceswhat Chironwas said to
have taught,imitatesChironor followsthe creatorsof Chiron.Yet, as we have
noted before,merelyby teaching openly,and in his own name, what certain
ancient writershad taught covertly and by using their characters as their
mouthpieces,Machiavelli sets forthan entirelynew teaching.He is a Chironof
an entirelynew kind.
In general, as a teacher of princes, or of new princes, Machiavelli is not
particularlyconcernedwiththe particularsfacingcontemporaryItalian princes.
Such problemswould be ofinterestto him only as illustrationsoftypical problems. The primarypurpose of The Prince is then not to give particularcounsel
to a contemporaryItalian prince,but to set fortha whollynew teachingregarding whollynew princesin whollynew states, or a shockingnew teachingabout
the most shockingphenomena.
From this we understandthe meaning of the last chapter. The particular
counsel theregiven serves the purpose of justifyingthe novel generalteaching
4"8Prince, ch. 18 (p. 55) and 19 (p. 62).
'I Swift'sHouyhnhnms,being reasonable horses,are centaursif a centauris a being

whichcombinesthe perfectionofa horsewiththe perfectionofa man. In orderto understand what the recommendationto imitate these beast-menmeans in Gulliver'sTravels
one wouldhave to startfromthe factsthat the relationbetweenLilliputand Brobdingnag
imitatesthe relationbetweenthe modernsand the ancients, and that the same relation
plane in the last two parts of the work.
is imitatedagain on a different
60
Compare Prince, ch. 14, end, with Discourses, Bk. II, ch. 13.

MACHIAVELLI'S INTENTION: c{THE PRINCE"
35
beforethe tribunalof accepted opinion: a generalteachinghowevernovel and

repulsive,mightseem to be redeemedif it leads up to a particular counsel so
respectable,honorableand praiseworthyas that of liberatingItaly. But how is
this transformation
achieved? Machiavelli does not merelysuppress mention
of the unholymeans whichare requiredforthe achievementof the sacred end.
He surreptitiously
introducesa new end, an end not warrantedby the argument of the firsttwenty-fivechapters. He urges Lorenzo to liberate Italy on
patrioticgroundsor, to use a term to which he alludes near the beginningof
chapter 26, on grounds of the common good. He thus creates the impression
that all the terriblerules and counsels given throughoutthe book were given
exclusivelyforthe sake of the commongood.
The last chapter suggests then a tolerable interpretationof the shocking
teachingofthe bulk ofthe work.But the firsttwenty-five
chaptershad observed
completesilence about the common good. The allusion to the common good
near the beginningof chapter 26 has the same status as the other surprising featuresof that chapter: the expectationof a spontaneousall-Italian rising
against the foreigners
and the expressionofreligioussentiment.It is onlywhen
one subjects the particularcounselgivenin the last chapterto politicalanalysis
along the lines demanded by the earlier chapters that one realizes that one
must have brokencompletelywith traditionalmoralityand traditionalbeliefs
in ordereven to considerthat counsel.
But the judicious reader cannot leave it at raisingthe question of how that
particularcounsel could be put into practice and thereafterwhetherit can be
put intopracticeunderthe given circumstances.He must raise thisfurtherand
more incisive question: would Machiavelli condemnthe immoralpolicies recommendedin the bulk of the book if they did not serve a patrioticpurpose?
Or are these immoralpolicies barely compatiblewith a patrioticuse? Is it not
possible to understandthe patrioticconclusionof The Prince as a respectable
coloringof the designsof a self seekingItalian prince?There can be no doubt
regardingthe answer; the immoral policies recommendedthroughout The
Prince are not justifiedon grounds of the common good, but exclusivelyon
groundsof the self-interestof the prince, of his selfishconcernwith his own
wellbeing,securityand glory.5"
61 Machiavellidoes not even suggestthat Cesare Borgia,the model,was animated by
patriotismor concernedwiththe commongood. It is true that he contrastsCesare with
the criminalAgathoclesby not calling Cesare a criminal.But if one looks at the actions
of the two men, the contrastvanishes: in describingAgathoclesas a criminal,he provisionallyadopts the traditionaljudgmenton that man, whereastheredoes not yet exist
a traditionaljudgment on Cesare. The traditionalcondemnationof Agathocles was
partlybased on the fact that he had risen to princelypower from"a base and abject
condition." Machiavelli refersto a similarconsiderationwhen explainingthe failureof
Maximinus-Prince,ch. 19 (pp. 64-65)-but it is irrelevantforhis own judgmentas can
be seen fromDiscourses,Bk. II, ch. 13, to say nothingof the Epistle Dedicatoryto The
Prince,wherehe describeshimselfas "a man of low and base state." The main reason
why Machiavelli has to speak of a criminalrulerwas that he was compelledto indicate
that he was questioningthe traditionaldistinctionbetween the criminaland the non-

36
The finalappeal to patriotismsupplies Machiavelli withan excuse forhaving

recommendedimmoral courses of action. In this light, his character may
verywell appear to be even blackerthan even his worstenemieshave thought.
At the same time,however,we are not forcedto leave it at sayingthat the last
chapterof The Prince is a piece of mere rhetoric,i.e., that he was not capable
of thinkingclearlyand writingwith consummateskill.
These observationsare not to deny that Machiavelli was an Italian patriot.
He would not have been human if he had not loathed the barbarianswho were
devastatingand degradinghis faircountry.We merelydenythat his love forhis
fatherland,or his fatherlanditself,was his most preciouspossession.The core
ofhis beingwas his thoughtabout man, about the conditionof man and about
humanaffairs.By raisingthefundamentalquestionshe ofnecessitytranscended
the limitationsand the limitsof Italy, and thus he became enabled to use the
patrioticsentimentsof his readersas well as his own fora higher,ulteriorpurpose.
One must also consider an ambiguity characteristicof his patriotism.In
The Prince thereoccur eightreferencesto "the fatherland"; in one case Italy
is describedas the fatherland;in six cases the fatherlandsmentionedare, not
countries,but cities; in one case, one country(Persia) and two cities (Athens
and Rome) are describedas fatherlandswhilein the fourthexample mentioned
in that context,the example of Moses, it is unclear whetherthe fatherland
honoredby Moses was Egypt or Canaan i.e., the land ofhis birthor the land of
his aspiration.52When we apply this observationto Machiavelli, we become
criminal as far as founders are concerned. He presents Agathocles then as the classical
example of the criminal ruler, as a breaker of all divine and human laws, a murderer and a
traitor, and a man without faith, mercy or religion; Agathocles possessed indeed greatness
of mind; while being a most excellent captain, he cannot be counted among the most excellent men; his actions could acquire for him empire but not glory; he benefited indeed
his subjects, or rather the common people, but he did this of course entirely for selfish
reasons. In the sequel Machiavelli retracts everything he had said in connection with
Agathocles about the differencebetween an able criminal ruler and an able non-criminal
ruler. The firststep is the praise of Nabis whom he calls a prince in The Prince, while he
calls him in The Discourses a tyrant; Nabis' policy was fundamentally the same as that of
Agathocles. Compare Prince, ch. 9 (p. 33) and ch. 19 (p. 58) with Discourses, Bk. I, ch. 10
(p. 122) and ch. 40 (p. 187). The second step is the questioning of the differencebetween
"most excellent captain" and "most excellent man": good arms are the necessary and
sufficientcondition of good laws, and Agathocles had good arms; the excellent man most
emphatically praised, Cyrus, is not said to have possessed faith, mercy and religion, but
he is distinguished by greatness of mind, i.e., by a quality which Agathocles also possessed.
One reason why Agathocles cannot be counted among the most excellent men, is his savage
cruelty and inhumanity; but Hannibal who is likewise characterized by inhuman cruelty
is a most excellent man. Compare Prince, ch. 12 (pp. 38-39), ch. 14 (pp. 47-48), ch. 17
(p. 54), ch. 26 (p. 81) with Discourses, Bk. II, ch. 18 (p. 280) and Bk. III, ch. 21, end.
The last step is to show that glory can be acquired by crime or in spite of crime. This is
shown most clearly by Prince, ch. 18 towards the end, and by the case of Severus to say
nothing of Machiavelli's observations regarding Giovampagolo Baglioni in Discourses,
Bk. I, ch. 27.
52 Prince, ch. 6 (p. 18), ch. 8 (pp. 27, 29, 30), ch. 9 (pp. 31, 33), ch. 26 (p. 84).

MACHIAVELLI S INTENTION: ItTHE PRINCE"
37
aware of the tensionbetweenhis Italian patriotismand his Florentinepatriotism.Or shouldone not ratherspeak ofa tensionbetweenhis Roman patriotism
and his Tuscan patriotism?There exists a close connectionbetweenthe transpatrioticcore ofhis thoughtand his love forItaly. Italy is the soil out ofwhich
sprangthe glorywhichwas ancient Rome. Machiavelli believed that the men
who are bornin a countrypreservethroughoutall timesmore or less the same
nature.If the greatestpolitical achievementwhich the worldhas ever known
was the fruitof the Italian soil there is ground for hope that the political
rejuvenationof the world will make its firstappearance in Italy. The sons of
Italy are the most giftedindividualsin the world; all modernwritersreferred
to in eitherThe Prince or The Discoursesare Italians.
Since that politicalrejuvenationis bound up witha radical changein thought,
the hope fromItaly and forItaly is not primarilypolitical in the narrowsense
of the term.The liberationof Italy which Machiavelli has primarilyin mind,
is not the political liberationof Italy fromthe barbarians but the intellectual
liberationof an Italian elite froma bad tradition. But preciselybecause he
believed that the men who are born in a countrypreservethroughoutall times
more or less the same nature,and as the nature of the Romans was different
fromthat of the Tuscans, his hope was also grounded on his recollectionof
Tuscan glory:" the old Etrurianshad made a decisive contributionto the religion of the Romans. He seems to have regardedhimselfas a restorerofTuscan
glorybecause he too contributedtoward supplyingRome with a new religion
or witha new outlookon religion.Or perhapshe thoughtofTarquinius Priscus
the Etrurianwho strengthenedthe democraticelementof the Roman polity.
Furthermore,once one grasps the intransigentcharacter of Machiavelli's
theoreticalconcern,one is no longer compelled to burden him with the full
responsibilityforthat practicalrecklessnesswhichhe frequentlyrecommends.
The ruthlesscounselsgiventhroughoutThe Prince are addressed,less to princes
who would hardlyneed themthan to "the young" who are concernedwithunderstandingthe natureofsociety.Those trueaddresseesof ThePrincehave been
broughtup in teachingswhich,in the light of his whollynew teaching,reveal
themselvesto be much too confidentof human goodness,ifnot of the goodness
of creationand hence too gentleor effeminate.
Justas a man who by trainingor by natureis too much givento fear,cannot
acquire that couragewhichis a mean betweencowardiceand foolhardiness,unless he dragshimselfin the directionoffoolhardiness,Machiavelli's pupils must
go througha process of brutalizationin orderto become freefromeffeminacy.
Or just as one learns bayonetingby using weapons which are much heavier
than those used in actual combat,54one learns statecraftby seriouslyplaying
withextremecourses of action which are rarely,if ever, appropriatein actual
but preciselysome of the most
politics.Not only some of the most comforting,
13 Prince, ch. 26 (p. 83); Discourses, Bk. II, ch. 4, toward the end, and Bk. III, ch. 43;
Art of War, at the end; compare Discourses, Bk. I, ch. 1, end, with Livy, Bk. I, ch. 34.12ch. 35.12. Also Livy, Bk. V, ch. 15. Cf. note 43 above.
64 Cf. Art of TWar,Bk. II (p. 489).

38
THE AMERICAN
POLITICAL
SCIENCE
REVIEW
outrageousstatementsof The Prince are not meant seriouslybut merelyserve

a pedagogic function:as soon as one understandsthem,one sees that they are
amusingand meant to amuse.
Machiavelli triesto winovertheyoungfromadheringto the old teachingsby
appealing to the taste of the young which is not the best taste or, for that
matter,to the taste of the commonpeople:55he displays a bias in favor of the
impetuous,the quick, the partisan,the spectacular,and the bloody, over and
against the deliberate,the slow, the neutral,the silent,and the gentle.In The
Prince he says that a princewho has conquereda citywhich was wont to live
free,must destroyit if he cannot make it his residence.In The Discourses he
says that preciselya prince,as distinguishedfroma republic,provided he is
not a barbarian,would spare and protectconquered citiesand would leave intact, as much as possible, their autonomy.56
Anotherresolute course of action recommendedin The Prince is to avoid
neutralitywhen two powerfulneighborscome to blows: to take sides is always
betterthan to stay neutral. Machiavelli graduallydiscloses the limitationsof
this advice. He admits firstthat neutralityis not always fatal. He states then
that because of the power of justice, to take sides is saferthan to stay neutral.
Thereafterhe makes clear that under certain conditionsit is most unwise to
abandon neutralityin case of conflictbetweentwo powerfulneighbors.Finally
he admits that no course of action is perfectlysafe or, in otherwords,that the
power of justice is not as great as he previouslyindicated.57He suggestsvery
stronglyin The Prince that the one thingneedfulis good arms; he speaks less
loudly ofthe need forprudence.58
VIII.
ll achiavellias Prophet.
We mustreturnonce moreto Machiavelli's suggestionthat he possessesadequate knowledgeofthenatureofprinceswhereasLorenzo may possess adequate

knowledgeof the nature of peoples. As we have said, this suggestionis absurd:
since to be a princemeans to rule the people, it is impossibleto know well the
firstwithoutknowingwell the second; to say nothingof the facts that he displays knowledge of the nature of peoples throughoutThe Prince and, as he
says explicitlyin The Discourses, there is no differenceof nature between
princesand peoples.59Since he knows well the nature of peoples, he intimates
by his strangesuggestionthat he is a prince.
Cf. Discourses, Bk. I, ch. 53.
Prince, ch. 5; Discourses, Bk. II, ch. 2 (pp. 239-240). In the preceding chapter of
The Discourses (p. 234) there occurs one of the few references to The Prince; it is to the
third chapter, i.e., to the section which deals with conquest.
57 Prince, ch. 21 (pp. 71-73).
68 Prince, ch. 12 (pp. 38-39) and ch. 19 (p. 58); Discourses, Bk. I, ch. 4 (p. 103); Opere,
Vol. II, p. 473.
6" Prince, ch. 3 (p. 6), ch. 6 (p. 19), ch. 9 (pp. 31, 32), ch. 10 (pp. 35-36), ch. 17 (p. 53),
ch. 18 (p. 57), ch. 23 (p. 75), ch. 24 (p. 78); Discourses, Bk. I, chs. 57 and 58 (pp. 217-219).
In The Prince, chs. 7 (p. 22) and 8 (p. 28) he applies expressions to Cesare Borgia and to
Agathocles which he had applied to himself in the Epistle Dedicatory.
65
68

MACHIAVELLI'S
INTENTION:
"THE
PRINCE"S
39
This intimationwill appear strange only to those who lack familiaritywith

Xenophon or Plato: he who knows the art of rulingis more trulya rulerthan
men who rule merelyby virtue of inheritanceor forceor fraud or electionby
people who knownothingofthe art ofruling.60
But ifMachiavelli is a prince,he
is a new prince,and not a new princewho imitatesthe modes and orderswhich
were foundedby others, but one who is an originatoror true founder, a discovererofnew modes and orders,a man ofsupremevirtue.In fact,ifit is proper
to call prophetthefounderofa new social orderwhichis all-comprehensive,
and
not merelypolitical or military,he is a prophet.Not Lorenzo, but Machiavelli,
is the new Romulus-Numa or the new M\oses,i.e., a man who not merelyrepeats in new circumstanceswhat Romulus-Numa or Moses had done in the
olden times,but who is as originalas theywere.
In the last chapter of The Prince, he attests to certainmiracleswhich had
happened somewherein contemporaryItaly-miracles whichresemblethose of
the time of Moses. The ancient miracleshappened on the way fromthe house
ofbondage to the promisedland: theyhappened immediatelybeforethe revelation on Mount Sinai. What is imminent,Machiavelli suggeststhen,is not the
conquest of a new promisedland, but a new revelation,the revelation of a
new code, of a new decalogue. The man who will bringthe new code cannot be
Lorenzo or any otherprincein the vulgar sense of the term.The bringerof the
new code is none otherthan Machiavelli himself:he bringsthe true code, the
code whichis in accordance with the truth,with the nature of things.
Compared with this achievementthe conquest of the promised land, the
liberationofItaly is a cura posterior:it can wait,it mustwait untilthe new code
has regeneratedthe Italians. The new Moses will not be sad if he dies at the
bordersof the land whichhe had promisedand if he will see it onlyfromafar.
For whileit is fatal fora would be conquerornot to conquer while he is alive,
the discovererof the all-importanttruthcan conquer posthumously.6'
Concerningnew prophets in general, Machiavelli remarksthat all armed
prophetshave conquered and the unarmed prophetshave failed. The greatest
armed prophetis Moses. The only unarmed prophetmentionedis Savonarola.
But as is shown by the expression"all armed prophets. . . and the unarmed
ones," he thinksnot merelyof Savonarola. Justas he, who admiredso greatly
the contemporaryMuslim conquerors,cannot help thinkingof Muhammad
whenspeakingofarmedprophets,he musthave thoughtofJesuswhenspeaking
ofunarmedprophets.
This is perhaps the greatestdifficulty
which we encounterwhen we try to
enterinto the thoughtof The Prince: how can Machiavelli, on the basis of his
principles,understand the victory of Christianity?Certain of his successors
attemptedexplicitlyto account forthe victoryof Christianityin purelypolitical
terms.To quote froma presentday historian:
Cf. Discourses, Epistle Dedicatory, and the letter to Vettori of Dec. 10, 1513.
The 11 pairs of opposite moral qualities mentioned in ch. 15 and the 11 rules of conduct discussed in chs. 20 to 21 prove on examination to be 10. Compare Hobbes's re-writing
of the decalogue in Leviathan, ch. 30.
60
61

40
In the most starkly Erastian utterance of the [seventeenth] century, [Henryl Parker all
but maintained that it was Constantine and not the preaching or the miracles of the early
Church, that won Europe to the Christian fold.62
But we cannot bring ourselves to believe that a man of Machiavelli's intelligence would have been satisfiedwith an answer of this kind which obviously
leads to this furtherquestion: what motivated Constantine's action? Must
Christianitynot alreadyhave been a powerin orderto become an attractionor
a tool for a politician?To see how Machiavelli could have accounted for the
victory of Christianity,we have to consider a furtherdifficulty
which is no
less obvious.All unarmedprophets,he says, have failed. But what is he himself
if not an unarmedprophet?How can he reasonablyhope forthe success of his
enormousventure-enormous in itselfand productiveof infiniteenormitiesif unarmed prophetsnecessarilyfail? This is the only fundamentalquestion
which The Prince raises in the reader's mind withoutgivinghim even a suspicion of Machiavelli's answer. It recalls the question which is likewiseleftunansweredin The Prince, as to how new modes and orderscan be maintained
throughoutthe ages.63If Machiavelli has answered these questions at all, he
is likelyto have answeredthem in The Discourses ratherthan anywhereelse.
6" W. K. Jordan, Men of Substance (Chicago, 1942), p. 82.
63 Compare
Discourses, Bk. III, ch. 35, beginning, with Prince, ch. 6 (p. 19).


Leo Strauss On Machiavelli

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leo Strauss On Machiavelli

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leo Strauss On Machiavelli

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Machiavelli's Intention: The Prince

Author(s): Leo Strauss

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

Cf. Prince, ch. 15, beginning.

6 Cf. the Epistle Dedicatory of The Prince.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

MACHIAVELLIS INTENTION: "THE PRINCE"

Let us follow this movement somewhat more closely. At firstsight The

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

Besides, the Old Testamentcitation in chapter 13 merelysupplies at most an

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

the firstpart,the movementofthe argumentin the fourthpart (chs. 24 through

It is characteristicof ThePrinceto partake oftwo pairs ofopposites:it is both

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

What preciselyis the difficulty

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

whichhe must expect. The liberatorof Italy is urged thereto furnishhimself

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

garded as a potentialliberatorof his fatherland.2'As forthe Italian republics,

The problemof theChurch.

The informationabout the political requisitesfor the liberationof Italy is

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

hallows everymeans,howevermuch condemnedby the most exalted traditions

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

The liberation of Italy which requires the unificationof Italy requires

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

Prince to be or to become an originator:he advises his reader to become an

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

MACHIAVELLI S INTENTION: {THE PRINCE

free-will,cannot be foreseen.What may be imminent,Machiavelli suggests,

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

resistanceto the liberatorand unifierof Italy, so the expressionof religious

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

vi. The ambiguityofMachiavelli'srole.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

MACHIAVELLI'S INTENTION: "THE PRINCE"

counselhe givesin the last chapterof The Prince,is moderateboth because it is

We have not yet consideredMachiavelli's strangesuggestionthathe possesses

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

beast, half-man.He urgesprinces,and especiallynew princes,firstto make use

'I Swift'sHouyhnhnms,being reasonable horses,are centaursif a centauris a being

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

MACHIAVELLI'S INTENTION: c{THE PRINCE"

beforethe tribunalof accepted opinion: a generalteachinghowevernovel and

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM

THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

The finalappeal to patriotismsupplies Machiavelli withan excuse forhaving

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.47 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:01 AM