Many of the ideas in the Middle Ages were brilliant, but Renaissance philosophers began thinking more of what was happening around them, and what they could do about it. Niccolo Machiavelli , a Florentian statesman and political theorist introduced this when he wrote his book The Prince, which many people see as the dictators ideal handbook. Machiavelli was neither good, nor evil, but simply realistic, and this is why he has been so revolutionary in his writing.

In Machiavelli’s The Prince, he discussed what he witnessed in the world around him, and what he thought would be the ideal way for a prince to take and keep control. Machiavelli wrote about ideas that involved a prince keeping his power through deceit. He wrote about characteristics he believed all humans had in common, and how they affect the prince. There was his idea that the means justify the ends, but make sure you’re good whenever you can be so that your subjects do not end up turning on you in a negative way. Machiavelli also ignored Christian teaching that a prince will be punished on the Day of Judgment for a majority if the actions that he is promoting. He wrote about how politics was really conducted instead of the ideal Christian community. Important examples that Machiavelli used when he wrote this were of Hannibal, the Carthaginian general, and Cesare Borgia, the bastard son of Pope Alexander VI. According to what Machiavelli wrote, a successful ruler was one who is indifferent to moral and religious considerations. There is reference to the world being full of people Machiavelli did not believe were entirely good, and reasons why a prince should adapt to this and not be entirely good himself. The Prince is a work not of evil, but of advice that Machiavelli wrote for the Medici family, hoping he could keep their favour, although it wasn’t released till a year after his death. Even though it wasn’t till later it was finally open for the public, it still has influence on modern day politicians.

Machiavelli was advising a prince to do many things in his book. He tells a prince that he must adapt to the bad world around him. A prince, if he wishes to maintain himself, must learn when to use this knowledge, and when not to use it when the necessary case is given. He advices the prince to not try and be every good aspect of human nature as this will just leave him criticized and vulnerable. Machiavelli says that a prince should try and appear all these things instead, in which case the prince will gain the favour of the majority of his subjects. A prince was told not to mind the use of cruelty if it keeps his subjects united and faithful, because if a prince was to be completely merciful, then he would allow disorder to rise in his kingdom and that will only lead to bloodshed. Machiavelli also begins to talk about in his book whether a prince should be loved or feared. He advises the prince to be both feared and loved, but because being both is such a complication, it is simpler for the prince to be feared. According to what Machiavelli wrote, men are a number of negative qualities such as ungrateful, anxious to avoid danger, and covetous of gain; if you are a benefit to them, they will be yours, offering you everything they have. He wrote that as long as it is necessary, they will do for you what they can, but once that purpose is served, will revolt. A prince who relies only on the words of his subjects is going to be ruined if he has no other preparations set; mainly because friendship that is bought and isn’t gained through a noble spirit is unsecured, and can be withdrawn at any time. Men have a simpler time destroying a leader who is loved, as it is only held by what Machiavelli calls a chain of obligation, and says fear is maintained by dread of punishment which can will never fail. Machiavelli advices that a prince should not make himself hated though. He said it was better for the prince to take the life of a man, then it is for him to take his property, because loss of a father can be forgotten, but loss of property will burn in their hearts forever. The ideal prince was meant to seem as cruel when he was with a large number of soldiers that were under his control. This was written because Machiavelli makes a reference to Hannibal, the Carthaginian general who almost destroyed Rome, and how he kept his army united through fear. Machiavelli wrote that there are two methods of fighting, one by law, and one by force. The first method is what he said is that of man, while the second is of beasts. Because the first cannot always be sufficient, the second is an obvious choice. The prince must know how to be both a beast and a man. He says a prince must learn how to protect himself from traps, and frighten those with shear strength. He says that all men are not good, but rather they are bad, and so a prince does not have to keep faith with them, meaning a prince does not have to keep a promise to his subjects. Machiavelli’s book The Prince is seen by many as an evil thing, when really he writes about what many politics have done within the last one hundred years, and managed to keep power by doing so. His book is more of a guideline on how to deceive those around you so you obtain what you need, and only to treat your subjects when they are either deserving, or their support is needed.

When Machiavelli’s book The Prince was actually found by the public, it was condemned by Pope Clement VIII. After the letter was found in 1810 that Machiavelli wrote, it was understood that he wrote the book to liberate Italy from foreign governments. Up until that point, the book was seen as something controversial. If read in a very open minded perspective, then a reader is able to pull out ideas that are not completely cruel and heartless. The book is writing about being good and bad when it is needed, not to be completely on either side, but to regulate when necessary. There weren’t many books at this time ready to challenge the Christian faith on these subjects, but Machiavelli’s The Prince attempted this. Even though Machiavelli was dead after his book gained reputation, it still helped revolutionize much of the world. The negative to this books existence was it brought up many terrible leaders. Stalin is an example of Machiavellian leader. His hard fist of Russia was in general what Machiavelli wrote about, but he lost way in the appearing good part after he gained power. Indeed this book does explain much of what is still happening in the world now, but only if one is able to get past the cruelty of it, and read the depth of it. What is powerful about the prince is that it is so cynical, it shows a form of power. Unlike anything written at the time, The Prince was written with intent to describe what the world was really like when Machiavelli was living, and what he thinks should be done to keep it from falling into another state of corruption. What was powerful about Machiavelli’s work was unlike other writers of his time, he was not afraid to write what he thought the government of his era was really like, instead of hiding it behind pious guise. Along with Hobbes, another man believing in humanity’s bad points, Machiavelli was one of the great philosophers to expose the ideas of great political power.

You can open The Prince with an ignorant mind, not aware of what is happening around the world in politics, and find what looks like a horror novel written by Stephen King. But when reading this with reputable knowledge, you have to ask yourself “Are Machiavelli’s ideas really so farfetched”? Machiavelli’s ideas of how a prince should be harsh, yet appear good to his public are really no different than what a vast majority of politicians are doing now, he simply was the first to challenge his era, and was not praised for it until later. Before one quickly assumes that The Prince is a book that Hitler would have held close to his heart, you have to ask yourself a very simple question, what would you do if you were in the position of a prince?