Editing The Prince (section)

==Analysis==
[[File:Anon-Cesare-Borgia.jpg|right|thumb|[[Cesare Borgia]], Duke of Valentinois. According to Machiavelli, a risk taker and example of a prince who acquired by "fortune". Failed in the end because of one mistake: he was naïve to trust a new Pope.]]
As shown by his letter of dedication, Machiavelli's work eventually came to be dedicated to [[Lorenzo II de' Medici, Duke of Urbino|Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici]], grandson of [[Lorenzo the Magnificent]], and a member of the ruling Florentine Medici family, whose uncle Giovanni became Pope [[Leo X]] in 1513. It is known from his personal correspondence that it was written during 1513, the year after the Medici regained control of Florence, and a few months after Machiavelli's arrest, torture, and banishment by the in-coming Medici regime. It was discussed for a long time with [[Francesco Vettori]] – a friend of Machiavelli – whom he wanted to pass it and commend it to the Medici. The book had originally been intended for [[Giuliano di Lorenzo de' Medici]], young Lorenzo's uncle, who however died in 1516.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Najemy|1993}}</ref> It is not certain that the work was ever read by any of the Medici before it was printed.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Dent|1995}} p. xvii</ref> Machiavelli describes the contents as being an un-embellished summary of his knowledge about the nature of princes and "the actions of great men", based not only on reading but also, unusually, on real experience.<ref name=Let>{{Citation|last=Machiavelli|chapter-url=https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149p/complete.html|chapter=Dedication|title=The Prince|publisher=Constitution.org|access-date=2010-01-01|archive-date=2016-01-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160115095852/https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149p/|url-status=live}}</ref>

The types of political behavior that are discussed with apparent approval by Machiavelli in ''The Prince'' were regarded as shocking by contemporaries, and its immorality is still a subject of serious discussion.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Fischer|2000|p=181}} says that some people "might hold Machiavelli to some extent responsible for the crimes of a [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]], [[Mao Zedong|Mao]], or [[Pol Pot]], who had learned from him to excuse the murder of innocents by its supposed benefits for humanity." {{Harvtxt|Strauss|1958|p=12}} writes that "We shall not hesitate to assert, as very many have asserted before us, and we shall later on try to prove, that Machiavelli's teaching is immoral and irreligious."</ref> Although the work advises princes how to tyrannize, Machiavelli is generally thought to have preferred some form of republican government.<ref>For example {{Harvtxt|Strauss|1958|p=182}}: "Machiavelli's book on principalities and his book on republics are both republican."</ref> Some commentators justify his acceptance of immoral and criminal actions by leaders by arguing that he lived during a time of continuous political conflict and instability in Italy, and that his influence has increased the "pleasures, equality and freedom" of many people, loosening the grip of medieval Catholicism's "classical [[teleology]]", which "disregarded not only the needs of individuals and the wants of the common man, but stifled innovation, enterprise, and enquiry into cause and effect relationships that now allow us to control [[Nature (philosophy)|nature]]".<ref>{{Harvtxt|Fischer|2000|p=181}}</ref>

On the other hand, {{Harvcoltxt|Strauss|1958|p=11}} notes that "even if we were forced to grant that Machiavelli was essentially a patriot or a scientist, we would not be forced to deny that he was a teacher of evil".<ref>Concerning being a scientist, {{Harvcoltxt|Strauss|1958|pp=54–55}} says that this description of Machiavelli as a scientist "is defensible and even helpful provided it is properly meant" because ''The Prince'' "conveys a general teaching" and only uses specific historical facts and experience as a basis for such generalizing. On the other hand {{Harvtxt|Strauss|1958|p=11}}: "Machiavelli's works abound with "value-judgments". Concerning patriotism {{Harvcoltxt|Strauss|1958|pp=10–11}} writes that "Machiavelli understood it as collective selfishness." It is Machiavelli's indifferent "comprehensive reflection" about right and wrong, which is "the core of Machiavelli's thought," not love of the fatherland as such.</ref> Furthermore, Machiavelli "was too thoughtful not to know what he was doing and too generous not to admit it to his reasonable friends".<ref>Much of Machiavelli's personal correspondence with other Florentines is preserved, including some of the most famous letters in Italian. Of particular interest for example, are some of his letters to [[Francesco Vettori]] and [[Francesco Guicciardini]], two men who had managed to stay in public service under the Medici, unlike Machiavelli. To Guicciardini for example he wrote concerning the selection of a preacher for Florence, that he would like a hypocritical one, and "I believe that the following would be the true way to go to Paradise: learn the way to Hell in order to steer clear of it." (Letter 270 in {{Harvcoltxt|Machiavelli|1996}})</ref>

Machiavelli emphasized the need for looking at the "effectual truth" ({{Lang|it|verita effetuale}}), as opposed to relying on "imagined republics and principalities". He states the difference between honorable behavior and criminal behavior by using the metaphor of animals, saying that "there are two ways of contending, one in accordance with the laws, the other by force; the first of which is proper to men, the second to beast".<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ehzOd8DVlNkC&q=harvey+mansfield|title=The Prince: Second Edition|last=Machiavelli|first=Niccolò|date=2010-05-15|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=9780226500508|language=en}}</ref>  In ''The Prince'' he does not explain what he thinks the best ethical or political goals are, except the control of one's own fortune, as opposed to waiting to see what chance brings. Machiavelli took it for granted that would-be leaders naturally aim at glory or [[honour]]. He associated these goals with a need for "[[virtue]]" and "[[prudence]]" in a leader, and saw such virtues as essential to good politics. That great men should develop and use their virtue and prudence was a traditional theme of advice to Christian princes.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Gilbert|1938}}</ref> And that more virtue meant less reliance on chance was a classically influenced "[[humanism|humanist]] commonplace" in Machiavelli's time, as {{Harvcoltxt|Fischer|2000|p=75}} says, even if it was somewhat controversial. However, Machiavelli went far beyond other authors in his time, who in his opinion left things to fortune, and therefore to bad rulers, because of their Christian beliefs. He used the words "virtue" and "prudence" to refer to glory-seeking and spirited excellence of character, in strong contrast to the traditional Christian uses of those terms, but more keeping with the original pre-Christian Greek and Roman concepts from which they derived.<ref>While pride is a sin in the Bible, "[[Fortune favours the bold]]", used for example by {{Harvcoltxt|Dent|1995}} p. xxii to summarize Machiavelli's stance concerning fortune, was a classical saying. That the desire for glory of spirited young men can and should be allowed or even encouraged, because it is how the best rulers come to be, is a theory expressed most famously by Plato in his ''[[Republic (Plato)|Republic]]''. (See {{Harvcoltxt|Strauss|1958|p=289}}.) But as Strauss points out, Plato asserts that there is a higher type of life, and Machiavelli does not seem to accept this.</ref> He encouraged ambition and risk taking. So in another break with tradition, he treated not only stability, but also radical [[innovation]], as possible aims of a prince in a political community. Managing major reforms can show off a Prince's virtue and give him glory. He clearly felt Italy needed major reform in his time, and this opinion of his time is widely shared.<ref>See for example {{Harvcoltxt|Guarini|1999}}.</ref>

Machiavelli's descriptions encourage leaders to attempt to control their fortune gloriously, to the extreme extent that some situations may call for a fresh "founding" (or re-founding) of the "modes and orders" that define a community, despite the danger and necessary evil and lawlessness of such a project. Founding a wholly new state, or even a new religion, using injustice and immorality has even been called the chief theme of ''The Prince''.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Strauss|1987|p=302}}</ref> Machiavelli justifies this position by explaining how if "a prince did not win love he may escape hate" by personifying injustice and immorality; therefore, he will never loosen his grip since "fear is held by the apprehension of punishment" and never diminishes as time goes by.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BgMaDgAAQBAJ&q=machiavelli+on+necessity+mansfield&pg=PA39|title="Machiavelli on Necessity" in Machiavelli on Liberty and Conflict|last=Mansfield|first=Harvey|date=2017-03-15|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=9780226429441|language=en}}</ref> For a political theorist to do this in public was one of Machiavelli's clearest breaks not just with medieval scholasticism, but with the classical tradition of [[political philosophy]], especially the favorite philosopher of Catholicism at the time, [[Aristotle]]. This is one of Machiavelli's most lasting influences upon [[modernity]].

Nevertheless, Machiavelli was heavily influenced by classical pre-Christian [[political philosophy]]. According to {{Harvcoltxt|Strauss|1958|p=291}} Machiavelli refers to [[Xenophon]] more than Plato, Aristotle, and [[Cicero]] put together. Xenophon wrote one of the classic mirrors of princes, the ''[[Education of Cyrus]]''. {{Harvcoltxt|Gilbert|1938|p=236}} wrote: "The Cyrus of Xenophon was a hero to many a literary man of the sixteenth century, but for Machiavelli he lived". Xenophon also, as Strauss pointed out, wrote a dialogue, ''[[Hiero (Xenophon)|Hiero]]'' which showed a wise man dealing sympathetically with a tyrant, coming close to what Machiavelli would do in uprooting the ideal of "the imagined prince". Xenophon however, like Plato and Aristotle, was a follower of [[Socrates]], and his works show approval of a "[[teleological argument]]", while Machiavelli rejected such arguments. On this matter, {{Harvcoltxt|Strauss|1958|pp=222–23}} gives evidence that Machiavelli may have seen himself as having learned something from [[Democritus]], [[Epicurus]] and [[atomism|classical materialism]], which was however not associated with political realism, or even any interest in politics.

On the topic of [[rhetoric]], Machiavelli, in his introduction, stated that "I have not embellished or crammed this book with rounded periods or big, impressive words, or with any blandishment or superfluous decoration of the kind which many are in the habit of using to describe or adorn what they have produced". This has been interpreted as showing a distancing from traditional rhetoric styles, but there are echoes of classical rhetoric in several areas.  In Chapter 18, for example, he uses a metaphor of a lion and a fox, examples of force and cunning; according to {{Harvcoltxt|Zerba|2004|p=217}}, "the Roman author from whom Machiavelli in all likelihood drew the simile of the lion and the fox" was Cicero. The ''[[Rhetorica ad Herennium]]'', a work which was believed during Machiavelli's time to have been written by Cicero, was used widely to teach rhetoric, and it is likely that Machiavelli was familiar with it. Unlike Cicero's more widely accepted works however, according to {{Harvcoltxt|Cox|1997|p=1122}}, "Ad Herennium ... offers a model of an ethical system that not only condones the practice of force and deception but appears to regard them as habitual and indeed germane to political activity". This makes it an ideal text for Machiavelli to have used.

The Italian Marxist philosopher [[Antonio Gramsci]] argued that Machiavelli's audience for this work was not the classes who already rule (or have "hegemony") over the common people, but the common people themselves, trying to establish a new hegemony, and making Machiavelli the first "Italian [[Jacobin (politics)|Jacobin]]".<ref>See for example {{cite book|title=Antonio Gramsci and the Origins of Italian Communism|first=John McKay |last=Cammett|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YTCsAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA210.|isbn=9780804701419|year=1967|publisher=Stanford University Press }}</ref>