Editing The Prince (section)

==Interpretations==
===Timeline of composition===
There has been much debate of when Machiavelli actually composed The Prince (and his other works).<ref name=Connell/> Commentators have viewed this question to be of great importance, as some interpreters believe that Machiavelli changed his views between the composition of The Prince, and the composition of ''The Discourses''. Hans Baron is one of such commentators who argued that Machiavelli must have changed his mind dramatically in favor of free republics, after having written ''The Prince''.{{sfn|Baron|1961}} Harvey Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov, in the introduction to their translation of The Discourses on Livy, state that there are no discrepancies between The Prince and his later works, and that it "seems the safest" to see them "as a pair of works, not much different, if at all, in time of composition."<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Km5itjMehYUC&q=if+at+all%2C+in+time+of+composition.&pg=PR43 | title=Discourses on Livy | isbn=978-0-226-50033-1 | last1=Machiavelli | first1=Niccolò | date=27 February 2009 | publisher=University of Chicago Press|quote=Translation by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov}}</ref> Scholar William Connell views that the composition and development of The Prince was a lengthy process with his ideas being revised from 1513 to 1515.<ref name=Connell>{{Cite journal |last=Connell |first=William J. |title=Dating The Prince: Beginnings and Endings |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/article/abs/dating-the-prince-beginnings-and-endings/C999CC6B17F223DD630CAEAF650F0835 |journal=The Review of Politics |date=2013 |language=en |volume=75 |issue=4 |pages=497–514 |doi=10.1017/S0034670513000557 |issn=0034-6705}}</ref>

===Other interpretations===
'''Satire'''

This interpretation was famously put forth by scholar Garrett Mattingly (1958), who stated that "In some ways, Machiavelli's little treatise was just like all the other 'Mirrors of Princes', in other ways it was a diabolical burlesque of all of them, like a political Black Mass."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mattingly |first=Garrett |date=1958 |title=Machiavelli's ''Prince'': Political Science or Political Satire? |jstor=41208453 |journal=The American Scholar |volume=27 |issue=4 |pages=482–491 |issn=0003-0937}}</ref>

This position was taken up previously by some of the more prominent [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] ''[[philosophes]]''. [[Diderot]] speculated that it was a work designed not to mock, but to secretly expose corrupt princely rule. And in his ''[[Social Contract (Rousseau)|The Social Contract]]'', the French philosopher [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] said: {{blockquote|Machiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, [[Cesare Borgia]], clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the ''Prince'' and that of the ''Discourses on Livy'' and the ''History of Florence'' shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays.|[http://constitution.org/2-Authors/jjr/socon_03.htm#23 ''Social Contract'', Book 3, note to Chapter 6].}}

However, this line of interpretation is often refuted by those who study Machiavelli's works.<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ieyoDwAAQBAJ&dq=satire%20.%20Machiavelli%27s%20letters%20mention%20The%20Prince%20with%20only%20the%20highest%20serious-%20ness%20.%20Certainly%20none%20of%20Machiavelli%27s%20contemporaries%20thought%20The%20Prince%20was%20a%20humorous%20work%20.%20In%20a%20lengthy%20book%20Machiavelli%20wrote%20on%20republics%20%2C%20the%20...&pg=PT29 | title=The Prince: With Related Documents | isbn=978-1-319-32840-5 | last1=Connell | first1=William J. | last2=Machiavelli | first2=Niccolo | date=5 August 2019 | publisher=Macmillan Higher Education }}</ref> For example [[Isaiah Berlin]] states that he cannot find anything other than Machiavelli's work that "reads less" like a satirical piece.<ref>{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4WZ9AwAAQBAJ&q=the%20originality%20of%20machiavelli&pg=PA43 | title=Reading Political Philosophy: Machiavelli to Mill| isbn=9781134692378| last1=Matravers| first1=Derek| last2=Pike| first2=Jonathan| last3=Warburton| first3=Nigel| date=May 2014| publisher=[[Routledge]]}}</ref> Maurizio Viroli writes: "In my opinion, none of these defenses of Machiavelli is valid. The view that The Prince is the "book of Republicans" comes from Rousseau's desire to rescue its author's bad reputation and make The Prince consistent with the Discourses on Livy, the text in which Machiavelli developed a comprehensive republican theory of liberty and government" and added that the claim "misrepresents the meaning of the text."<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rW2YDwAAQBAJ&dq=redeeming+the+prince&pg=PA1 | title=Redeeming the Prince: The Meaning of Machiavelli's Masterpiece | isbn=978-0-691-16859-3 | last1=Viroli | first1=Maurizio | date=25 August 2015 | publisher=Princeton University Press }}</ref>

'''Deceit'''

[[Mary G. Dietz|Mary Dietz]], in her essay "Trapping The Prince", writes that Machiavelli's agenda was not to be satirical, as Rousseau had argued, but instead was "offering carefully crafted advice (such as arming the people) designed to undo the ruler if taken seriously and followed."<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Dietz|1986}}.</ref> By this account, the aim was to reestablish the republic in Florence. She focuses on three categories in which Machiavelli gives paradoxical advice:
* He discourages liberality and favors deceit to guarantee support from the people. Yet Machiavelli is keenly aware of the fact that an earlier pro-republican coup had been thwarted by the people's inaction that itself stemmed from the prince's liberality.
* He supports arming the people despite the fact that he knows the Florentines are decidedly pro-democratic and would oppose the prince.
* He encourages the prince to live in the city he conquers. This opposes the Medici's habitual policy of living outside the city. It also makes it easier for rebels or a civilian militia to attack and overthrow the prince.

According to Dietz, the trap never succeeded because Lorenzo – "a suspicious prince" – apparently never read the work of the "former republican."<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Dietz|1986}}, p. 796.</ref>