Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince: Is It Satire?
By: Carmen Saleme
The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli is a widely talked about and referenced piece of literature, with a big conversation tacked to it: is it a serious manual/guideline that a prince in his time should follow, or is it a satirical work meant to mock the government and political leaders that had him thrown in jail and tortured? Many scholars and critics believed it to be the former until recently, as it is circulating and being talked about again, examined a bit more closely. Where, then, does it stand today? It stands as a satire through and through, criticizing the mechanisms of ruling a principality and those who sought out that kind of power.
The term “Machiavellian” comes from the famous author’s name, meaning, “the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct”, due to how he described obtaining power in the novel: if one wants to take control, he can take it by any means necessary, as long as it ends in the good of the people. The ends justify the means. But how could someone possibly employ some of the methods detailed, and do so easily and without hesitation? One of the methods includes becoming a leader so fierce, the people fear him, and therefore respect him. But the line between feared and hated is blurred in a situation such as this, and the prince must find some sort of balance so he can have the loyalty of his people without worry that they will turn on him. This is a tricky but effective manner of ruling, as the prince who is feared uses intimidation tactics to keep his people in line, and if someone strays from that line, they are punished. Punishing and looming over the heads of citizens as a powerful, merciless entity is nothing new for a ruler, and of course it is effective, but this does not make it a morally correct way to run things, and Machiavelli knows this.
Machiavelli also has a tendency to contradict himself at times, as seen by comparing the book to other pieces he’s written and his life. In the book, Machiavelli writes as if instructing an up-and-coming prince, guiding him down the right path to a secure role as a prince of a principality. However, in his Discourses of Livy, he talks about how a republic should be run. It is difficult to tell which of these political systems he advocates, seeing as he details both the principality and the republic. It can be argued that he is just an intelligent man who knows how to effectively run both systems, but it comes down to which one he regards as the “better” system, and that is where confusion comes from. It is hard to say which he believes to be the better one based on his knowledge of both and how they run, so ultimately, it is up to the reader.
In the end, it is hard to clearly see The Prince for what it is, as it really depends on who the reader is, what their beliefs are, and how they interpret Machiavelli’s beliefs. Perhaps this was an intentional choice that Machiavelli made, as the book has sparked conversation and argument for centuries. In this author’s eyes, it stands as a satire because of the circumstances it was written in and how I interpret the contents.
The term “Machiavellian” comes from the famous author’s name, meaning, “the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct”, due to how he described obtaining power in the novel: if one wants to take control, he can take it by any means necessary, as long as it ends in the good of the people. The ends justify the means. But how could someone possibly employ some of the methods detailed, and do so easily and without hesitation? One of the methods includes becoming a leader so fierce, the people fear him, and therefore respect him. But the line between feared and hated is blurred in a situation such as this, and the prince must find some sort of balance so he can have the loyalty of his people without worry that they will turn on him. This is a tricky but effective manner of ruling, as the prince who is feared uses intimidation tactics to keep his people in line, and if someone strays from that line, they are punished. Punishing and looming over the heads of citizens as a powerful, merciless entity is nothing new for a ruler, and of course it is effective, but this does not make it a morally correct way to run things, and Machiavelli knows this.
Machiavelli also has a tendency to contradict himself at times, as seen by comparing the book to other pieces he’s written and his life. In the book, Machiavelli writes as if instructing an up-and-coming prince, guiding him down the right path to a secure role as a prince of a principality. However, in his Discourses of Livy, he talks about how a republic should be run. It is difficult to tell which of these political systems he advocates, seeing as he details both the principality and the republic. It can be argued that he is just an intelligent man who knows how to effectively run both systems, but it comes down to which one he regards as the “better” system, and that is where confusion comes from. It is hard to say which he believes to be the better one based on his knowledge of both and how they run, so ultimately, it is up to the reader.
In the end, it is hard to clearly see The Prince for what it is, as it really depends on who the reader is, what their beliefs are, and how they interpret Machiavelli’s beliefs. Perhaps this was an intentional choice that Machiavelli made, as the book has sparked conversation and argument for centuries. In this author’s eyes, it stands as a satire because of the circumstances it was written in and how I interpret the contents.
Works Cited:
Macdonald, Don. “The Prince is Not a Satire.” Don Macdonald. October 22nd, 2010. Web.
Mattingly, Garrett. "Machiavelli's Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?" The American Scholar 27 (1958): 482-491.
Belliotti, Raymond Angelo. Niccolo Machiavelli: The Laughing Lion and the Strutting Fox. Print.
Ruffo-Fiore, Silvia. Niccolo Machiavelli An Annotated Bibliography of Modern Criticism and Scholarship. Print.
Barnett, Vincent. “Niccolo Machiavelli: The Cunning Critic of Political Reason.” History Today. Issue 56, History Review, December 2006. Web.
Mattingly, Garrett. "Machiavelli's Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?" The American Scholar 27 (1958): 482-491.
Belliotti, Raymond Angelo. Niccolo Machiavelli: The Laughing Lion and the Strutting Fox. Print.
Ruffo-Fiore, Silvia. Niccolo Machiavelli An Annotated Bibliography of Modern Criticism and Scholarship. Print.
Barnett, Vincent. “Niccolo Machiavelli: The Cunning Critic of Political Reason.” History Today. Issue 56, History Review, December 2006. Web.