The Influence of The Prince
By: Carlo Vanz
Since its publication, Machiavelli's The Prince has been much talked and written about, and it is still discussed today due to its very different interpretation. The book caused very strong reactions both good and bad due to its innovative ideals. In fact, the general attitudes toward this book could be roughly summarized in three sections. First, those in favor of Machiavelli and that interpret his message as a praise of either absolutism or republican democracy, then those against him and lastly those who agree with Machiavelli over some points, but not over others.
Beginning with the the group of those who were clearly influenced by Machiavelli's book, it’s possible to group its many representative coming from many different categories of thinkers and politicians in two main factions. In fact, due to its many different interpretation, people found in The Prince a support for many different causes. Some people, like Mussolini, Stalin, or Napoleon read its message as truly depicting Machiavelli’s believes, therefore supporting absolute power. On the other side, some others interpreted The Prince as a satire showing to a careful reader the flaws of the kinds of government he analyses, consequently supporting a republican and democratic power, like the American founding fathers and before that English exponent such as Thomas Cromwell and Henry VIII.
At the same time, many people rejected and criticized The Prince, mainly because of its amoral tone and its denial of the traditional religious role in politics. The Catholic Church put The Prince in the Index of the forbidden books, and people like the English cardinal Pole called it a work of the devil. Moreover, during the period of the Reformation and Counter Reformation Machiavelli gained a very bad reputation as he was seen as Protestant by the Catholics and vice versa. However, even religious writers and exponents eventually followed in some way the guidelines of The Prince while still condemning it, thus introducing the third category of those who had mixed reactions to the book.
These people were those who had come in contact with The Prince and agreed with some of its teachings, but they wouldn't show open support. In fact, the strong condemnation from the Church, which at the time had a huge influential power, scared these people of the negative impact that showing support to Machiavelli’s ideas would have had on their image. The result is that while many people carried out Machiavelli’s teachings, they were formally against him, making it harder for historians to find evidence of direct influence of Machiavelli's thoughts.
Beginning with the the group of those who were clearly influenced by Machiavelli's book, it’s possible to group its many representative coming from many different categories of thinkers and politicians in two main factions. In fact, due to its many different interpretation, people found in The Prince a support for many different causes. Some people, like Mussolini, Stalin, or Napoleon read its message as truly depicting Machiavelli’s believes, therefore supporting absolute power. On the other side, some others interpreted The Prince as a satire showing to a careful reader the flaws of the kinds of government he analyses, consequently supporting a republican and democratic power, like the American founding fathers and before that English exponent such as Thomas Cromwell and Henry VIII.
At the same time, many people rejected and criticized The Prince, mainly because of its amoral tone and its denial of the traditional religious role in politics. The Catholic Church put The Prince in the Index of the forbidden books, and people like the English cardinal Pole called it a work of the devil. Moreover, during the period of the Reformation and Counter Reformation Machiavelli gained a very bad reputation as he was seen as Protestant by the Catholics and vice versa. However, even religious writers and exponents eventually followed in some way the guidelines of The Prince while still condemning it, thus introducing the third category of those who had mixed reactions to the book.
These people were those who had come in contact with The Prince and agreed with some of its teachings, but they wouldn't show open support. In fact, the strong condemnation from the Church, which at the time had a huge influential power, scared these people of the negative impact that showing support to Machiavelli’s ideas would have had on their image. The result is that while many people carried out Machiavelli’s teachings, they were formally against him, making it harder for historians to find evidence of direct influence of Machiavelli's thoughts.
Works Cited:
Allen, J. W. "Machiavelli." Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century. London: Methuen, 1957. 447-94. Print
Raab, Felix. The English face of Machiavelli. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964. Print
Mwinecke, Friedrich. Machiavellism. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1957. Print
Dixon, Vince. “A guide for leaders. Morality be damned”. Chicago Tribune, January 30, 2012. Web. April 20, 2015.
O'Rourke, John. “Machiavelli's the Prince: Still relevant after all these years”. BU Today, February 6, 2013. Web. April 20, 2015.
Raab, Felix. The English face of Machiavelli. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964. Print
Mwinecke, Friedrich. Machiavellism. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1957. Print
Dixon, Vince. “A guide for leaders. Morality be damned”. Chicago Tribune, January 30, 2012. Web. April 20, 2015.
O'Rourke, John. “Machiavelli's the Prince: Still relevant after all these years”. BU Today, February 6, 2013. Web. April 20, 2015.