No one can say where the bones of Machiavelli rest, but modern Florence has decreed him a stately cenotaph in Santa Croce, by the side of her most famous sons; recognizing that, whatever other nations may have found in his works, Italy found in them the idea of her unity and the germs of her renaissance among the nations of Europe. Whilst it is idle to protest against the world-wide and evil signification of his name, it may be pointed out that the harsh construction of his doctrine which this sinister reputation implies was unknown to his own day, and that the researches of recent times have enabled us to interpret him more reasonably. It is due to these inquiries that the shape of an “unholy necromancer,” which so long haunted men’s vision, has begun to fade.
No one knows where Machiavelli’s bones lie. But modern Florence has honored him with a grand memorial tomb in Santa Croce, beside its most famous sons. This recognizes that, whatever other nations found in his works, Italy found the idea of its unity there. It also found the seeds of its rebirth among the nations of Europe. It is pointless to protest against the evil meaning his name has acquired worldwide. Still, the harsh interpretation of his teachings suggested by this sinister reputation was unknown in his own time. Recent research has also allowed us to understand him more reasonably. Thanks to these studies, the image of an “unholy necromancer,” which haunted people’s minds for so long, has begun to fade.
Machiavelli was undoubtedly a man of great observation, acuteness, and industry; noting with appreciative eye whatever passed before him, and with his supreme literary gift turning it to account in his enforced retirement from affairs. He does not present himself, nor is he depicted by his contemporaries, as a type of that rare combination, the successful statesman and author, for he appears to have been only moderately prosperous in his several embassies and political employments. He was misled by Catherina Sforza, ignored by Louis XII, overawed by Cesare Borgia; several of his embassies were quite barren of results; his attempts to fortify Florence failed, and the soldiery that he raised astonished everybody by their cowardice. In the conduct of his own affairs he was timid and time-serving; he dared not appear by the side of Soderini, to whom he owed so much, for fear of compromising himself; his connection with the Medici was open to suspicion, and Giuliano appears to have recognized his real forte when he set him to write the “History of Florence,” rather than employ him in the state. And it is on the literary side of his character, and there alone, that we find no weakness and no failure.
Machiavelli was undoubtedly a keen observer, a sharp thinker, and a hard worker. He took thoughtful note of everything around him. Forced to retire from public affairs, he used his outstanding literary talent to turn these observations to good use. He did not portray himself as that rare combination, a successful statesman and author. Nor did his contemporaries describe him that way. He seems to have had only moderate success in his various diplomatic missions and political posts. Catherina Sforza misled him, Louis XII ignored him, and Cesare Borgia intimidated him. Several of his diplomatic missions achieved nothing. His efforts to fortify Florence failed, and the soldiers he recruited astonished everyone with their cowardice. In managing his own affairs, he was timid and acted to please whoever held power. He dared not appear beside Soderini, to whom he owed so much, for fear of damaging his own position. His ties to the Medici were open to suspicion. Giuliano seems to have recognized his true strength. He assigned him to write the “History of Florence” rather than give him a government post. Only in his literary work do we find no weakness and no failure.
Although the light of almost four centuries has been focused on The Prince, its problems are still debatable and interesting, because they are the eternal problems between the ruled and their rulers. Such as they are, its ethics are those of Machiavelli’s contemporaries; yet they cannot be said to be out of date so long as the governments of Europe rely on material rather than on moral forces. Its historical incidents and personages become interesting by reason of the uses which Machiavelli makes of them to illustrate his theories of government and conduct.
Although The Prince has been studied for almost four centuries, its questions remain open to debate and interesting. They concern the timeless problems between rulers and those they rule. Its ethics, such as they are, reflect those of Machiavelli’s contemporaries. Yet they cannot be called outdated while Europe’s governments rely on material rather than moral forces. The historical events and figures become interesting because of how Machiavelli uses them. He draws on them to illustrate his theories of government and conduct.
Leaving out of consideration those maxims of state which still furnish some European and eastern statesmen with principles of action, The Prince is bestrewn with truths that can be proved at every turn. Men are still the dupes of their simplicity and greed, as they were in the days of Alexander VI. The cloak of religion still conceals the vices which Machiavelli laid bare in the character of Ferdinand of Aragon. Men will not look at things as they really are, but as they wish them to be—and are ruined. In politics there are no perfectly safe courses; prudence consists in choosing the least dangerous ones. Then—to pass to a higher plane—Machiavelli reiterates that, although crimes may win an empire, they do not win glory. Necessary wars are just wars, and the arms of a nation are hallowed when it has no other resource but to fight.
Set aside the political maxims that still guide some European and Eastern statesmen. The Prince is filled with truths that can be confirmed at every turn. People are still fooled by their own naivety and greed, just as in the days of Alexander VI. Religion still serves as a cloak for the vices Machiavelli exposed in Ferdinand of Aragon. People refuse to see things as they really are. They see them as they wish them to be, and are ruined. In politics, no course is completely safe. Good judgment means choosing the least dangerous ones. Turning to a higher moral question, Machiavelli repeats that crimes may win an empire, but they do not win glory. Necessary wars are just wars. A nation's weapons are sacred when it has no choice but to fight.
It is the cry of a far later day than Machiavelli’s that government should be elevated into a living moral force, capable of inspiring the people with a just recognition of the fundamental principles of society; to this “high argument” The Prince contributes but little. Machiavelli always refused to write either of men or of governments otherwise than as he found them, and he writes with such skill and insight that his work is of abiding value. But what invests The Prince with more than a merely artistic or historical interest is the incontrovertible truth that it deals with the great principles which still guide nations and rulers in their relationship with each other and their neighbours.
The call for government to become a living moral force came long after Machiavelli’s time. Such a government would inspire people to recognize and respect society’s basic principles. The Prince contributes little to this “high argument.” Machiavelli always refused to describe people or governments as anything other than what he found them to be. His skill and insight give his work lasting value. But The Prince has more than artistic or historical interest. It undeniably deals with the great principles that still guide nations and rulers in relations with one another and their neighbours.
In translating The Prince my aim has been to achieve at all costs an exact literal rendering of the original, rather than a fluent paraphrase adapted to the modern notions of style and expression. Machiavelli was no facile phrasemonger; the conditions under which he wrote obliged him to weigh every word; his themes were lofty, his substance grave, his manner nobly plain and serious. Quis eo fuit unquam in partiundis rebus, in definiendis, in explanandis pressior? In The Prince, it may be truly said, there is reason assignable, not only for every word, but for the position of every word. To an Englishman of Shakespeare’s time the translation of such a treatise was in some ways a comparatively easy task, for in those times the genius of the English more nearly resembled that of the Italian language; to the Englishman of to-day it is not so simple. To take a single example: the word intrattenere, employed by Machiavelli to indicate the policy adopted by the Roman Senate towards the weaker states of Greece, would by an Elizabethan be correctly rendered “entertain,” and every contemporary reader would understand what was meant by saying that “Rome entertained the Ætolians and the Achaeans without augmenting their power.” But to-day such a phrase would seem obsolete and ambiguous, if not unmeaning: we are compelled to say that “Rome maintained friendly relations with the Ætolians,” etc., using four words to do the work of one. I have tried to preserve the pithy brevity of the Italian so far as was consistent with an absolute fidelity to the sense. If the result be an occasional asperity I can only hope that the reader, in his eagerness to reach the author’s meaning, may overlook the roughness of the road that leads him to it.
In translating The Prince, my aim has been an exact, literal translation of the original at all costs. I have preferred this to a smooth paraphrase suited to modern ideas of style and expression. Machiavelli was no careless maker of phrases. The conditions in which he wrote forced him to weigh every word. His themes were lofty, his subject matter serious, and his style admirably plain and earnest. Who was ever more concise in organizing, defining, and explaining his subject? In The Prince, there is truly a reason for every word, and even for each word’s position. For an Englishman of Shakespeare’s time, translating such a work was in some ways relatively easy. English then was closer in character to Italian. For an Englishman today, the task is not so simple. Take one example: Machiavelli uses intrattenere to describe the Roman Senate’s policy toward the weaker Greek states. An Elizabethan would correctly translate it as “entertain.” Every reader of that time would understand “Rome entertained the Aetolians and the Achaeans without increasing their power.” Today, however, that phrase would seem outdated and unclear, if not meaningless. We have to say “Rome maintained friendly relations with the Aetolians,” and so on, using four words instead of one. I have tried to preserve the Italian’s concise force wherever complete faithfulness to its meaning allowed. If the result is occasionally rough, I can only hope readers will overlook it. Their eagerness to grasp the author’s meaning may help them forgive the rough road that leads to it.
The following is a list of the works of Machiavelli:
Here is a list of Machiavelli’s works:
Principal works. Discorso sopra le cose di Pisa, 1499; Del modo di trattare i popoli della Valdichiana ribellati, 1502; Del modo tenuto dal duca Valentino nell’ ammazzare Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, etc., 1502; Discorso sopra la provisione del danaro, 1502; Decennale primo (poem in terza rima), 1506; Ritratti delle cose dell’ Alemagna, 1508-12; Decennale secondo, 1509; Ritratti delle cose di Francia, 1510; Discorsi sopra la prima deca di T. Livio, 3 vols., 1512-17; Il Principe, 1513; Andria, comedy translated from Terence, 1513 (?); Mandragola, prose comedy in five acts, with prologue in verse, 1513; Della lingua (dialogue), 1514; Clizia, comedy in prose, 1515 (?); Belfagor arcidiavolo (novel), 1515; Asino d’oro (poem in terza rima), 1517; Dell’ arte della guerra, 1519-20; Discorso sopra il riformare lo stato di Firenze, 1520; Sommario delle cose della citta di Lucca, 1520; Vita di Castruccio Castracani da Lucca, 1520; Istorie fiorentine, 8 books, 1521-5; Frammenti storici, 1525.
Major works. Discourse on Pisa, 1499. On How to Deal with the Rebellious People of the Valdichiana, 1502. How Duke Valentino Killed Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, and Others, 1502. Discourse on Raising Money, 1502. The First Decade, a poem in terza rima, 1506. Accounts of German Affairs, 1508–12. The Second Decade, 1509. Accounts of French Affairs, 1510. Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy, 3 volumes, 1512–17. The Prince, 1513. Andria, a comedy translated from Terence, 1513 (?). Mandragola, a prose comedy in five acts with a verse prologue, 1513. On Language, a dialogue, 1514. Clizia, a prose comedy, 1515 (?). Belfagor the Archdevil, a novel, 1515. The Golden Ass, a poem in terza rima, 1517. The Art of War, 1519–20. Discourse on Reforming the Government of Florence, 1520. Summary of the Affairs of the City of Lucca, 1520. The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca, 1520. Florentine Histories, 8 books, 1521–25. Historical Fragments, 1525.
Other poems include Sonetti, Canzoni, Ottave, and Canti carnascialeschi.
Other poems include Sonetti, Canzoni, Ottave, and Canti carnascialeschi.
Editions. Aldo, Venice, 1546; della Tertina, 1550; Cambiagi, Florence, 6 vols., 1782-5; dei Classici, Milan, 10 1813; Silvestri, 9 vols., 1820-2; Passerini, Fanfani, Milanesi, 6 vols. only published, 1873-7.
Editions. Aldo, Venice, 1546. Della Tertina, 1550. Cambiagi, Florence, 6 volumes, 1782–1785. Dei Classici, Milan, 10 volumes, 1813. Silvestri, 9 volumes, 1820–1822. Passerini, Fanfani, Milanesi, only 6 volumes published, 1873–1877.
Minor works. Ed. F. L. Polidori, 1852; Lettere familiari, ed. E. Alvisi, 1883, 2 editions, one with excisions; Credited Writings, ed. G. Canestrini, 1857; Letters to F. Vettori, see A. Ridolfi, Pensieri intorno allo scopo di N. Machiavelli nel libro Il Principe, etc.; D. Ferrara, The Private Correspondence of Nicolo Machiavelli, 1929.
Minor works, edited by F. L. Polidori, 1852. Lettere familiari, edited by E. Alvisi, 1883, in two editions, one with passages removed. Credited Writings, edited by G. Canestrini, 1857. For letters to F. Vettori, see A. Ridolfi, Pensieri intorno allo scopo di N. Machiavelli nel libro Il Principe, etc. D. Ferrara, The Private Correspondence of Nicolo Machiavelli, 1929.