From Shakespeare’s plays to modern TV dramas, unscrupulous schemer for whom the ends always justify the means has become a familiar character type we love to hate. So familiar, in fact, that for centuries we’ve had a single word to describe such characters: Machiavellian. But is it possible that we’ve been using that word this whole time?
The early 16th century statesman Niccoló Machiavelli wrote many works of history, philosophy, drama. But his lasting notoriety comes from a brief political essay known as The Prince, framed as advice to and future monarchs. Machiavelli wasn’t the first to do this– in fact there was an entire tradition works known as “mirrors for princes” going back to antiquity. But unlike his predecessors, Machiavelli didn’t try to describe an ideal government or exhort his audience to rule justly and virtuously. Instead, he focused on the of power– how to acquire it, and how to it. And in the decades after it was published, The Prince gained a diabolical reputation. During the European Wars of Religion, both Catholics and Protestants blamed Machiavelli for inspiring acts of and tyranny committed by their opponents. By the end the century, Shakespeare was using “Machiavel” to denote an amoral opportunist, leading directly to our popular of “Machiavellian” as a synonym for manipulative villainy.
At first glance, The Prince’s reputation as a for tyranny seems well-deserved. Throughout, Machiavelli appears entirely unconcerned with morality, except insofar as it’s helpful or harmful to power. For instance, princes are told to consider all the atrocities necessary to seize power, and commit them in a single stroke to ensure future stability. Attacking neighboring territories and oppressing religious minorities are mentioned as effective ways of occupying the public. Regarding a prince’s personal behavior, Machiavelli advises up the appearance of virtues such as honesty or generosity, but being ready to abandon them as soon as one’s interests are threatened. famously, he notes that for a ruler, “it is much safer to be than loved.” The tract even ends with an appeal to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the recently installed ruler of Florence, urging him to unite fragmented city-states of Italy under his rule.
Many have Machiavelli as motivated by unsentimental realism and a desire for peace in an Italy torn by internal and external conflict. According to this view, Machiavelli was the first to understand a difficult truth: the greater good of political stability is worth whatever unsavory tactics are needed to attain it. The philosopher Isaiah suggested that rather than being amoral, The Prince hearkens back to ancient Greek morality, placing the glory of the state above the Christian ideal of salvation.
But what we know about Machiavelli might not fit this picture. The had served in his native Florence for 14 years as a diplomat, staunchly defending its elected republican government against would-be monarchs.
When the Medici family seized power, he not only lost his position, but was tortured and banished. With this in mind, it’s possible to read the pamphlet he wrote from exile as a defense of princely rule, but a scathing description of how operates. Indeed, Enlightenment figures like Spinoza saw it as warning free of the various ways in which they can be subjugated by aspiring rulers.
In fact, both readings might be true. Machiavelli may have written a manual for tyrannical rulers, but sharing it, he also revealed the cards to those who would be ruled. In so, he revolutionized political philosophy, laying the foundations for Hobbes and thinkers to study human affairs based on their concrete realities rather than preconceived ideals. Through his brutal and shocking honesty, Machiavelli to shatter popular delusions about what power really entails. And as he wrote to a friend shortly before death, he hoped that people would “learn the way to Hell in order to flee from it.”