Misdirection of Machiavelli's "The Prince"

When we were first assigned to read Machiavelli’s political treatise, The Prince, I was unsure of what to expect for its reputation in being deciphered as both a serious and controversial publication. At first, I believed Machiavelli was completely right. Yes, he held some biases and exaggeration of personality traits necessary for ruling, but for the majority of his statements, I was able to see his perspective on the qualities and “Virtù” of what made great leaders. 

However, being assigned to argue against the legitimacy of the novel, I began better understanding and supporting the idea that Machiavelli was more flawed than not in his research and justification for his points. I believe that Machiavelli had many right points, but his hidden agenda, bias, and contradictory statements allowed for the piece to gain an overgeneralized reputation in becoming a wrong guidebook for those seeking to seize and stay in power. 

In The Prince, Machiavelli is essentially writing his extended prose piece with the agenda to be appointed the Medici’s political advisor. Acknowledging this inherent bias and how the entire treatise is dictated by pleasing one elite family and values. This results in the treatise not becoming legitimized in its propaganda for being a piece for all rulers and countries to seek advisement from. 

It is through this lens that Machiavelli created his revived “virtuoso” renaissance man. Deriving from the word “virtus” meaning manliness, throughout the novella, Machiavelli references the virtù necessary for a man to successfully become a respected authoritative leader. Although my initial perception of the different definitions used to explain virtuous characteristics, I soon realized how different and contradictory these are. Within the treatise, Machiavelli references true virtù through the terms of skill, strength, purpose, valor, capacity, prowess, importance, greatness, and resourcefulness. The concept of a virtuous man is created, however, its vagueness shows how Machiavelli has minimal direction and clarity in providing guidance. 

Additionally, the examples that Machiavelli bases his points on are not philosophical or psychological, but rather on rulers that have existed before. This idea seems rather subjective as the success of a ruler is often dependent on the different perspectives of those observing. For example, Machiavelli continues to “never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia as a model to be imitated” (43). However, Cesare Borgia and the Borgia family are infamous for their corruption and mass killing in attempts to conquer the Northern city-states in Italy. This shows how Machiavelli had points in The Prince but had no clear direction or path for others to follow. He wrote an op-ed and it became a go-to reference for political counsel.