When Nicolo Machiavelli completed his book The Prince in 1513, he most likely was not expecting it to become one of the most controversial texts in literature. The book, roughly eighty pages thick, was not an entirely imposing volume. Yet it found success, and by the 1580’s it was being read by the various Kings and courtiers of Europe. Heavily criticized for their unethical ideas, Machiavelli his book do have their supporters, although not all of them believe in the teachings of The Prince. The book raises serious moral questions, and the innocence of Machiavelli is also up for debate. Are The Prince, and by extension, Machiavelli, evil?
In recent years, many proponents of Machiavelli and his works have come forward. They argue that he himself was not evil, and that his ideas were morally neutral, if not good, in the context of his times. They like to point out that the world of 16th Century Italy was dominated by competing princedoms, all hungry for power, who together kept Italy from reaching her full potential. Under
…show more content…
Clearly, he cannot be entirely good, not if he believes such horrible things. But if Machiavelli views them as the means to a justifiable end, then perhaps he can be redeemed. Arguably, his actions are those of a realist and a patriot. Machiavelli was born and raised within the Florentine republic. In 1507, under threat of invasion, he himself established a Florentine Militia. And even after the city was conquered and the Republic fell, he never left Florence. Some have made the argument that Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” not as a handbook, but as an insult to the invading Medici Prince. As Viroli argues (quoting a 1585 Italian text by Albericus Genntili), “Machiavelli was a strong supporter and enthusiast for democracy…He was extremely hostile to tyranny.” If this is to be believed, the Machiavelli, in fact, was actually a good man, who likely did not support the message of The Prince. (Viroli