Synthesized answer
The provided passages do not explicitly state what specific aspects of *The Prince* fueled immediate controversy before its official publication, nor do they offer a detailed explanation of why such a message might have been unsettling in the 16th century.
However, the passages do suggest that *The Prince* examines qualities and actions that might be perceived negatively by some. For instance, it discusses how a prince must know "how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity" [3]. It also explores the idea of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared, and acknowledges that a new prince cannot avoid the "imputation of cruelty" due to the dangers of new states [2]. The text cites actions of figures like Cesare Borgia as examples for those who wish to keep seized states [5], and refers to what has been written concerning the "faith of princes" in relation to keeping promises [5]. These points suggest a pragmatic approach to rulership that might clash with conventional expectations of virtue and morality.
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
ho by valorous ways become princes, like these men, acquire a principality with difficulty, but they keep it with ease. The difficulties they have in acquiring it rise in part from the new rules and methods which they are forced to introduce to establish their government and its security. And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old…
are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only. [1] During the rioting between the Cancellieri and Panciatichi factions in 1502 and 1503. And of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers. Hence Virgil, through the mouth of Dido, excuses the inhumanity of her reign owing to its being new, saying: “Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt Moliri, et late fines custode tueri.”[2] Nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and…
o wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil. Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity. Therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince, and discussing those which are real, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal, another…
osition; its title and patron were changed; and for some unknown reason it was finally dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici. Although Machiavelli discussed with Casavecchio whether it should be sent or presented in person to the patron, there is no evidence that Lorenzo ever received or even read it: he certainly never gave Machiavelli any employment. Although it was plagiarized during Machiavelli’s lifetime, _The Prince_ was never published by him, and its text is still disputable. Machiavelli concludes his letter to Vettori thus: “And as to this little thing [his book], when it has been…
very noticeable principle in Machiavelli, and is urged by him in many ways as a matter of vital importance to princes. In 1500 he was sent to France to obtain terms from Louis XII for continuing the war against Pisa: this king it was who, in his conduct of affairs in Italy, committed the five capital errors in statecraft summarized in _The Prince_, and was consequently driven out. He, also, it was who made the dissolution of his marriage a condition of support to Pope Alexander VI; which leads Machiavelli to refer those who urge that such promises should be kept to what he has written…
More questions about this book
- How would you explain Machiavelli's argument that "the aims of princes – such as glory and survival – can justify the use of immoral means" to someone unfamiliar with the text? What fundamental moral dilemmas does this concept immediately raise?
- Why was writing "The Prince" in vernacular Italian considered a significant innovation, rather than just a stylistic choice? How does this decision reflect broader intellectual shifts happening in the Renaissance beyond just Machiavelli?
- If *The Prince* was intended as an "instruction guide," how might a new prince misinterpret or oversimplify Machiavelli's core theme of justifying immoral means, potentially leading to unintended consequences? What safeguards or deeper understanding would be necessary to avoid such misapplications?
- Imagine you need to explain to a peer why *The Prince* was considered 'especially innovative' for its time. What specific details from this excerpt would you use, and what further questions would you need to investigate to fully elaborate on this innovation?