成人快手

成人快手 BLOGS - Nick Robinson's Newslog
芦 Previous | Main | Next 禄

The Prince

Nick Robinson | 16:27 UK time, Friday, 11 January 2008

鈥淚 will put the nation鈥檚 interests first. I will put principle before party. I will be open and honest. Thus do those seeking power today seek to persuade those that can confer it upon them that they are worthy of it - that they are, in short, different from most politicians.鈥

How Machiavelli would laugh at this. All this week Radio 4 has been serialising a new translation of Old Nick's most famous work, the Prince, as its Book of the Week (you can hear them here) along with a few introductory words from me about the grandaddy of all spin doctors, special advisers and strategists. If you'd rather read than listen they're re-printed below.

Introduction to the first extract of The Prince

鈥淚 will put the nation鈥檚 interests first. I will put principle before party. I will be open and honest. Thus do those seeking power today seek to persuade those that can confer it upon them that they are worthy of it - that they are, in short, different from most politicians.鈥

How Machiavelli would laugh at this. He would know that, whatever they may say in public, politicians in this age, as in his own, examine, dissect and, yes even on occasions, celebrate the black arts of the political trade. In private and amongst consenting adults it is a crime to bury bad news only when you鈥檙e caught doing it. It is an error to do favours for your friends only when this is too blatant. It is wrong to seek to wound your enemy only when you are seen to do it too gleefully. Governments wouldn鈥檛 survive long if they were as politically chaste as electorates and even the media now demand. Call this cynicism. Call it realism, Call it wickedness.

That is the debate that has raged ever since The Prince was written almost five centuries ago. It is, first and foremost, a pocket 鈥淗ow to鈥︹ guide to the gaining and retaining of power for any prince - any political leader. It is full of insights - both shrewd and amoral - about how to surf the waves of public opinion and how to defeat enemies whether on the battlefield or in the struggle for popular support.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote his most famous work almost five centuries ago when he was 44 years old. The context - constantly warring Italian states - now seems alien and distant but the insights themselves can often seem relevant to today. The book embodies the knowledge he said he had gained 鈥渙f the deeds of great men鈥. That knowledge encompassed both the good - he鈥檇 had an illustrious career as an ambassador and a politician for Florence - and the bad - he鈥榙 been wrongly accused of conspiracy leading to his arrest, torture, imprisonment and exile.

It was whilst in exile that he wrote the work that would bring him both notoriety and longevity. It led Shakespeare to dub him the 鈥淢urderous Machiavelli鈥 and others to give him the satanic nickname 鈥淥ld Nick鈥. Within a generation the Pope had placed The Prince on the Catholic Church鈥檚 list of 鈥榤ost banned books鈥.

And yet, over the centuries that followed, leaders of men treasured their copies. Oliver Cromwell owned a manuscript copy; Napoleon took his edition to the Battle of Waterloo and Adolf Hitler claimed to keep a copy on his bedside table.

Many of those who spoke ill of the man and his work have never actually read it. Few too of those who speak of others as Machiavellian - a description which is rarely meant to be flattering.

Introduction to the second extract of The Prince

Politicians, it is fashionable to say, 鈥渁re all the same鈥. They put themselves first and think of the people last. They are, it is said with alarming frequency, greedy, lazy and self-interested. What we hear much less frequently is what they - our leaders - really think of you - those whom they lead.

Sure, we take for granted that those who want your support tell us that we are the finest, the fairest, the truest people on the globe but what do they really think? Niccolo Machiavelli鈥檚 The Prince - a kind of 鈥淜now your facts鈥 primer on how to wield power - made his view very plain. So plain indeed that the great English historian, , claimed that it was impossible to read the book without 鈥渉orror and amazement. Such a display of wickedness, such cool judicious scientific atrocity belongs鈥, Macaulay wrote, 鈥渢o a fiend rather than to the most depraved of men鈥漙

You are about to hear what appalled Macaulay so. You will hear Machiavelli describe men as 鈥渦ngrateful and inconstant, simulators and dissimulators, hungry for profit and quick to evade danger鈥. Harsh but fair some might say coming from a man who was writing in middle age after enjoying first great power and prestige and then wrongful imprisonment, torture and exile.

Macaulay was no sentimentalist. His recommendation to princes that they must learn how to be able not to be good and that it is better for them to be feared than loved and better to be mean than generous won him the condemnation of a church that declared such views to be opposed to Christian doctrine.

Before you join in the condemnation look out for insights into the popular mood which hold true still - that as Machiavelli says 鈥渢he common people will be convinced by appearances鈥 that generosity by the state can only follow parsimony鈥 that leaders who are seen as undependable are contemptible鈥

If you are nevertheless shocked by Machiavelli鈥檚 contempt for the people, ponder a little about how common it is for people to hold their leaders in contempt.

Introduction to the third extract of The Prince

In our time, in our part of the world, war is a political choice鈥 a choice, as it happens, that our leaders have taken many times in recent years 鈥 in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Bosnia and Sierra Leone and before that the Falklands. The image of the successful war leader has an enduring appeal for modern politicians and, yes, for the public as well.

In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote that a leader must have 鈥渘o other thought or objective, nor dedicate himself to any other art, but that of war鈥. The future leaders he wrote it for had little choice. What would become the country of Italy was still a collection of warring city-states. What鈥檚 more Florence, Genoa, Venice, Siena and the other duchies were pawns in the rivalry between the Papacy, France, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire.

Machiavelli wrote The Prince - part as a textbook for leaders, part as a job application - drawing on his own experiences which include having led an army. I suspect that Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair might well agree with the sentiment, in this the third extract of The Prince, that it is always better to be a true friend or a true enemy than to remain neutral. The irresolute Prince, he writes, will most often come to ruin. Wisdom consists of choosing the lesser evil.

Machiavelli had once been the chief military adviser to the leader of the Florentine Republic. In 1508, five years before he wrote The Prince, Machiavelli led a thousand troops in an effort to recover Pisa. He succeeded where before others had failed thanks, he believed, to the use of a loyal, indigenous militia of citizens and not, as his predecessors had done, with a mercenary army.

When triumph was soon followed by disaster - the Republic fell, Machiavelli was sacked, seen as a conspirator, imprisoned, tortured and exiled - he had the time to reflect and to write about what he鈥檇 learnt.

Introduction to the fourth extract of The Prince

What place does cruelty have in a leader鈥檚 tool box? None, many will reply but by no means all. In a recent poll, a quarter of all Britons said that torture could sometimes be permissible in the treatment of terrorist suspects. The figure is over a third in the United States - a country where the acceptability of water-boarding - pouring water onto a prisoner鈥檚 face so that they feel like they鈥檙e drowning - is a live issue in the race to replace George Bush.

Niccolo Machiavelli was in no doubt. Cruelty could be well used by princes as well as used badly. It was another of his apparently amoral views that led him and his work, The Prince, to become so notorious.

Machiavelli knew that of which he wrote having himself been imprisoned and tortured after the Florentine Republic fell in 1513. When the returned to power in Florence, he was wrongly accused of taking part in an assassination plot against them.

He was subjected to a device called the strappado. This involved binding his arms behind his back with a rope attached to a pulley, and then dropping him from a height so that his shoulders were dislocated. In prison, he wrote a poem about hearing the sound of other men鈥檚 torture, about the smell and the lice.

And yet, he was in no doubt that cruelty was necessary to keep the people in order recalling approvingly the example of who appointed 鈥渁 resolute and ruthless man鈥 to quell the people of one state and then had the same man cut in two in the main square to appease the people.

Small wonder that one commentator observed at the time, 鈥淓veryone hated him because of The Prince; the good thought him sinful, the wicked thought him more wicked than themselves, so that all hated him.鈥

Introduction to the fifth extract of The Prince

Advisers advise. 鈥淢inisters decide鈥, Margaret Thatcher famously said in a put down to one out-of-control adviser.
The public though have always had their doubts choosing to believe that Sir Humphreys did really control Jim Hacker. Beyond fiction the same was said to be true of Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair; Dick Morris and Bill Clinton; Karl Rove and George Bush.

Five centuries ago, Niccolo Machiavelli fuelled the idea of the adviser as the power behind the throne. The Prince was the distillation of the wisdom he鈥檇 gained over many years as a political, military and diplomatic adviser. Naturally this prince of advisers had a great deal to say about how advisers should be treated. As we shall soon hear, he believed that they should be honoured and made rich. In those days that advice did not carry the dangers it does now!

At the end of the long list of good advice which Machiavelli sought to dispense was how to deal with fortune both good and bad. He had seen more than his fair share of both having risen high and then sunk low when imprisoned, tortured and banished. His advice was that whilst Fortune and God may be the arbiter of half, or even perhaps a little more, of our actions the other half is left for free will to prevail,. This is one of the few mentions in the Prince - a book which shows that Machiavelli believes in the value of human foresight rather than divine providence.

This final extract ends with a plea to the man the Prince was written for - Lorenzo de Medici who Machiavelli hoped would lead Italy back to greatness. This was not Lorenzo the Magnificent, but his grandson who, far from being magnificent is described by historians as arrogant, inept, an imbecile and a buffoon. He was not impressed by Machiavelli`s gift of The Prince, expressing more gratitude for a couple of hounds he was given at the same time.

History judges the book of rather more value than the hounds although it was not until after Machiavelli鈥檚 death that The Prince was published.

Its author is buried in the church of Santa Croce in Florence, a few steps from the tombs of Michelangelo and Galileo. The marble monument carries the legend TANTO NOMINI NULLUM PAR ELOGIUM. 鈥淣o elegy is equal to such a name.鈥

Comments

  • 1.
  • At on 11 Jan 2008,
  • wrote:

Excellent intros, Nick.

It's ridiculous to complain about Machiavelli today, as modern democracy owes him so much. Both The Prince and the Discourses on Livy influenced the English republican writers of the 1640s and 1650s - James Harrington, Marchamont Nedham, Milton, Marvell - who, in turn, had a massive influence on the founding fathers of the U.S.

Over the long term the Discourses, although less famous than The Prince, have had by far the bigger impact on the way the world works. Even so, the The Prince is still a tremendously important book. I never saw Tony Blair as much of a reader, but I bet Gordon Brown's copy is well-thumbed.

  • 2.
  • At on 11 Jan 2008,
  • Neil Small wrote:

Nothing has changed. Nowadays, a politician says he/she will "put the country first". But that is only if those who fund the politician agree. In previous times it was the landowners and the wealthy (including the Church). Nowadays it is business. As long as they are happy, then we the peasants can have the crumbs from their table.

And I'm not a socialist either.

  • 3.
  • At on 11 Jan 2008,
  • wrote:

Of course they haven't changed. What also hasn't changed is the willingness of Journalists and the public to believe them.
One only has to look at the press coverage of Obama's victory in Iowa to see what I mean.

  • 4.
  • At on 11 Jan 2008,
  • wrote:

I enjoyed this series, Nick, and your intros to each episode. I suppose we're bound to look for comparisons with today's politicians, and it's easy to make a few. But I was struck by two things: 1. how few compunctions Machiavelli suggests leaders should have to ensure by fair means our foul they get their own way - murder is fine, if not at times a requirement; and 2. I wondered when exactly we, the people, got the idea into our heads that our leaders need to stand above us in their behaviour and moral rectitude. Perhaps we expect too much, since they are supposed to represent us (in all our lying, devious & manipulative ways.)

Interesting series, anyway.

  • 5.
  • At on 11 Jan 2008,
  • Charles E Hardwidge wrote:

The Prince is good. The Discourses better. The oldest treatise on power is, of course, the Tao Te Ching compiled by Lao Tzu. Machiavelli's works are merely a partial retread of this. They lack the poetic subtlety and balance of the Tao, making for a winding road into darkness, paranoia, and misery. It is little wonder, then, men of low purpose are attracted by them.

  • 6.
  • At on 11 Jan 2008,
  • Chris wrote:

I'm not sure what else would work. Then as now there are people who mindlessly but aggressively defend a flag or a logo, usually as an occupation. And who doesn't work for an organisation that doesn't do that? Then as now most people, who together wield real power, can't be bothered to understand the issues and get involved on the untested assumption of their own powerlessness, and this concentrates power in the hands of the few. Then as now there are wildly opposed sections of society that have to be united under one banner for any administration to function in the first place.

In my experience, the system can deliver what people want if they apply themselves to it. If their views are unpopular, they must necessarily resort to manipulating the system, spinning (ie making their argument as persuasive as possible) and subverting the shallow, maliable, fickle, composite majority view, if indeed any view has widespread agreement. And if a person believes they are the arbiter of popular opinion against the wicked leaders, they should stand for election.

And what if the 'popular' majority view is bad for the country? In my view, politicians' utterances are as true as they can be, most of the time, and leading is partly about supplying a common aspiration, rather than making a cast-iron guarantee about events yet to transpire.

Add in the fact that politicians can't tell all they know about a situation (transparency in politics makes as much sense as transparency in poker) and people would be foolish to feel aggrieved if their representative or leader didn't reflect exactly what they personally felt, or had to make compromises- choose the lesser evil. We place too much stock in what people 'said', when language is crude, aimed at the broadest possible audience and pertaining to an unknowable future.

What's important is accountability since there are always scenarios that are beyond the pail- it's just someone trying to keep their job. But it's wrong to extrapolate from that, that every politician is corrupt, scheming and oliagenous.

The mechanics of keeping power are the same whether one's doing it for the right reasons or not, and Old Nick's writings are a Politics For Dummies guide to how humans naturally behave. He shouldn't be derided for being honest, and "Machiavellian" should equate to an MSc in realistic governing.

  • 7.
  • At on 11 Jan 2008,
  • Alex Jennings wrote:

One of the finest Book of the Weeks to date. So good in fact I've ordered my copy off Amazon. Many of his statements sound bonkers until you hear the explanation then you're forced to agree. Had a look on the web for more info and came across the Machiavelli personality test, scored 82 and I've really no idea if that's good or bad. Maybe there is no good or bad score??
Fascinating that there's a clear explanation why the Iraq war has turned so so badly and the pretty much near success of Hitler, if not for Churchill's uncompromising stand. I wonder if he also had a copy of The Prince? But I need to read the whole text before I make my mind up for certain, can't wait for it to arrive.
And finally well done to you Nick Robinson for the excellent intros, and well done 成人快手 .... again:-)

  • 8.
  • At on 12 Jan 2008,
  • Robin wrote:

Highly interesting series and valuable intorductions.

If you wish to be really scared read the Odessy; Greek tragedy has successfully parodied the phsychology of powerful men for the psat three millenia. History may not repeat itself but human psychology reamins the same. Men of power will go to any lengths to maintain and enhance their influence, including the sacrifice of their own.

It's this lesson we would be wise to heed in the Brown era; after ten years in power this government may go to any lengths to perpetuate its reign. Gainsayers squashed; advice ignored; warnings not heeded; previous errors airbrushed aside.

  • 9.
  • At on 12 Jan 2008,
  • David Evans wrote:

We do have a funny situation, do we not? You yourself would I'm sure say that most politicians are 'in it' for the right reasons, and looking for opportunities to make good things happen for the good of wider society. Yet we (and you) still behave and often profess that all politicians are somehow corrupt, amoral and dishonest. Is the only solution a greater understanding of the art of politics, and a re-adjustment of expectations, amongst the general population? Is that in fact possible, or are we doomed to the mutual disgust with which the rulers and the ruled hold each other?

  • 10.
  • At on 14 Jan 2008,
  • robert wrote:

Nick - I'm about to listen to the readings on the website.

Some years ago I bought a copy on Tewkesbury market which had been through several hands - each adding marginal notes - and so have I.

It can be read in an evening and re read at leisure.

There is another book - Dick Morris's "New Prince" which explains in devilish detail how modern politics works. You can see each party's pro's wheeling out the techniques Morris outlines - sometimes to good effect and sometimes not getting it right.

Maybe that's the next serialisation?

  • 11.
  • At on 17 Jan 2008,
  • Ian Lyon wrote:

Nick - You mention Margaret Thatcher's famous phrase "Advisers advise. Ministers decide". This was said to Neil Kinnock during PMQs when the then PM was taken to task for her government's attempt to dismantle some of the safeguards built into SERPS (the State Earnings-related Pension Scheme).

As it happened, my father, Stewart Lyon, the then president of the Institute of Actuaries had been quoted in The Guardian after giving a speech in-house that was cautiously opposed to a wholesale tinkering with the nation's pension provision without proper consultation about, and careful consideration of, the long-term effects of the proposed changes to people's pension arrangements.

He had not been seeking to advise the government directly; to my knowledge he was then a supporter neither of the Conservatives nor of Labour; but he did see that there were pitfalls in the Government's plans.

We are still a few years away from the full fruition of the changes foreshadowed back then, but it is worthy of note that this present Government has gone a great deal further in helping to destroy our country's reputation as the pensions capital of the Western world.

Perhaps even Machiavelli was not able to think that far ahead; and even if he had, he would surely have recognised that this sort of issue would be a problem for a future Prince.

A case where one should not put one's pension trust in Princes' hands, I venture to suggest.

This post is closed to new comments.

成人快手 iD

成人快手 navigation

成人快手 漏 2014 The 成人快手 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.