Machiavelli The Prince Chapter 2 Analysis

In 1532 The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli was published in Florence. From there, even though it was put on the Popes Index librorum prohibitorum, 1it managed to reach a wide swath of the European population and influence countless heads of state. Even though not officially translated into English until the 1640's, many of the people around the Tudors at the time, and even the husband of Queen Mary I, King Phillip II, were in some way exposed to the absolutist ruling style of Machiavelli. With people like Bishop Stephen Gardiner, Thomas Cromwell and other close advisors to the King/ Queen, The Influence of The Prince reached the British Isles long before it was ever translated into English.

In 1555, a retainer of King Phillip II of

Spain by the name of Bishop Stephan Gardiner wrote a treatise by the name of, The Prince and the Discourses which reads remarkably similarly to the prince. With similar concepts and conclusions as The Prince it is assumed that the treatise was plagiarized while being exposed to the novel in Florence even though Machiavelli is never given any credit to his intellectual property. This was happening during the time of the institution of the Index Librorum Prohibitorium and the subsequent orders to have the books burned were ordered. In all likelihood, Gardiner smuggled the text out of the country before all of the official copies were burned2.

In the Apologia ad Carolum Quintum (1539) it is also mentioned that the author, Reginald Pole, through a direct conversation with one Thomas Cromwell a decade prior, that The Prince was the direct inspiration for Henry VIII to break with Rome3. With this in mind, The Prince could have easily made its way into the hands of Cromwell and by proxy, Henry, though this wouldn’t have been one of the mass circulation copies assuming that the first publication was in 1532, this would have been too early and if Cromwell did have a copy, it would have been transcribed by hand. The critique of the Prince however, was not put into mass circulation until 1744, by which time the prince had already fallen by the wayside as a mainstream guide on how to rule a country. However the publication was received, however, by the time with the break with Rome, the English court would have spread rapidly the ideas of The Prince through the want to be a well-rounded renaissance man (Najemy 14)4.

With that background in mind, by the time of the Gardiner treatise, Machiavelli had not only been banned across the Catholic world, but became central to the discussion of who was allowed to criticize the church. by 1557, the Inquisition ordered the, "utter destruction" of all of the works of Machiavelli, which in a world where anyone could publish anything they wanted, only caused the ideas to become all the more enticing to those who may have otherwise not bothered with them. Gardiner, at the time being the Bishop of Winchester, was in no doubt a Catholic through and through. He did, however, write his treatise praising The Prince just before his death and before the order to burn all of the books came down from the Pope so those works of his were insulated from the order, or at the very least, went unnoticed. What is strange about the entire ordeal, however, is that he wrote the treatise in English and not Latin, in which Gardiner was fluent based upon his previous writings. The treatise was later, in 1556, translated into Italian and then gifted to Phillip II who was Queen Mary I husband. It was then further translated from Italian to Spanish and French shortly after. The man who did all of the translations was a man by the name of George Rainsford, a member of the court of Henry VIII. He translated the treatise into English under the title, A Discourse on the Coming of the English and Normans to Britain, which completely conceals the actual contents of the piece, that being the plagiarized version of The Prince. The entire translation is written as a conversation between two men. One " Stephano" teaches the other, "Alphonso" about English history but through the eyes of Machiavelli. In essence, it is written as a how-to guide on ruling England for people like Phillip II or even Elizabeth I5.

This indicates that at the very least, the English Court, from the time of Henry VIII through the reign of Elizabeth I, were at least aware of the existence of this political theory, even though it would have been considered treasonous to even mention the concept, the ruling style of all the Tudors, would indicate that they at least somewhat, identified with The prince. This was even before the official translation into English in 1640, and by then, the Absolutist king Charles I and the entirety of England, were bracing for a Civil war.

While it is speculation that Machiavelli had any significant influence in the court of Henry VIII and Mary I, it is not speculation that he had significant influence in the court of Elizabeth I. The Prince was not the only novel of Machiavelli's to make it into mass print, another by the name of Art of War (no relation to the Sun Tzu book by the same name) was in mass circulation by as early as 1560. While the ruling class in England began to embrace the principles of Machiavelli, it soon became popular throughout not only England but throughout Christendom to mock the works of Machiavelli. One of these critics, a man named Innocent Gentillet, who in 1576 published the Discours Contre Machievel which was the main reason Machiavelli was associated with Satan as Apologia ad Carolum Quintum would not be published for another 200 years. Later in 1897 would make the case that there were, "no less than 395 references to Machiavelli," but that, "in four cases out of five not to be found in his writings at all, but were all perverted from the same in a manner infinitely unjust" (Meyer). Also mentioned is that the French translations of The Prince, which were translated in 1553 and 1586, would have made their way into England by this time, that being during Elizabeth I reign. with these official translations making their way into the country, many of the upper class, not just the court, would have been exposed to the material most notably being the clergy as well as the merchant class. It would have not however made its way to the rest of the population as the populace at best would only be able to read English. Due to this, and only learned men being able to read and write in French and Latin, it would only be them that would be exposed to the ideas, which would play out to the books strengths as it was only meant to be read by the ruling class or conquerors anyway.

In a later work, the English Author John Cage wrote what would be called today as a critical review of The Prince implying that it would have had enough circulation in English in order to warrent such a review. In the review, he comments that, "my satisfaction has not as of yet been met as the translation into vernacular English has yet to be completely adopted," later stating that, "it has yet to influence the minds of the English people" (Case 2). Which in its own right proves that it was not possible at the time to circulate it to the degree that was needed to sway the hearts and minds of the English people. This would also imply that the earlier copy that was imported in the form of Gardiner's treatise was at the time only being copied by hand and not in mass circulation.

One of the most famous critics, and a personal favorite of the Queen, Elizabeth I, was William Shakespeare. He mentions the political theories of Machiavelli numerous times throughout his play, most notably from Richard III, and Henry VI which in and of itself was a political commentary on what a good king, in this case queen, should govern his(her) people. There are three specific examples, the first being the use of Machiavelli as a state of action or to describe a certain set of behavior, "Alencon! that notorious Machiavel! It dies, an if it had a thousand lives," (Henry VI, Part I). And, "I can add colours to the chameleon, change shapes with Proteus for advantages, and set the murderous Machiavel to school" (Henry VI, Part III). As well as, "Am I politic? am I subtle? am I a Machiavel?" (Richard III). Since Shakespeare had a tendency to make up his own words and to modify existing words for his own purposes, this is the first instance of someone being referred to as Machiavellian, just in a different spelling. Through context, the words, "subtle," "notorious," "murderous," and "politic," are all used to describe one who is Machiavellian, which is the same as the modern interpretation of the word, although today, it might also include: cold, unfeeling, selfish and the like. during this period, this was standard as anything that was perceived as a threat was ridiculed. In actuality, Elizabeth I, in sponsoring these plays covered herself from any kind of association with Machiavellian ideas, and putting to practice one of his mantras, "mock what you believe" and "a man inspired by the Devil to lead good men to their doom, the great subverter, the teacher of evil, le docteur de la scélératesse, the inspirer of St. Bartholomew’s Eve, the original of Iago" (Machiavelli 34, 64). In this manner, Elizabeth is using Shakespeare as her own personal Iago to subvert the masses and to insulate herself further from any association with what at this point would be considered heretical philosophy.

There were some in Elizabeths court whom did not completely despise, or at least pretent to despise Machiavelli, there were a few whom actually supported his ideas and wrote at great length praising the works as how every king should rule their kingdom, the most notable of which being Sir Francis Bacon.

He wrote the De Augmentis Scientairum in which he defended Machiavelli as speaking of and exposing the, "necessary evils that infest the earth" (Bacon book 7 chapter 2, book 8 chapter 2). This theme is the most common, and most well publish opinion of those who supported The Prince as the idea of, "openly and unfeignedly declaring and describing what men do and not what they ought to do" (Bacon Book 5). Was a radical and highly praised idea at the time. This praise, however, only extended as far as the ruling class, and those of the more common people, those who were actually exposed to it, such as Shakespeare, were completely against the philosophy stating that it did the opposite, in that it actually taught people how to be evil rather than exposing already existing evils. Bacon however goes on to say that, "We are much beholden to Machiavelli and other writers of that class, who openly and unfeignedly declare and describe what men do, and not what they ought to do. For it is not possible to join serpentine wisdom with the columbine innocency, except men know exactly all the conditions of the serpent; his baseness and going upon his belly, his volubility and lubricity, his envy and sting, and the rest; that is, all forms and natures of evil," (Bacon Book

8).