/lit/ - Literature

>>17008790
The importance of the work has little to do with the quality of the work so much as it has historical significance in classic arguments about government. Machiavelli represents a departure from both classical political philosophy, christian political philosophy, and the political philosophy of his contemporaries. There was debate at the time was surrounding the two concepts of 'honestas' and 'utilitas'—that is, honour/honesty/morality and expediency/utility. The conventional wisdom, inherited from Cicero, was that in political rule, honestas is utilitas. By acting honestly, honourable, and morally, you promote the utility of your dominion and people. This is typified by the writings of Erasmus and More, but has long been the orthodoxy of both the classical era (Plato, Aristotle, Cicero) and Christian era. Machiavelli is the first since perhaps Thucydides (in western political thought anyway, Legalism and Chanakya approach similar themes) to challenge this dynamic, focusing instead on utilitas. In fact, he goes even further and completely inverts the relationship, suggesting not that honestas is utilitas, but that utilitas is honestas. That is, acting in accordance to political expediency is what is good and honourable—and above all, truly honest—for a prince to do. Which is why Machiavelli's virtù focuses around those traits which will bring stability, autonomy, and power to a city or state, a far cry from those traditionally attributed with honestas (mostly referring to the Seven Virtues).
In accordance with classical republican theory, for Machiavelli the most important character of any republic is its autonomy and self-direction, what we might calls sovereignty. In the turmoil and torment of Renaissance Italy, cities and territories were frequently changing hands, factionalism and revolt were rife, and major foreign powers were vying for influence. In such, virtue consisted mostly in securing the autonomy of the state. And indeed, the focus on civic virtue in the Discourses is focused to this end as well, though offers different proscriptions. So what the Prince demonstrates is how utilitas—not honestas—will bring about the autonomy and peace of a state, through the accumulation of power and the elimination of civil discord. It is in this sense that utilitas is honestas, the virtù necessary to guarantee the political autonomy is what is good and moral for a Prince to do. Which we the culmination of at the end of the Prince with Machiavelli making a plea to Medici to seize the opportunity to form an autonomous Italy.
This break from morality and politics prefaced and influenced thinkers like Hobbes, Mandeville, and Smith, who likewise overturned the classical conception of political good and ushered in a new era of politics and economics. So even though the Prince itself is not very philosophically rigorous or impressive, what it represents and its influence earn it a deserving spot as a great political reference.