feat_summary_path: finished_summaries/sparknotes/The Prince/section_3_part_2.txt
feat_book_id: The Prince.chapter ix
feat_summary_id: chapter ix
feat_summary: {"name": "Chapter IX", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210303115306/https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/prince/section4/", "summary": "Concerning the Civil Principality The other way a prince can come to power is through the favor of his fellow citizens. Princes who rise through this route are heads of what Machiavelli calls constitutional principalities. Machiavelli argues that every city is populated by two groups of citizens: common people and nobles. The common people are naturally disposed to avoid domination and oppression by the nobles. The nobles are naturally disposed to dominate and oppress the common people. The opposition between the two groups results in the establishment of either a principality, a free city, or anarchy. The power to form a principality lies with either the nobles or the people. If the nobles realize they cannot dominate the people, they will try to strengthen their position by making one of the nobles a prince. They hope to accomplish their own ends through the prince's authority. The people will follow the same course of action; if they realize they cannot withstand the nobles, they will make one of the people a prince and hope to be protected by the prince's authority. A prince placed in power by nobles will find it more difficult to maintain his position because those who surround him will consider themselves his equals and his selection as prince arbitrary. However, a prince created by the people stands alone at the top. Not only are nobles much harder to satisfy than the people, they are less honest in their motives because they seek to oppress the people. The people, on the other hand, only seek to be left alone. If the people are hostile to the prince, the worst that can happen is desertion. However, if the nobles are hostile, the prince can expect both desertion and active opposition. Nobles are astute and cunning and always safeguard their interests. Nobles will either become dependent on the prince or remain independent of his control. A prince should honor and love those nobles who have become dependent on him. Nobles who remain independent are either timid or ambitious. Timid nobles are benign, but a prince should be wary of ambitious nobles, since they will become enemies in times of adversity. A prince created by the people must retain the people's friendship, a fairly easy task. A prince created by the nobles must still try to win over the people's affection, because they can serve as protection from hostile nobles. Benevolence is the best way to maintain the mandate of the people. If people expect hostility from a prince but instead receive kindness and favors, they feel a great obligation to their prince. Principalities usually face difficulties when switching from a government with limited powers to one that is more absolute. To make this transition, a prince can either rule directly or through magistrates. The prince is more vulnerable in the latter case because he is dependent on the will of his magistrates. In times of adversity, the magistrates may depose him, through direct action against him or simply by disobeying his orders. Moreover, if the magistrates do revolt, the prince will be unable to assume absolute power, because the people are accustomed to obeying the magistrates rather than the prince. In prosperous times, it is fashionable to declare allegiance to a prince. But during times of danger, trusted men become scarce. A wise prince must find a way to ensure that his citizens are always dependent on his authority. Thus, they will always remain loyal.", "analysis": "These chapters describe how different types of princes should establish power, within a state's environment of fluctuating power dynamics. Machiavelli makes an eloquent argument for the importance of a domestic power base. He does not hesitate to acknowledge the necessity of cruelty and crime in establishing this power and even explains how to use cruelty most effectively. He does not advise moderation in the degree of cruelty used, but rather a limit on how long extreme cruelty is to be employed. That is, Machiavelli does not say that princes must be cruel but not extremely cruel. Instead, he argues that cruel acts must be committed as necessary, but all at once and then ceased, so that the populace will forget them. This kind of argument is extremely pragmatic and ignores all questions of right and wrong. Taking historical examples as the basis for his argument, Machiavelli simply describes how power has effectively been deployed and consolidated in the past, and does not assume that human nature will take a turn for the better in the future. Even when princes do not need to rely on cruelty, Machiavelli still describes a necessary, dangerous game of internal politics, which involves the pitting of one group of citizens against another. As a guiding principle, a prince's power invariably depends on internal support. Whether a prince uses cruelty or benevolence to obtain that support is secondary to the necessity of gaining the support itself. Machiavelli is more than the amoral pragmatist he is sometimes made out to be. The distinction made between power and glory indicates that, in Machiavelli's view, some princes are better than others. While any prince can achieve and maintain power, glory remains a more elusive goal. Although Machiavelli is primarily concerned with how princes perform as rulers, he also gives an assessment of the different kinds of princes. Machiavelli's view is that the prince who rises and survives by means of treachery and the prince who succeeds by his innate prowess are both technically princes. But he also admits that the two are not equal in honor or glory, and, perhaps, even moral worth. Moreover, Machiavelli also characterizes the use of cruelty as \"evil. In some cases, cruelty is a necessary evil, and using it can be justified in the interests of some greater public good, like internal stability or protection from invasion. Yet Machiavelli's very recognition of the intrinsic immorality of cruel behavior contradicts the depiction of The Prince as a completely amoral book. Machiavelli's description of class conflict in Chapter IX, which states that there is an inevitable tension between common people and nobles, is also worth noting. Superficially, this statement brings Machiavelli in line with political philosophers such as Karl Marx, who view class conflict as an inevitable aspect of civilized society. But Machiavelli's description of \"classes\" is much less sophisticated than that of Marx. More fundamentally, Machiavelli does not see class conflict as a driving force behind political structures. Rather, it is one of a number of challenges that a prince must learn to negotiate if he is to be successful. Consequently, in describing the great struggle between commoners and nobles, Machiavelli does not side with either group. Instead, his stance is more detached, focusing only on a hypothetical prince's relationship with these groups. One of the most significant components of Machiavelli's argumentative style is his use of definition by division, a rhetorical device that can be quite convincing. This device can be described schematically as \"A prince must accomplish X. Accomplishing X entails either method Y or method Z. Y is preferable to Z, so a prince should choose method Y. It is a logical and practical line of reasoning, but if the original assumption linking the chain of logic is fallacious, then all the conclusions that follow are necessarily questionable. If Y and Z aren't the only way to accomplish X, then the course of action that Machiavelli proposes for a prince is not necessarily the best possible option. One might ask, for example, whether there are other ways of becoming a prince besides prowess, fortune, crime, and favor. And it may be possible that there are other, more various factions within cities besides commoners and nobles. For that matter, it can be argued that there are other more subtle ways to win support than cruelty and benevolence"}
text: 
  But coming to the other point--where a leading citizen becomes the
  prince of his country, not by wickedness or any intolerable violence,
  but by the favour of his fellow citizens--this may be called a civil
  principality: nor is genius or fortune altogether necessary to attain to
  it, but rather a happy shrewdness. I say then that such a principality
  is obtained either by the favour of the people or by the favour of the
  nobles. Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found,
  and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor
  oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the
  people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one
  of three results, either a principality, self-government, or anarchy.
  
  A principality is created either by the people or by the nobles,
  accordingly as one or other of them has the opportunity; for the nobles,
  seeing they cannot withstand the people, begin to cry up the reputation
  of one of themselves, and they make him a prince, so that under his
  shadow they can give vent to their ambitions. The people, finding
  they cannot resist the nobles, also cry up the reputation of one of
  themselves, and make him a prince so as to be defended by his authority.
  He who obtains sovereignty by the assistance of the nobles maintains
  himself with more difficulty than he who comes to it by the aid of
  the people, because the former finds himself with many around him who
  consider themselves his equals, and because of this he can neither rule
  nor manage them to his liking. But he who reaches sovereignty by popular
  favour finds himself alone, and has none around him, or few, who are not
  prepared to obey him.
  
  Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others,
  satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is
  more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress,
  while the former only desire not to be oppressed. It is to be added also
  that a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, because
  of there being too many, whilst from the nobles he can secure himself,
  as they are few in number. The worst that a prince may expect from a
  hostile people is to be abandoned by them; but from hostile nobles he
  has not only to fear abandonment, but also that they will rise against
  him; for they, being in these affairs more far-seeing and astute, always
  come forward in time to save themselves, and to obtain favours from him
  whom they expect to prevail. Further, the prince is compelled to live
  always with the same people, but he can do well without the same nobles,
  being able to make and unmake them daily, and to give or take away
  authority when it pleases him.
  
  Therefore, to make this point clearer, I say that the nobles ought to
  be looked at mainly in two ways: that is to say, they either shape their
  course in such a way as binds them entirely to your fortune, or they do
  not. Those who so bind themselves, and are not rapacious, ought to be
  honoured and loved; those who do not bind themselves may be dealt
  with in two ways; they may fail to do this through pusillanimity and a
  natural want of courage, in which case you ought to make use of them,
  especially of those who are of good counsel; and thus, whilst in
  prosperity you honour them, in adversity you do not have to fear them.
  But when for their own ambitious ends they shun binding themselves, it
  is a token that they are giving more thought to themselves than to you,
  and a prince ought to guard against such, and to fear them as if they
  were open enemies, because in adversity they always help to ruin him.
  
  Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people
  ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they
  only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to
  the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above
  everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may
  easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they
  receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more
  closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted
  to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favours;
  and the prince can win their affections in many ways, but as these vary
  according to the circumstances one cannot give fixed rules, so I omit
  them; but, I repeat, it is necessary for a prince to have the people
  friendly, otherwise he has no security in adversity.
  
  Nabis,(*) Prince of the Spartans, sustained the attack of all Greece,
  and of a victorious Roman army, and against them he defended his country
  and his government; and for the overcoming of this peril it was only
  necessary for him to make himself secure against a few, but this would
  not have been sufficient had the people been hostile. And do not let any
  one impugn this statement with the trite proverb that "He who builds on
  the people, builds on the mud," for this is true when a private citizen
  makes a foundation there, and persuades himself that the people will
  free him when he is oppressed by his enemies or by the magistrates;
  wherein he would find himself very often deceived, as happened to the
  Gracchi in Rome and to Messer Giorgio Scali(+) in Florence. But granted
  a prince who has established himself as above, who can command, and is
  a man of courage, undismayed in adversity, who does not fail in other
  qualifications, and who, by his resolution and energy, keeps the whole
  people encouraged--such a one will never find himself deceived in them,
  and it will be shown that he has laid his foundations well.
  
       (*) Nabis, tyrant of Sparta, conquered by the Romans under
       Flamininus in 195 B.C.; killed 192 B.C.
  
       (+) Messer Giorgio Scali. This event is to be found in
       Machiavelli's "Florentine History," Book III.
  
  These principalities are liable to danger when they are passing from the
  civil to the absolute order of government, for such princes either rule
  personally or through magistrates. In the latter case their government
  is weaker and more insecure, because it rests entirely on the goodwill
  of those citizens who are raised to the magistracy, and who, especially
  in troubled times, can destroy the government with great ease, either
  by intrigue or open defiance; and the prince has not the chance amid
  tumults to exercise absolute authority, because the citizens and
  subjects, accustomed to receive orders from magistrates, are not of
  a mind to obey him amid these confusions, and there will always be in
  doubtful times a scarcity of men whom he can trust. For such a prince
  cannot rely upon what he observes in quiet times, when citizens have
  need of the state, because then every one agrees with him; they all
  promise, and when death is far distant they all wish to die for him;
  but in troubled times, when the state has need of its citizens, then
  he finds but few. And so much the more is this experiment dangerous,
  inasmuch as it can only be tried once. Therefore a wise prince ought to
  adopt such a course that his citizens will always in every sort and
  kind of circumstance have need of the state and of him, and then he will
  always find them faithful.
  
  
  
  
feat_summary_name: Chapter IX
target: Concerning the Civil Principality The other way a prince can come to power is through the favor of his fellow citizens. Princes who rise through this route are heads of what Machiavelli calls constitutional principalities. Machiavelli argues that every city is populated by two groups of citizens: common people and nobles. The common people are naturally disposed to avoid domination and oppression by the nobles. The nobles are naturally disposed to dominate and oppress the common people. The opposition between the two groups results in the establishment of either a principality, a free city, or anarchy. The power to form a principality lies with either the nobles or the people. If the nobles realize they cannot dominate the people, they will try to strengthen their position by making one of the nobles a prince. They hope to accomplish their own ends through the prince's authority. The people will follow the same course of action; if they realize they cannot withstand the nobles, they will make one of the people a prince and hope to be protected by the prince's authority. A prince placed in power by nobles will find it more difficult to maintain his position because those who surround him will consider themselves his equals and his selection as prince arbitrary. However, a prince created by the people stands alone at the top. Not only are nobles much harder to satisfy than the people, they are less honest in their motives because they seek to oppress the people. The people, on the other hand, only seek to be left alone. If the people are hostile to the prince, the worst that can happen is desertion. However, if the nobles are hostile, the prince can expect both desertion and active opposition. Nobles are astute and cunning and always safeguard their interests. Nobles will either become dependent on the prince or remain independent of his control. A prince should honor and love those nobles who have become dependent on him. Nobles who remain independent are either timid or ambitious. Timid nobles are benign, but a prince should be wary of ambitious nobles, since they will become enemies in times of adversity. A prince created by the people must retain the people's friendship, a fairly easy task. A prince created by the nobles must still try to win over the people's affection, because they can serve as protection from hostile nobles. Benevolence is the best way to maintain the mandate of the people. If people expect hostility from a prince but instead receive kindness and favors, they feel a great obligation to their prince. Principalities usually face difficulties when switching from a government with limited powers to one that is more absolute. To make this transition, a prince can either rule directly or through magistrates. The prince is more vulnerable in the latter case because he is dependent on the will of his magistrates. In times of adversity, the magistrates may depose him, through direct action against him or simply by disobeying his orders. Moreover, if the magistrates do revolt, the prince will be unable to assume absolute power, because the people are accustomed to obeying the magistrates rather than the prince. In prosperous times, it is fashionable to declare allegiance to a prince. But during times of danger, trusted men become scarce. A wise prince must find a way to ensure that his citizens are always dependent on his authority. Thus, they will always remain loyal.
feat_summary_analysis: These chapters describe how different types of princes should establish power, within a state's environment of fluctuating power dynamics. Machiavelli makes an eloquent argument for the importance of a domestic power base. He does not hesitate to acknowledge the necessity of cruelty and crime in establishing this power and even explains how to use cruelty most effectively. He does not advise moderation in the degree of cruelty used, but rather a limit on how long extreme cruelty is to be employed. That is, Machiavelli does not say that princes must be cruel but not extremely cruel. Instead, he argues that cruel acts must be committed as necessary, but all at once and then ceased, so that the populace will forget them. This kind of argument is extremely pragmatic and ignores all questions of right and wrong. Taking historical examples as the basis for his argument, Machiavelli simply describes how power has effectively been deployed and consolidated in the past, and does not assume that human nature will take a turn for the better in the future. Even when princes do not need to rely on cruelty, Machiavelli still describes a necessary, dangerous game of internal politics, which involves the pitting of one group of citizens against another. As a guiding principle, a prince's power invariably depends on internal support. Whether a prince uses cruelty or benevolence to obtain that support is secondary to the necessity of gaining the support itself. Machiavelli is more than the amoral pragmatist he is sometimes made out to be. The distinction made between power and glory indicates that, in Machiavelli's view, some princes are better than others. While any prince can achieve and maintain power, glory remains a more elusive goal. Although Machiavelli is primarily concerned with how princes perform as rulers, he also gives an assessment of the different kinds of princes. Machiavelli's view is that the prince who rises and survives by means of treachery and the prince who succeeds by his innate prowess are both technically princes. But he also admits that the two are not equal in honor or glory, and, perhaps, even moral worth. Moreover, Machiavelli also characterizes the use of cruelty as "evil. In some cases, cruelty is a necessary evil, and using it can be justified in the interests of some greater public good, like internal stability or protection from invasion. Yet Machiavelli's very recognition of the intrinsic immorality of cruel behavior contradicts the depiction of The Prince as a completely amoral book. Machiavelli's description of class conflict in Chapter IX, which states that there is an inevitable tension between common people and nobles, is also worth noting. Superficially, this statement brings Machiavelli in line with political philosophers such as Karl Marx, who view class conflict as an inevitable aspect of civilized society. But Machiavelli's description of "classes" is much less sophisticated than that of Marx. More fundamentally, Machiavelli does not see class conflict as a driving force behind political structures. Rather, it is one of a number of challenges that a prince must learn to negotiate if he is to be successful. Consequently, in describing the great struggle between commoners and nobles, Machiavelli does not side with either group. Instead, his stance is more detached, focusing only on a hypothetical prince's relationship with these groups. One of the most significant components of Machiavelli's argumentative style is his use of definition by division, a rhetorical device that can be quite convincing. This device can be described schematically as "A prince must accomplish X. Accomplishing X entails either method Y or method Z. Y is preferable to Z, so a prince should choose method Y. It is a logical and practical line of reasoning, but if the original assumption linking the chain of logic is fallacious, then all the conclusions that follow are necessarily questionable. If Y and Z aren't the only way to accomplish X, then the course of action that Machiavelli proposes for a prince is not necessarily the best possible option. One might ask, for example, whether there are other ways of becoming a prince besides prowess, fortune, crime, and favor. And it may be possible that there are other, more various factions within cities besides commoners and nobles. For that matter, it can be argued that there are other more subtle ways to win support than cruelty and benevolence