How to Rule (or How Not to Rule)

Niccolò Machiavelli didn't live long to see his political treatise becoming a literary classic. He might've been wide eyed, mouth agaped, after finding out how the different kingdoms in the Italian Peninsula were unified and the succeeding leaders applied - and improved - the ideas he wrote in "The Prince". This book, written during the 16th century, was among the first works in modern philosophy. Machiavelli, who was born in Florence on May 3, 1469, was hoping that it would win him political favor. It was met with indifference instead, which turned into public scorn later on. But he was right after all.

Machiavelli came from a middle-class background. He didn't aspire to a literary career, but circumstances changed it. The peninsula was in a perpetual state of political turmoil, the kingdoms wary of invasion. No one ever thought of working together, not even the Vatican. It must contend with the nearby kingdoms (like France), which were more unified and equipped with arms. The young Florentine was worried, wondering if he would ever lived to see a unification (of the states). How could it be done?

Unpatriotic people

Machiavelli saw Lorenzo de' Medici as the only figure who could unite the kingdoms. The Medici family ruled Florence from the 14th century until the 17th century. Lorenzo the Magnificent, as he was called by his contemporaries, was a patron of the arts. Maybe Machiavelli saw a connection.

Although Machiavelli talked about certain virtues, especially the importance of free will, it was a particular kind of politicking that his fellow Florentines would notice. A leader must be harsh, even feared by the people, and the author based it from his own experience. The lack of scruples, or the disregard to it, was what would struck out. In fact, the word "Machiavellian" was coined. In fairness to Machiavelli, he saw lots of unscrupulous leaders during his time without any sense of patriotism. And more politicians were Machiavellian in nature. "The Prince" would be studied, and not a few were shocked.

The guessing game

Imagine Machiavelli to be alive during the 19th century, where he would witness Giuseppe Garibaldi's success in unifying the states. He might be surprised that the general, who had military experience in South America prior to his coming to the peninsula, had the least resemblance to Medici. Would this changed his political outlook? Could "The Prince" be different than what he originally wrote?

If Machiavelli lived through the 20th century, he might be shocked at the tumultuous events that shaped Europe. It was most dramatic in Italy. When the dust was settled, there would be more leaders who believed in the Machiavellian principle. Would the author be saddened by it? It would be silly to compare "The Prince" to the Book of Revelations, but Machiavelli might've opened a Pandora's box.