How we cite our quotes: (Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #1
[I]n this case let me refer the reader to what I'll be saying later about when rulers should, or then again shouldn't, keep their promises. (3.16)
In case you didn't know, we'll tell you what he's going to say later: Don't keep your promises, ever.
Quote #2
What's more, you can't in good faith give the nobles what they want without doing harm to others; but you can with the people. Because the people's aspirations are more honourable than those of the nobles: the nobles want to oppress the people, while the people want to be free from oppression. (9.3)
This is a pretty surprising statement from Machiavelli, considering that he spends the rest of the book talking about how pathetic the people are. Okay, but at least they're honorable?
Quote #3
Many writers have dreamed up republics and kingdoms that bear no resemblance to experience and never existed in reality; there is such a gap between how people actually live and how they ought to live that anyone who declines to behave as people do, in order to behave as they should, is schooling himself for catastrophe and had better forget personal security: if you always want to play the good man in a world where most people are not good, you'll end up badly. Hence, if a ruler wants to survive, he'll have to learn to stop being good, at least when the occasion demands. (15.1)
Here, Machiavelli is talking about other writers who tried to say that rulers should act in a morally ideal way. Is he right in his critique? Does this approach only lead to failure?
Quote #4
As for failings that wouldn't lead to his losing power, he should avoid them if he can; but if he can't, he needn't worry too much. (15.3)
What is the difference between failings that would make a ruler lose power and those that wouldn't? And does it even matter?
Quote #5
In ancient times writers used fables to teach their leaders this lesson: they tell how Achilles and many other leaders were sent to the centaur Chiron to be fed and brought up under his discipline. This story of having a teacher who was half-man and half-beast obviously meant that a ruler had to be able to draw on both natures. If he had only one, he wouldn't survive. (18.2)
At the time, it would have been pretty controversial for Machiavelli to give us carte blanche to get in touch with our wild side. For that matter, it's still controversial today, except maybe for contestants on reality TV shows.
Quote #6
So, a leader doesn't have to possess all the virtuous qualities I've mentioned, but it's absolutely imperative that he seem to possess them. (18.5)
"Seem," "appear," "display": these are some of Machiavelli's favorite words and they tip us off that all the morals and ethics of these rulers are just façades.
Quote #7
I'll go so far as to say this: if he had those qualities and observed them all the time, he'd be putting himself at risk. It's seeming to be virtuous that helps; as, for example, seeming to be compassionate, loyal, humane, honest and religious. (18.5)
We imagine a virtuous ruler's conversations might go like this: "What were you planning this weekend?" "Oh I was planning on helping your people overthrow your oppressive regime…. Oops. Hey, why'd you get your sword out?" See why it's better to just seem?
Quote #8
What you have to understand is that a ruler, especially a ruler new to power, can't always behave in ways that would make people think a man good, because to stay in power he's frequently obliged to act against loyalty, against charity, against humanity and against religion. What matters is that he has the sort of character that can change tack as luck and circumstances demand, and, as I've already said, stick to the good if he can but know how to be bad when the occasion demands. (18.5)
Machiavelli talks about not being idealistic, but does he even think that a ruler with all of his rules exists? We're pretty sure you'd explode from the amount of virtù you'd need to control fortune in every single situation. Maybe virtù can conquer fortune because it keeps you nice and flexible.
Quote #9
In this regard it's worth noting that you can be hated just as much for the good you do as the bad, which is why, as I said before, a ruler who wants to stay in power is often forced not to be good. (19.12)
How are rulers "forced" not to be good? Who forces them? It's interesting that Machiavelli doesn't make it a choice, but rather something a ruler must do.