Machiavelli’s ability to be largely misinterpreted at the hand of his tactics shows the complexity of *The Prince* in its political and moral representation. Structurally, the essay appears as a handbook for the maintenance of an image in power. A motivated piece like *The Prince* should not be, as political theorist Isaiah Berlin states in reference to Federico Chabod’s writings, “passionate to the point of unrealism” – pointing to the idea that it may even come off as satire [1]. *The Prince* fosters ideas of dominance and popularity by relying on misleading reasoning before developing an enduring sense of leadership and ethics for a ruler. Machiavelli seems to make invalid arguments unapologetically, but I find it strange how he assumes an opponent's position without apprehension. “...he who is highly esteemed is not easily conspired against; for, provided it is well known that he is an excellent man and revered by his people, he can only be attacked with difficulty” [2, ch.19]. From my understanding, this is a naive fallacy at best. Assuming such results and allowing it to dictate the means of getting there roots itself in pretense over strategy. Machiavelli expresses an inherent power disposition, at best, through the people’s accordance with the prince. It could even be referenced as Machiavelli’s own form of a top-down political structure that relies on a leader's reputation through bottom-up politics. Another example of an undeveloped claim is, “Every one sees what you appear to be...in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result” [2, ch. 18]. The generalization of the language in The Prince reveals Machiavelli’s method of focusing on image for effective rule. Machiavelli’s most universal claim throughout the piece is that *the end justifies the means*; an idea proposed as the basis of justification for a ruler’s motives. Though the intent behind this claim is clear, duplicity is enacted by Machiavelli’s presentation of subjectivity. [1] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1971/nov/04/a-special-supplement-the-question-of-machiavelli [2] www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm

I generally agree with this critique. The Prince generally argues for the use of tactics available to the sovereign to create misperceptions' to maintain control of his principality. Machiavelli cites historical accounts most notably Cesare Borgia's use of intimidation and image to solidify his territorial gains, so there is no question that the political landscape at the time did proliferate these sorts of tactics. You could even say that The Prince's principle can be summed up to the exercise of power (or the image of power) to legitimize the purely synthetic link between the Prince and the principality since there is no a priori reason for Prince's subjects to accept him as sovereign. The Prince doesn't mention the famous quote "the ends justifies the means" but he might as would have. Although this is true for The Prince on its own, Machiavelli's later works including Discourse on Livy provide a more diverse analysis on the Machiavellian perspective. You can even say both works contradict each other since Discourse on Livy analyzes the history of Rome and argues in favor of Republics: "A Republic is more prudent more stable, and of better judgment than the prince" (Book 1, Chapter 58). Because of these dissimilarities in his literature, we should put into question the context of The Prince as it might not be as straightforward as it may seem. There are plenty of reasons to believe it was a satire or a hidden exposure of corrupt princely rule (Mattingly, 1958). For instance, it's odd that a treatise written to give advice and gain favor from the Medici mentioned nothing about how to rule Florence (Namari, 2017). Machiavelli, being a playwright and versed in law, uses plenty of rhetorical techniques in The Prince, particularly making bold controversial statements with the intent of making the reader assess their merit rather than blindly accepting them. These rhetorical techniques go way back to Plato in Gorgias (Plato., & Irwin, 1979; Quimby, 1974). So it's possible that The Prince was written to the Medici as a long 'screw you' cover letter with the intention of exposing the abuses of power of monarchs and the multiple tactics employed to deceive their subjects. Instead, Machiavelli got praised as either a political go-getter or demonized as an advocate for tyrannical rule. Machiavelli, N., Bondanella, J. C., & Bondanella, P. (2008). Discourses on Livy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mattingly, G. (1958). Machiavelli's "Prince": Political Science or Political Satire? The American Scholar, 27(4), 482-491. Retrieved January 17, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org.uidaho.idm.oclc.org/stable/41208453 Namazi, R. (2017). The Question of Esoteric Writing in Machiavelli's Works. Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance Et Réforme, 40(2), 7-33. Retrieved January 17, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26398554 Plato., & Irwin, T. (1979). Gorgias. Oxford : New York: Clarendon Press. Quimby, R. (1974). The Growth of Plato's Perception of Rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 7(2), 71-79. Retrieved January 17, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40236876