Satire
This interpretation was famously put forth by scholar Garrett Mattingly (1958), who stated that "In some ways, Machiavelli's little treatise was just like all the other "Mirrors of Princes", in other ways it was a diabolical burlesque of all of them, like a political Black Mass."[73]
This position was taken up previously by some of the more prominent Enlightenment philosophes. Diderot speculated that it was a work designed not to mock, but to secretly expose corrupt princely rule. And in his The Social Contract, the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau said:
Machiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Cesare Borgia, clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays.
— Social Contract, Book 3, note to Chapter 6.
Whether or not the word "satire" is the best choice, the interpretation is very rare amongst those who study Machiavelli's works. For example Isaiah Berlin states that he cannot find anything other than Machiavelli's work that "reads less" like a satirical piece.[74]
Deceit
Mary Dietz, in her essay Trapping The Prince, writes that Machiavelli's agenda was not to be satirical, as Rousseau had argued, but instead was "offering carefully crafted advice (such as arming the people) designed to undo the ruler if taken seriously and followed."[75] By this account, the aim was to reestablish the republic in Florence. She focuses on three categories in which Machiavelli gives paradoxical advice:
- He discourages liberality and favors deceit to guarantee support from the people. Yet Machiavelli is keenly aware of the fact that an earlier pro-republican coup had been thwarted by the people's inaction that itself stemmed from the prince's liberality.
- He supports arming the people despite the fact that he knows the Florentines are decidedly pro-democratic and would oppose the prince.
- He encourages the prince to live in the city he conquers. This opposes the Medici's habitual policy of living outside the city. It also makes it easier for rebels or a civilian militia to attack and overthrow the prince.
According to Dietz, the trap never succeeded because Lorenzo – "a suspicious prince" – apparently never read the work of the "former republican."[76]
Other interpretations
The Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci argued that Machiavelli's audience for this work was not the classes who already rule (or have "hegemony") over the common people, but the common people themselves, trying to establish a new hegemony, and making Machiavelli the first "Italian Jacobin".[77]
Hans Baron is one of the few major commentators who argues that Machiavelli must have changed his mind dramatically in favour of free republics, after having written The Prince.[78]
