Christianity itself conquered the ancient world. Machiavelli explains this, and in so
doing indicates that Christianity conquered in part because it was able to exploit
fundamental defects in classical philosophy’s understanding of the world and its strategy
for ruling the world. At a deeper level, Machiavelli explains the nature of those defects,
and how they too can be conquered, or at least mitigated. Finally, on a still deeper level,
Machiavelli uses these chapters to prepare the reader for what is arguably his most
important project: overturning the classical understanding of nature and replacing it with
a new understanding of human ability that culminates in the attempt to conquer chance.
I believe that Chapters 3 through 5 serve to introduce the reader to argument of The
Prince as a whole by laying out the problem that Machiavelli’s book is meant to solve.
In themselves, these chapters form a coherent argument. It is not the whole argument of
The Prince—far from it. But it is the essential foundation of that argument.
This analysis of Chapters 3 through 5 will argue that Machiavelli’s intent in writing
The Prince reaches far beyond any desire to convey the “rules” of politics to busy
princes. Machiavelli seeks to explain, undo, and supplant a fundamental change in the
human condition since ancient times. He identifies the cause of that change and attacks
it, with the aim of conquering as it had once conquered. The Prince is therefore at once a
descriptive book, which depicts Machiavelli’s times and explains how they got that way;
a philosophic book, which elucidates the permanent, underlying nature of things; and
has to be read, that is an instrument of rule” (Virtue, p. xii). In guaranteeing himself an audience,
Machiavelli made it much more likely that the right kind of reader—one capable of furthering his
enterprise—would read The Prince. (See also Mansfield, New Modes, pp. 11-12.)
3
There may be a deeper level still, indicated by Machiavelli’s persistent and peculiar uses of certain terms,
in particular “cause,” “kind,” and “new.” These terms are fundamental to classical metaphysics, as most
fully developed by Aristotle. Could Machiavelli have been signaling his disagreement with ancient
metaphysics and sketching a replacement? I am indebted to Kalev Pehme for this suggestion, but am
unequipped to explore it further.
6
Convention