I'll Pass on the Hemlock

In Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli wrote, "one who would found a solid and lasting Republic should recognize the defects of each, and, avoiding every one of these forms by itself alone, should create a form of government that would partake of all three" (I.ii., 3). He wanted a combination of these different governments, something that would be have less defects than any one form by itself. This seemed to be his ideal government.

But, in The Prince, he gave advice to on how to be a good monarch. I don't think that this is a contradiction of his position in Discourses on Livy. Machiavelli may not haved changed his mind about the form of government he wanted. Actually, it seems like he was trying to use the existing government to achieve his own ends. In section 26 of The Prince, he wrote, "This opportunity, therefore, ought not to be allowed to pass for letting Italy at last see her liberator appear" (18). He was not necessarily sanctioning monarchy as the best government - he was hoping it could be used to save Italians from a nasty situation.

This may seem like an odd way to influence a ruler - until you remember that he had been tortured by the family of the man he was advising. Machiavelli may not have been willing to play the gadfly here. It would have been much safer to suggest rather than make an insulting speech (remind you of anyone?). If Machiavelli wanted a different form of government than a monarchy, he probably wouldn't want to tell this man!