What role does Christine believe that a woman should play in her husband's government? Why is it important that "her husband's counsellors . . . think well of her"?
Are the aims of "the wise princess" completely selfish? Would her attempts to be "well regarded by her subjects" remain effective, even if they are motivated by self- interest? What are her reasons for "courting" her subjects? Is this reasoning sound?
Why is it important for a princess to understand household finances? What correlation does Christine suggest between a well-run household and a well-run state?
Why should a princess cultivate a reputation for generosity? What are the advantages of such a reputation, both to the state and to her personally?
MAKING CONNECTIONS
How does the advice that Christine gives to princesses compare with the advice that Niccolo Machiavelli gives to princes (p. 405)? Can The Treasure of the City of Ladies be considered realpolitik (p. 405)? Why or why not?
How does Christine believe that Christian principles should influence government? How do her views compare with those of another Christian thinker, Thomas Aquinas (p. 483)?
How does Christine's feminism compare with that of Virginia Woolf (p. 46) and Gloria Anzaldua (p. 205)? According to each thinker, what strategies can women in male- dominated societies use to make their voices heard?
WRITING ABOUT THE TEXT
Argue for or against Christine de Pizan's notion of "just hypocrisy." Is it possible to accomplish a noble end through evil means? Why or why not?
Compare the advice of Christine de Pizan and Niccolo Machiavelli (p. 405).
Write an essay arguing that Christine de Pizan should be considered a feminist, because she advocates an expanded role for women in public life, or an antifeminist, because she treats women as subordinate to their husbands.
Examine the role of appearance (versus reality) in The Treasure of the City of Ladies. Which, for Christine de Pizan, is more important: for a princess to be good or for a princess to be considered good?
niccolo machiavelli
from The Prince [1513]
FOR NEARLY FIVE HUNDRED YEARS, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), his book The Prince, and the adjective "Machiavellian" have been associated with dishonesty, underhandedness, political maneuvering, and the philosophy that "the end justifies the means." These associations, while carrying an element of truth, have too often been used to dismiss one of the most perceptive works ever written about the way that power works in a political state.
Machiavelli was deeply concerned with the stability of governments, a natural result of the political climate of his native Italy. During his lifetime, Italy had no central government and was divided into city-states, which were constantly at war with each other. Machiavelli, a loyal Florentine, believed that Florence had the potential to unite the other Italian states under its banner.
His devotion to Florence led to a successful career in public service. At a young age, Machiavelli achieved distinction as a Florentine ambassador to the courts of Europe. He wrote a series of insightful reports on foreign governments and thus gained great influence with the government that he served; and he observed countless instances of the damaging effects of weak leaders, unstable governments, and revolutions, experiences that directly shaped the advice he gave to rulers in The Prince. Despite its modern reputation for advising ruthlessness, guile, and secrecy, The Prince was intended to help rulers work for good by staying in power longer—a stable government, Machiavelli argues, would be able to prevent the misery caused by warfare and civic unrest. Ironically, Machiavelli did not write The Prince until the Republic of Florence had fallen and been replaced by the powerful autocrat Lorenzo de' Medici (1449-1492). Machiavelli dedicated The Prince to the new ruler in an attempt to earn his favor, but he was unsuccessful and forced to retire.
The Prince begins with the premise that political power is exercised in the real world and must therefore take into account the unsavory characteristics of real human beings: ambition, cruelty, greed, gullibility, and incompetence. This approach to politics is now known as "realpolitik" and is more associated with Machiavelli than with any other figure in history.
Unlike almost every well-known political theorist who preceded him, Machiavelli does not attempt to instruct rulers how to be moral. He attempts, rather, to show them how to be effective—how to accumulate, exercise, and maintain power. For Machiavelli, this means that, at times, rulers must be cruel, dishonest, duplicitous, and manipulative. Those who loosen their holds on power and focus on enjoying the fruits of power or the luxury of position will not, in the long run, succeed—their principalities will experience misrule, even chaos.
Machiavelli's arguments are inductive in nature and generally proceed from historical examples. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli studies the lives of successful leaders and from them generalizes the ideal qualities of princes.
Chapter XV
Concerning Things for which Men, and Especially Princes, Are Praised or Blamed
It remains now to see what ought to be the rules of conduct for a prince towards subject and friends. And as I know that many have written on this point, I expect I shall be considered presumptuous in mentioning it again, especially as in discussing it I shall depart from the methods of other people. But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of a matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.
Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity. Therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince, and discussing those which are real, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal, another miserly, using a Tuscan[178]term (because an avaricious person in our language is still he who desires to possess by robbery, whilst we call one miserly who deprives himself too much of the use of his own); one is reputed generous, one rapacious; one cruel, one compassionate; one faithless, another faithful; one effeminate and cowardly, another bold and brave; one affable, another haughty; one lascivious, another chaste; one sincere, another cunning; one hard, another easy; one grave, another frivolous; one religious, another unbelieving, and the like. And I know that every one will confess that it would be most praiseworthy in a prince to exhibit all the above qualities that are considered good; but because they can neither be entirely possessed nor observed, for human conditions do not permit it, it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prudent that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would lose him his state; and also to keep himself, if it be possible, from those which would not lose him it; but this not being possible, he may with less hesitation abandon himself to them. And again, he need not make himself uneasy at incurring a reproach for those vices without which the state can only be saved with difficulty, for if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like