Machiavelli's The Prince - Essay Example

 Niccolo Machiavelli lived in 15th and 16th century Florence. Little is known of his early life. Near the end of the 15th century he became a partof the Florentine Chancery. He enjoyed a close relationship with Piero Soderini until the republican government was overthrown by the Medici family. Out of a job and willing to do anything to get back into public service, Machiavelli sat down to write a book that he hoped would be useful to the new ruler of Florence, Lorenzo de’ Medici. In writing the book as a gift for the new prince of the city, he hoped Lorenzo would realize his usefulness and reinstate him to a position in government. Unfortunately, for Niccolo Machiavelli, this was not to be. He never gained the favor of the new prince and was never reinstated into any governmental positions. Machiavelli’s The Prince was not published until after the author died. Immediately upon publication, the controversy began concerning the content and philosophy of The Prince. Machiavelli was attacked on all sides. In 1559, Pope Paul IV of the Catholic Church placed The Prince on their “do not read” list, referred to as the Index Librorum Prohibitorum or simply the Index. These were books deemed to be immoral by the church so no Catholic scholar or lay person was to ever read them or discuss them. Beyond the Catholic Church, in Protestantism, Machiavelli’s name became synonymous with the Devil. He was portrayed in Elizabethan literature as an atheist and child of the Devil. It was from his treatment in Elizabethan literature where the words Machiavellian and Machiavellianism were born. How could one little book arouse such animosity? What was so upsetting about the things Machiavelli wrote in The Prince? In a word, morality is the main issue for most of the detractors of Machiavelli and The Prince. In an age when official sanctions from the Church were viewed as the blessings of heaven and lordship was so closely associated with the Lord, leaders were expected to follow certain moral codes if they were to be considered good. In one small book, Machiavelli stood this theory of governance on its head by suggesting that the effective leader must look beyond morality and at times cast it aside if he is to obtain or retain his position of power. In Chapter XV, Machiavelli explains how princes need not worry about virtue and vice. They must focus on what will keep them in power. He states, And, moreover, he need not worry about incurring the bad reputation of those vices without which if would be difficult to hold his state; since, carefully taking everything into account, he will discover that something which appears to be a virtue, if pursued, will end in his destruction; while some other thing which seems to be a vice, if pursued, will result in his safety and his well-being (52-53). In other words, the prince needs to not worry about personal morals or ethics. That is important is that he obtain or keep power any way he can. The maxim, “The ends justify the means,” is probably the most famous example of this thought taken from The Prince. The fact that Machiavelli never said this most famous of sayings is evidence to the fact that maybe there is much in The Prince beyond this maxim. Is Machiavelli really as ruthless and single-minded about power as the churches, historians and others who have vilified him over the years suggest? A close reading and knowledge of the historical context that surrounds the book is necessary to answer this question In order to understand the real meaning of what Machiavelli was saying, we need to understand that he wasn’t just writing a book of advice. He was trying to share his wisdom with the new ruler of Florence. It is a book about how things are, not how they should be. This is clearly expressed when Machiavelli writes, And many writers have imagined for themselves republics and principalities that have never been seen nor known to exist in reality; for there is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation: for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many that are not good (52). One can almost see the older, wiser Machiavelli putting an arm around the new prince saying, “Look, I didn’t make these rules, and I wish it were some other way, but this is reality and here is how you need to play the game.” An example of this is found in Chapter 18 where Machiavelli poses the question, “…whether it is better to be loved than to be feared…(56)”. Machiavelli’s answer is that it is clearly better to be feared. This is the type of answer that gave rise to the term Machiavellian. But a close examination of Machiavelli’s logic reveals his answer to be a more moderate one that appears on the surface. Machiavelli reveals that it is best for everyone, not just the prince, if he is feared. He explains that he should, “…not worry about the reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal; for with a very few examples of cruelty he will be more compassionate than those who, out of excessive mercy permit disorders to continue, from which arise murders and plundering; for these usually harm the community at large…(55).” In a sense, Machiavelli is telling the prince that it is his job to be cruel if cruelty is needed to maintain order and prosperity. But proof of Machiavelli’s moderation is then seen throughout the rest of the passage in Chapter XVIII. He explains that displays of cruelty must be “…tempered by prudence and humanity…(56)” and that a prince should make himself feared in a manner that does not arouse hatred. He says that two actions should be avoided. The first is taking a person’s life. He acknowledges that this is necessary at times, but should be a last resort. The second action he says should never take place. He said he should never take a person’s property in a display of cruelty. This will surely arouse hatred because he observes, “…for men forget more quickly the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony…(56)” Machiavelli obviously did not believe that all ends justify their means. He did believe in wickedness and to adhering to commonly held rules of conduct. Machiavelli distinguishes between rulers that are cruel for the sake of cruelty and those that are cruel to keep their positions of power. In Chapter VIII, titled On Those Who Have Become Princes Through Wickedness, Machiavelli states that, “…to kill one’s fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; by these means one can acquire power but not glory.” This statement shows that those who would portray Machiavelli as a power mad atheist are not painting an accurate picture (30-31). But in the same chapter, he says that judging a ruler on whether he is cruel or not is not the important issue. He should be judged on how he uses or does not use cruelty. If cruelty is spent for the sake of slaughter, it is wasted. If it is spent on maintaining the prince’s position of power, it is well spent. Indeed, he argues that the judicious use of cruelty could possible prevent the protracted use of this method of governing. A final show of Machiavelli’s moderation is his thoughts on friendship. Machiavelli speaks in Chapter XVIII about how friends can’t be trusted. He describes friends as, “…ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers…(56)” and eager to turn the other way when their help is needed. On the surface, this appears to be a rather low opinion of friendship. But he later claims that, “A prince is also respected when he is a true friend…(74).” Why the duality of feelings about friendship? Machiavelli differentiates between friends won by nobility of character and those purchased with a position of power. As in most ideas in The Prince, some of Machiavelli’s statements seem very harsh, but they are then made more moderate by logical explanations later in the text. Is Machiavelli really the monster the Medieval Church and Elizabethan authors made him out to be? A close reading reveals that The Prince offers much insight into the human condition and situation that is still relevant today. How much force is too much force? Where is the line between interrogation and torture? Are there legitimate and illegitimate ways to gain and keep power? Are they the same in all circumstances? Machiavelli’s The Prince can give us insight into all of these modern questions concerning governance. What it also reveals is not a man obsessed with power at all cost, but instead a man that held considerably moderate views on governance that found himself in a situation where he felt plain speaking and controversial advice could be used to his own benefit. After all, the end does justify the means, right? Bibliography Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. Peter Bondanella. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Read More