‘The Prince’, written by Florentine politician and philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli, is considered to be one of the most influential works on modern political thought. Written during Machiavelli’s period as a literary writer in the 1500s where his political influence was at its highest, ‘The Prince’ continues as a manual for tyrannical leaders around the world. From Napoleon to Stalin and even as recent as George. W. Bush, Machiavellians continue to be guided by the Italian’s most successful way of attaining and using power in order to “appear established” (197). Throughout the work, Machiavelli asserts key theories about the way in which governments should conduct themselves and reveals brutal truths about human nature and mankind.
When it was written, ‘The Prince’ was aimed at teaching political leaders about how to attain and maintain power (Beavan, Dir., 2013) and alongside ‘Discourses’, it can be considered to be a traditional work in political theory (Berlin, 1972). In addressing the issue of power and how to use it, Machiavelli’s ‘fox and lion’ analogy is crucial to understand the way in which he believes a prince should act. A leader should know how to behave like a “beast” in order to enforce violence. When choosing a beast, he “ought to choose the fox and the lion” (188). A fox is cunning and will allow the prince to master deception but the lion is strong and brave and thus necessary when he needs to carry out his defensive role. [DEVELOP]
Machiavelli uses Cesare Borgia as a “model prince” throughout the book which is indicative of his idea of how a prince should behave and use his power. Borgia was well-known for his brutality as a leader and it is clear that this is what Machiavelli feels is necessary in order to successfully lead a principality. In chapter seventeen, the author affirms that showing too much compassion is unwise and cites Borgia’s use of cruelty in order to reconcile the Romanga. [DEVELOP]
This leads onto a key question in ‘The Prince’ of whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared. For Machiavelli, whilst a prince should ideally possess both qualities, it is “safer to be feared than loved”. Due to the inherent selfishness that humans possess, if a leader creates fear in the people, he is more likely to be respected as, if needed, it is easier for man to break the bond of love than risk punishment due to fear. However, despite the apparent obligation to induce fear, it is important that the prince does not create hatred. Again, using the example of Borgia, Machiavelli states that whilst he was known as a cruel leader, he still managed to be a prosperous prince.
However, many political commentators have criticised Machiavelli’s work here and claimed that based on his writing in 1503, ‘The Prince’ must be satirical work as his opinions on Borgia were the opposite of what they appear in the treatise. There is no clear indication that his assessment of the tyrant has actually changed so it is questionable how genuine the notion of Borgia as a ‘model prince’ actually is (Mattingly, 1958). ‘The Prince’ is often heavily scrutinised for being satire as opposed to being a genuine manual for leaders to follow in order to achieve success. For me, whilst some of Machiavelli’s views on power appear legitimate, it is difficult to understand how such brutality can be encouraged in a political leader. Although, Herder argues that he is merely an Italian or even Florentine patriot, writing about what was necessary for the country to flourish at the time (Mattingly, 1958). Therefore, I would evaluate that whilst there is some pertinence to Machiavelli’s views on power, he is far too contradictory to make a substantial argument here. Rousseau comments on his use of a “detestable hero” conflicting with his beliefs in both ‘Discourses’ and ‘The History of Florence’ (Rousseau, 1762).
It is clear on reading ‘The Prince’- and in particular from chapter fifteen onwards- that Machiavelli is a pessimist when it comes to his view of human nature and what man is truly like. His cynicism directs the book’s argument (Jurdjevic, 2014) in respect to the true form of mankind and this is best seen in both chapters three and seventeen where he summarises a man’s true qualities. It is argued that man is naturally a selfish animal, this is not always necessarily a bad thing but it is, however, an inherent trait that we all possess; essentially, acquisition is a “natural and common” thing (48). This notion is further developed in chapter seventeen where he states that loyalty cannot be taken for granted as humans will be there for you when it is best suited to them but in the face of danger they will turn their backs on you (181).
It would appear that Machiavelli is an advocate of realism due to the way that he portrays himself as a theorist who is willing to depict human nature without any illusions (Mindle, 1985). His arguments concerning the selfishness of mankind are so honest that there could not be another explanation other than his opposition to Renaissance humanism. Contrary to a humanist’s idealistic view of both politics and society, Machiavelli presents us with a truthful depiction of humanity and the ever-present conflict that exists in order for his treatise to be put to “pragmatic use” (Harrison, 2011).
Again, in chapter seventeen, Machiavelli talks about the truths of mankind, claiming man is “ungrateful”, “false” and “cowardly” (181). Marriott argues that ‘The Prince’ is “bestrewn” with the reality of mankind and therefore this justifies the argument that Machiavelli is in fact a realist (Marriott, 2006). This opposes the political thought of Renaissance Italy whereby the people were ignorant to the realities of the political world.
Machiavelli successfully portrays his observations of human activity due to his “brutal” and “ruthless” politics (Berlin, 1972) and through advocating his realist perspective he is able to portray man as he truly is. Mindle claims that the work is a “warning to humanity”. If one were to agree with this statement, I would say that, again, Machiavelli has had success here due to the cruel way in which humanity appears throughout the book. Furthermore, Machiavelli has been praised for his objectivity and realist perspective on politics during 16th century Italy (Mattingly, 1958). So, it is possible to argue that as an objective work, the author has accomplished his goal as ‘The Prince’ is certainly successful in portraying the truth. [DEVELOP]
Specifically, during the first half of his work, Machiavelli focuses on foreign affairs and thus the art of war, suggesting the relative importance to domestic affairs which is more of a focus in the second half. Machiavelli believes that “war is just when it is necessary” (XXVI) and as he says in ‘Discourses’, “actions may be justified by their effects, and when the effect is good…it always justifies the action”. Therefore, clearly Machiavelli is a proponent of war permitting that the end result enhances the interest of the principality. Machiavelli has success in this argument as he manages to encourage the notion of war in order to better a state. According to russiarobinson, George. W. Bush can be considered to be a Machiavellian leader (russiarobinson, 2014), therefore, his decision to go to war following the 9/11 terrorist attacks is a modern example of Machiavellian politics in action. I would suggest that perhaps Machiavelli’s justification for war is a prevalent idea that has influenced many of his readers. Evidently, he has achieved his goal of legitimising war and the use of cru
elty in order to ensure strong leadership and the wellbeing of the state.