Machiavelli’s political philosophy, as documented in The Prince, is problematic because of its emphasis on the self-interest of political leaders. Leaders should achieve and encourage to serve something larger than themselves, but Machiavelli’s prince seeks only to preserve power for himself. As for the rest of Machiavelli’s existence, many of his works are based on making ready princes into leaders. In early Italy, during the medieval period, situations were catastrophic. The country was suffering from a nation takeover and invasion from various countries like France and Spain. “In Rome, the corrupt Alexander Borgia won the Papal election through bribery, and he rapidly appropriated the church’s wealth for his own family’s benefit” (Dr. Wheeler, 1998)1. Machiavelli’s focus on tyranny was more of a disciplined action than that of totalitarianism. His instinctive ideas of a dictatorship were based on the resulting effects of the previous conditions of Rome.
“Niccolò Machiavelli was born into this unstable time of shifting fortunes in the year 1469. He served in a number of minor government positions, and was banished or imprisoned at various points of his career. One of his most notable positions was serving as a sort of political advisor to the Borgia family.”1
Regarding Machiavelli’s position in government involvement in Italy is primarily due to his position as a political advisor. The head of the family during this time was Alexia Borgia, the Pope. The rumors of the Borgia family installed the pertained fear that was there for any reliance on Machiavelli’s power. “The eldest son was Cesare Borgia, a bloodthirsty young warlord; the younger daughter Lucrezia was rumored to have poisoned her way through several husbands in order to stuff the Borgia coffers with golden inheritances. The name “Borgia” was synonymous with betrayal, murder, and powermongering.”1 There was no deception to Machiavelli following the same order to the people of Italy with the disciplines of the Borgia family.
“Machiavelli, disillusioned with the ineffectual bickering and infighting among the Italian cities, saw the effectiveness of the Borgia family members in seizing and maintaining their power. He formulated his own theory of effective government in a treatise known as “The Prince,” and he based his ideal “Prince” on Cesare Borgia’s life. He famously asserted that good rulers sometimes have to learn “not to be good,” they have to be willing to set aside ethical concerns of justice, honesty, and kindness in order to maintain the stability of the state.”1 Machiavelli roots of his intentions were taught by a surrounding of bribery, forgery, murder, and no retaliation. The idea of this in modern day society would not suffice to millennial people reading the works of Machiavelli currently, yet since the Borgia family were considered descendants of a more divine content- these thoughts and ideas were motioned to serve a purpose of divine kingship. The regime implied that the King was bestowed by a divine power, and that God himself appointed leaders to be king of the land. The so-called prophecy stated “in which the king was appointed by God for the express purpose of serving as a sort of celestial deputy on earth, upholding law and justice. In popular medieval belief, the king was thought to be a “primate,” an avatar of human virtue with innate authority over lesser beings in the cosmological hierarchy.”1
The actuality of the surpassing of every king and their divine power came from a Pope. The Borgia family was the most powerful house of power in Rome during Machiavelli’s rule. Yet in contrast- Machiavelli did not believe all that the Borgia family had to say about the rise of power. Machiavelli’s approach was an argument, where he stated that most successful kings were not the ones who acted according to dictates of law, or justice, or conscience, but those willing to do whatever was necessary to preserve their own power- which in the preserved the nature of the state.
“Having recovered credibility, and not wanting to have to put the loyalty of the French or anyone else to the test, Borgia turned to trickery. He was so good at disguising his intentions that even the Orsini made peace with him, sending Paulo Orsini as mediator.”2 (The Prince, Machiavelli 7.7).
This particular line from The Prince by Machiavelli, he starts explaining the Borgia’s insider situation of kingship. Machiavelli primarily used The Prince to incorporate a how-to-guide in making “inherited princes” into country leaders, or what he otherwise called King ship. This line interprets as Machiavelli’s right hand man, Cesare Borgia, teaches us that sometimes you have to “turn to trickery.” Since Machiavelli says over and over again that we should imitate him, we can only assume that we should turn to the dark side, too. The trick is, don’t get caught. Another quote from The Prince, “Borgia was extremely generous to Paulo, reassuring him with gifts of money, clothes and horses, until the ingenuous Orsinis eventually responded and accepted an invitation to Senigallia, thus delivering themselves into the duke’s hands. Having killed the Orsini leaders then and forced their followers to become his allies, Borgia had laid solid foundations for his power: he held Romagna and the Duchy of Urbino and, what’s more, he felt he had won the support of the local people who were beginning to enjoy some prosperity.”2, which incorporates to distinguish a luring an enemy to something he is already knows the obsession for. And once caught in an act of manipulation and enticement- the element of massacre.
For Machiavelli, this wasn’t a bad behavior- instead it was what kept his power and that of the country. “His title, “The Prince,” in fact, is a subtle mockery of the idea that rulers should be noble in their character. The implication of his title is that the idealized Prince Charming is a mere fairy tale. Machiavelli was excommunicated for espousing his views, but his arguments had a profound effect on Renaissance attitudes toward government. In literature such as Renaissance drama, the “machiavelle,” or machiavellian villain, became a moustache-twirling stereotypical villain–the bad guy who appears to be good in front of all his companions in order to betray them all the more effectively. “Machiavellian” became a by-word for treachery, sneakiness, ambition, and ruthlessness.”1
After the time of Machiavelli’s understanding as a political advisor, the most powerful families of Italy started to gain rise in the dictatorship. Soon enough, dictatorship slowly started to take a drastic change in the country. Families like Medici in Florence were intertwined with the idealistic of a complete rule and only power to themselves. “Beginning in 1434 with the rise to power of Cosimo de’ Medici (or Cosimo the Elder), the family’s support of the arts and humanities made Florence into the cradle of the Renaissance, a cultural flowering rivaled only by that of ancient Greece. The Medicis produced four popes (Leo X, Clement VII, Pius IV and Leon XI), and their genes have been mixed into many of Europe’s royal families.”3 (Medici History) The Medici family were the first family to built a bank of commerce, The Medici family, also known as the House of Medici, first attained wealth and political power in Florence in the 13th century through its success in commerce and banking.”2 The European dictatorships were far from identical. They differed in their historical roots, their social contexts their ideologies, and their trappings. But they bore a family resemblance. Political analysis may underplay it; to their victims, it was all too obvious.
“Machiavelli criticized both the Medici regime and the succeeding republic he had served and boldly advised the pope to restore the republic, replacing the unstable mixture of republic and principality then prevailing. Shortly thereafter, in May 1521, he was sent for two weeks to the Franciscan chapter at Carpi, where he improved his ability to “reason about silence.” Machiavelli faced a dilemma about how to tell the truth about the rise of the Medici in Florence without offending his Medici patron.”4 (Mansfield, Niccolo Machiavelli).
“After the death of Pope Leo X in 1521, Cardinal Giulio, Florence’s sole master, was inclined to reform the city’s government and sought out the advice of Machiavelli, who replied with the proposal he had made to Leo X. In 1523, following the death of Pope Adrian VI, the cardinal became Pope Clement VII, and Machiavelli worked with renewed enthusiasm on an official history of Florence.”4
Machiavelli’s decline started to reach its climax when his writings were becoming “controversial” of the time period again causing the ultimate ruin of Machiavelli through his work, with who was responsible, and how his writing pursued the end of his moral ethics toward the people. The first and most persistent view of Machiavelli is that of a teacher of evil. The German-born American philosopher Leo Strauss (1899–1973) begins his interpretation from this point.
“Prior to Machiavelli, works in this genre advised princes to adopt the best prince as their model, but Machiavelli’s version recommends that a prince go to the “effectual truth” of things and forgo the standard of “what should be done” lest he bring about his ruin. To maintain himself a prince must learn how not to be good and use or not use this knowledge “according to necessity.” An observer would see such a prince as guided by necessity, and from this standpoint Machiavelli can be interpreted as the founder of modern political science.”4 Machiavelli’s military theorems also came to play when various critiques were being drawn in. Machiavelli was neither a system builder nor a philosopher in a technical sense. In no single treatise did he rigorously expound his theory of man and government. His views are presented in a diffuse and impressionistic fashion, scattered through a number of different works. At the same time, there is system and remarkable consistency to his ideas, even if the coherence is not the most obvious and depends to a degree upon imaginative reconstruction by the sensitive reader. The Machiavellian Prince’s moral ethics and the morality he consisted to exceed to limits was an ushering promise when readers were audiences of future rulers. The book mainly consisted of “The supreme end of politics, in Machiavelli’s view, the public utility, the security and well-being of the community rather than the moral goal imputed to politics by previous thinker”4 Machiavelli’s political theory is his concept of man’s nature. His reasoning was that man is man out of nature. And man is changeless, meaning that generalizations about politics could not be made because man is power hungry- and essentially evil. “Man’s basic traits are the following: he is a creature of insatiable desires and limitless ambition, and his primary desire is for self-preservation; he is short-sighted, judging most commonly by the immediacy of reward rather than the remote consequences of his actions; he is imitative, inclined to follow the example of authority figures; and he is inflexible, so that behavior patterns established through imitation can be changed only to a limited extent.”4
Machiavelli also incorporated conflict and corruption in his writings, notion that conflict is a universal and permanent condition of society. “The traditional classical and medieval view had been that social conflict is not a natural condition, and many classical and medieval thinkers had tried to design a type of social organization that would eliminate contention. ”4 The moral and ethical grounds of his writings enlightened yet caused various medieval religious royal families a state of disregard. His conclusion was, “The basic manifestation of social conflict, according to Machiavelli, is the perennial struggle between the common people and the great and powerful. While this is clearly a notion of class struggle involving economic factors, Machiavelli’s explanation of the struggle is not couched in economic terms. The primary cause of domestic strife and of war between states is, as he saw it, a lust for power and domination. Within any state, the overwhelming majority seek security for their persons and possessions, while a handful, either a hereditary aristocracy or a commercial oligarchy, desire to dominate the masses.”4 The Machiavellian Prince must be provided with moral virtues and policies (based on the ruse and forces) must master the art of war, the sole object of power. Any peace is thus an armed peace. A good prince will continue if it holds the virtue, sense of anticipation and caution, the art of seizing singular situations. Fortune being a “raging river”, the Prince must notify the throes of destiny, act to anticipate the future. “Machiavelli describes foreign policy as being marked distrust. This distrust is justified by the survival instinct that all states must develop. The world is threatening; Machiavelli advocates the concept of aggressive foreign policy: to attack before being attacked. Thus, the defense of a state justifies all means: “a country is defended either by shame or by fame, or by any other means.” Machiavelli removes the notion of violence his moral connotation. Violence is used to thwart the plans of fortune against men.”5 (WordPress, 2008) For Machiavelli, war is the means of maintaining outer peace, inner peace means to retain power. But at no moment the war is valued as such. The Prince must be a military leader and a skillful political leader.
Citations:
- “Niccolò Machiavelli and ‘The Prince’” Machiavelli and Political Thought, Dr. L. Kip Wheeler , 1998, web.cn.edu/kwheeler/machiavelli.html.
- Machiavelli, Niccolò, and David Wootton. The Prince. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1995. Print.
- History.com. Accessed December 19, 2018. https://www.history.com/topics/renaissance/medici-family.
- Mansfield, Harvey. “Niccolò Machiavelli.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 20 Sept. 2018, www.britannica.com/biography/Niccolo-Machiavelli.
- Tim. “Machiavelli : The Prince (Summary).” Philosophy & Philosophers, 22 May 2012, www.the-philosophy.com/machiavelli-the-prince-summary.