Is Machiavelli’s The Prince anything more than a handbook for would-be dictators?
Niccolo Machiavelli was one of the most controversial political theorists in history, most known for his works, the Prince and the Discourses of Livy. He had a questionable political career, going from being a civil servant of Florence to organising a civil militia before eventually being removed by Medici forces. The Prince, the most famous of his two books was written in 1513 during Machiavelli’s 15-year hiatus from political standing and was effectively a handbook for rulers on how to be a successful ruler, directed at Lorenzo de Medici, the Florentin governor at the time. This book, in fact, was written to appease the Medicis in order to regain a political position in Fiorentino politics. Machiavelli has been perceived as a mixed bag by many; some see him as a revolutionary and a realist while others such as Leo Strauss see him as ‘a teacher of evil’(Strauss, 1969). The argument in the Prince is essentially a discussion of power and how it should be utilised, as according to Quentin Skinner ‘an advice-book about the proper goals of princes and how best to achieve them’(Skinner, 1998). In this essay, I will explain how the prince was certainly not a handbook for future tyrants. It was of many things such as a guidebook for rulers to ensure political stability, containing an overwhelming theme of realism including Machiavelli’s explanation of virtu, differentiation of moralities when ruling and his explanation of fortune. Other scholars such as Garrett Mattingly’s interprets the Prince as a satire as well as a book of evil, which I will be arguing against.
A major theme in Machiavelli’s The Prince is the subject of authoritative ruling, which can be interpreted as harsh yet fair or possessing the quality of virtu. For example in Chapter VII of the Prince, Machiavelli tells the story of his Cesare Borgia, Duke of Milan and son of Pope Alexander IV and how he ruled and compared it to Agathocles, ruler of Syracuse, modern-day Sicily. Borgia, as described by Machiavelli, was a perfect ruler with a ‘lofty spirit and far-reaching aims’(Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 1988). His father laid the foundation of his rule over Milan and Borgia built on them, increasing the number of conquests such as luring the Orsini family who led his Roman troops and killing them. Borgia also showed his Machiavellian princely power by appointing Ramiro de Orco to govern Romagna, a state conquered by his father and the governor’s appointment led to the restoration of order in the region, although de Orco did oversee peace and unity over the state, he was also perceived as cruel by his subjects and Borgia concluded by beheading him to show his power and dislike for needless cruelty. Nevertheless, due to external circumstances such as the death of his father and his illness as well as not preventing the appointment of the new pope Julius Alexander who had heavy grievances against Borgia, he was not able to retain his power despite having a solid foundation. In Chapter 8 of the Prince, Machiavelli describes Agathocles did not have a solid foundation and rose from ‘an abject and low position’ to become ruler in Syracuse. (Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 1988) However, the use of his power and the way he assumed was not virtuous according to Machiavelli. Virtu in his sense was the referring of the absolute required qualities for being a successful ruler, such as bravery, political intelligence, and decisiveness. To many scholars, it is unclear as to why Borgia is approved while Agathocles is dismissed. A reason could be that he rose to his position through the way of crime such as organising a massacre of the Senate and the top citizens in Syracuse that was disguised as a meeting so although they both used vicious means, the Greek used it more senselessly. He attained power slaying citizens as well as betraying friends. Borgia already had the foundation laid out for him, he had the ‘fortune’ of that, so although his method of ruling is questionable and did not have a long and successful reign, he used his cruelty effectively and only failed due to external circumstances, Machiavelli calling it the ‘inordinate malice of fortune’ (Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 1988).To Machiavelli, longevity is irrelevant if acts of virtu aren't carried out such as swiftly executing De Orco to appease the citizens of Romagna. Victoria Kahn, Professor at Berkley University, understands the criticisms of Machiavelli's approval of Borgia and disapproval of Agathocles. She reiterates Machiavelli shows that there are two sorts of cruelty and Agathocles’ use was more senseless and Borgia used cruelty well to consolidate his power(Kahn, 1986). This, in my opinion, shows that Machiavelli’s The Prince is in obvious terms, not a handbook for would-be dictators but by distinguishing different types of cruelty and when to use them as well as a focus on how to rule with virtu. It may be difficult to understand and agree with for some, but this passage is crucial to understanding Machiavelli’s political thinking. Agathocles was not an ideal ruler in his eyes because he was a true embodiment of a tyrant which shows Machiavelli does not support evil senseless acts but acknowledges it must be done when needed to keep the state in check.
Another interpretation to argue that the Prince was not a handbook for would-be dictators is its overwhelming theme of realism which especially relates to contemporary times. For example, the significant theme of princely virtu shouldn't be disregarded as these are not only expressed by Machiavelli but also according to Quentin Skinner the Roman moralists Cicero and Seneca who had written extensively on princely virtues. Although Machiavelli has a different interpretation, comparing Cicero and Machiavelli’s interpretation of virtu and especially living in the politically unstable modern age, realists would agree with Machiavelli. Cicero advocates liberal and just ruling and that a leader must also upkeep his word(Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 1988). However, being too virtuous and succumbing to morals is the wrong way to rule, as Machiavelli gives the example of Girolamo Savonolora, who Machiavelli calls ‘an unarmed prophet’(Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 1988). He was a Dominican friar who ruled Florence for a few months well before being ousted by the corrupt Pope Julius Alexander II because of his inability to assert his political authority, as he did not have the quality of princely ‘virtu’(Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 1988). Savonolora’s indecisiveness is a direct reason to why religious morality is a wrong quality to have when ruling. He didn't have the correct attributes to consolidate his power. If you follow religion and a ruler of the state, immorality must be inexcusable, but how can it be such when there are wars to fight and unethical acts to commit for the bettering of the state? This is not a characteristic of a dictator but of a ruler or ‘prince’ that knows how to maintain and stabilise their position. As Quentin Skinner reiterates ‘Rulers are surrounded by the unscrupulous, and if they always act honourably their downfall is inevitable’(Skinner, 1998). Conventional morality must not overcome a prince, it must be divorced from politics and Maureen Ramsay agrees with this. She states that political morality is not about adhering to ideals but is ‘where actions are judged according to the good consequences they promote for the general good of society’(Ramsay, 2007) and this is portrayed throughout the Prince where Machiavelli repeats being virtuous and keeping cruelty only when needed is ideal. His example of Savonarola is just as the friar was obsessed was upholding his religious morals however in this day and age, Machiavelli’s disregard of religious morality, distrust of humans and pessimistic outlook on the state of nature is necessary for modern politics. The Italian does not stoop down to Hobbes’ bleak review of humans and the state of nature where he states ‘and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’ (Hobbes et al., 1996) but Machiavelli’s view can be seen as merely realistic, as he states ‘it has appeared to me more fitting to go directly to the effectual truth of the thing than to the imagination of it’. (Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 1988) Therefore, through this argument, the Prince shows its use by its significant theme of realism throughout.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Furthermore, the portrayal of Machiavelli's prince holds an even further sense of pragmatism in his interpretation of the state of nature and humans in general. Leo Strauss states he was ‘a teacher of evil’ and the very word Machiavellian is associated with cunningness and scheming. However, Strauss could not be more misinterpreted. Machiavelli’s portrayal of a prince is just simply politically correct. For example, he thought every prince should want to be portrayed as merciful and even do merciful acts and oppose ill-used cruelty in Chapter 8 where he states well-used cruelty ‘done out of necessity to protect oneself and then are not continued, but are instead converted into the greatest possible benefits for the subjects’(Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 1988). Linking to the previous paragraph, this quote from the Prince directly tells us Machiavelli didn’t advocate for cruelty but understood its necessity. Cruelty is inevitable because that is simply the functioning of human nature as men are ‘ungrateful and unreliable; they lie, they fake, they're greedy for cash and they melt away in the face of danger’. (Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 1988). It is portrayed in Cicero’s fox-lion theory where the Greek argues fraud and force are associated with the two animals respectively, while Machiavelli in Chapter 18 suggest rulers must become the fox or lion whenever necessary and use their clever qualities well.
Additionally, his view of fortune is also significant in my opinion. For example, in Chapter 25, Machiavelli interprets fortune as ‘a woman’ therefore the political rulers must try to seduce so they can control her, the real picture behind the metaphor being to essentially dictate the state’s future (Skinner, 1998). To truly achieve glory, one must not idly leave imaginary ideals up to fortune or luck but must handle situations effectively and having virtue as well as prudence will significantly help that. Although Machiavelli quotes in that fortune is ‘the arbiter of half of our actions, the other half is up to the prince’, agreeing that fortune will always play a part undoubtedly, it is a ‘violent river’ and the prince’s action must always overcome it (Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 1988). This idea of dismissing fortune not only disapproves of laziness but advocates for innovation and creativity for the state, given the Prince’s historical context being in the age of the Renaissance, an age of cultural revival and rebirth with Machiavelli being an advocate for.
Other interpretations of the Prince suggest that Machiavelli’s work is a satire such as Garrett Mattingly and Ian Johnston as he states ‘the satire has a firm moral purpose – to expose tyranny and promote republican government’ (Mattingly, 1958). The idea of it being a satire is fanciful, the reason given by the scholars being the whole book can be seen as a contradiction to all his other works as well Machiavelli having written satires himself. Mattingly and Johnston have put forward that he was using ironic elements, identifying the worst methods in the hope that tyrants who should follow his advice would get into trouble in their kingdoms. For example, Mattingly, calls the choice of Cesare Borgia satirical as well as the irony in Machiavelli criticising Borgia in other works. Mattingly states Borgia was a ‘bloodstained buffoon whose vices, crimes, and follies had been the scandal of Italy’ (Mattingly, 1958). Rousseau himself mentioned the Machiavelli as a satire in his critically acclaimed The Social Contract. He perceived him as a man of liberty and that choosing the ‘detestable hero’ in Borgia, it shows his hidden aim of showing his true feelings, which are supposed to ridicule the then status quo in Florence to showcase the tyranny(Rousseau,1923). These interpretations are well-argued however nothing of significant substance in my opinion due to it dismissing the realism of the Prince. For example, Machiavelli’s dismissal of Sarvonola’s rule is justified, although he ruled with religious morality and not with tyranny, he ruled a firm theocracy and his own morality led to his downfall and execution. An upkeep of words as Cicero advocates for did not work out in this case for Savronola and this is one of the reasons Machiavelli logic of morality is correct. Also although examples of misinterpretations or Machiavelli contradicting himself are put forward, his interpretation of princely virtu, morality and fortune itself is hugely significant to the whole political sphere. Their analysis simply rejects it wholly and clings on to supposed flaws of the Prince.
In conclusion, it is my solid view that Machiavelli’s The Prince Is certainly not a handbook for would-be tyrants. It is an advice-book for Lorenzo de Medici but more than that it is a timeless and increasingly relevant work of correct political philosophy and just examples. Other interpretations are merely outdated and wrongly interpreted, such Mattingly’s and Rousseaus’ satire interpretation as he just pinpoints certain elements whereas Quentin Skinner and Victoria Kahn for example substantially analyses virtu and fortune and pinpoints the best and most significant theme in the whole of the Prince in my opinion, as he rejects senseless cruelty and encouraging innovation from the prince. Machiavelli did not wish for the downfall of good leaders and rise of tyrants which is why this is not a guidebook to tyrants, as the social historical context should suggest enough with the politically unstable climate in Florence in the 16th century. I believe Machiavelli through the Prince truly wanted a fair ruler for the people, and that he did not oppose religion and morals outright, he knew given his political experiences and unsuccessful rule of Savronola how political morality and princely virtu are necessary in order to rule successfully.
Stuck on your essay?
