Chris SchneiderHonors Government AMr. Mitchell8/16/2010

The Prince

During the 1400s Europe was going through many changes. The Middle Ages

came to an end and the Renaissance was born. With the birth of the Renaissance political

change also emerged. The former feudal system fell apart and in Northern Europe

national monarchies started to emerge. As a result aggression increased and monarchs

looked to expand their territories. During this time in Italy there was political turmoil as

well. When conflict in Italy broke out in 1494 the King of France, Charles VIII, was

given an open invitation to invade Italy. The invasion by France wreaked havoc upon the

Italian political system and Italian life. As a result the humanist Niccolo Machiavelli

advocated for political change and in 1513 he wrote The Prince. In The Prince

Machiavelli outlined his ideals on how to politically successful.

Machiavelli’s first main point pertains to mixed principalities and princes.

According to Machiavelli, mixed principalities are harder to maintain than hereditary

principalities, and princes clearly play an important role in maintaining principalities.

The first issue with maintaining a mixed principality is the ease by which change can

occur. When a new ruler takes control the people of expect change and are willing to

support a new ruler in anticipation of this change. Machiavelli’s statement “…for men

change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to

take up arms against him who rules…” (Machiavelli 2) outlines this idea. Since the

people have no substantial connection to their leader, as they would in a hereditary

principality because of the family line, they do not hesitate to allow another ruler to take

over if they believe they can better their situations. Consequently, trying to maintain a

power of position in a mixed principality is difficult, and these principalities are quite

volatile. An additional problem is that “…you have enemies in all those whom you have

injured in seizing that principality, and you are not able to keep those friends who put you

there because of your not being able to satisfy them in the way they expected…”

(Machiavelli 2) Thus, the ruled have no real bond to the new ruler and the new ruler has

caused injury to the ruled, which has caused the ruler to already lose support and have

enemies. Furthermore, maintaining a mixed principality is difficult because “…as soon

as a powerful foreigner enters a country, all the subject states are drawn to him, moved by

the hatred which they feel against the ruling power.” (Machiavelli 4) However, if the

prince himself resides in the newly acquired principality the possible attackers would

have greater difficulty taking the principality. Machiavelli argues, “He who would attack

that state from the outside must have the utmost caution; as king as the prince resides

there it can only be wrested from him with the greatest difficulty.” (Machiavelli 3)

Machiavelli believed that if the prince resided in the principality he would have a greater

influence on the people, and be more aware of threats to the principality and could thus

act in a more appropriate and brisk fashion and preserve his hold on the principality and

squash any opposition to his power. These various factors outline Machiavelli’s views on

why controlling a mixed principality is harder and the influence a prince has on such a

principality.

Machiavelli’s second main point pertains to the establishment and governance of

cities, old and new. Machiavelli states that there are two different ways to govern and

establish a principality. The first being governed by a prince with a body of servants, and

the other being governed by a prince and barons. The prince’s body of servants “…assist

him to govern the kingdom as ministers by his favour and permission.” (Machiavelli 7)

The barons, on the other hand, “…hold that dignity by antiquity of blood and not by the

grace of the prince. Such barons have states and their own subjects, who recognize them

as lords and hold them in natural affection.” (Machiavelli 7) Thus, the two separate

governances are very different from each other and have the distribution of power spread

out in different fashions. To establish, i.e. either literally establish or take over this type

of principality, there are different processes to do so. In regards to the principality with

the prince and body of servants the prince would need to establish himself as the absolute

authority. In seizing power one will “…recognize great difficulties in seizing the state of

the Turk, [the principality governed by a prince and body of servants] but, once it is

conquered, great ease in holding it.” (Machiavelli 8) Taking power from the price proves

to be difficult in this case because he has the complete backing of his principality and all

of the residents. However, once defeated there isn’t any opposing force to threaten the

new authority and thus maintaining one’s hold as leader proves to be easy. To establish

the latter, however, one must win the favor of the already established local rulers, and is

dependent on their support. Thus, in seizing power:

…one can easily enter there by gaining over some baron of the kingdom, for one

always finds malcontents and such as desire a change. Such men, for the reasons

given, can open the way into the state and render the victory easy; but if you wish

to hold it afterwards, you meet with infinite difficulties, both from those who have

assisted you and from those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have

exterminated the family of the prince, because the lords that remaining make

themselves the heads of fresh movements against you… (Machiavelli 8)

Thus, ceasing the power isn’t the problem in this situation because the power behind the

prince is unsatisfied and allows one’s entry into the principality. However, keeping those

who still have power becomes a challenge and consequently retaining power becomes an

issue.

Another main topic by Machiavelli is law. Machiavelli believed that successful

laws are good laws that are supported by armies, and formerly established laws.

Machiavelli’s statement “The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or

composite, are good laws and good arms…” (Machiavelli 25) supports his view on the

subject. Machiavelli believed that if there were good laws established one needed a good

army as well so there would be a way to enforce the law. This would allow for the

criminals to be punished while the innocent are simply protected. Machiavelli believed

that formerly established laws are successful for the simple reason that it will keep the

people of the principality content. His statement:

…permit them to live under their own laws drawing a tribute, and establishing

within it an oligarchy which will keep it friendly to you. Because such a

government, being created by the prince, knows that it cannot stand without his

friendship and interest, and does it utmost to support him; and therefore he who

would keep a city accustomed to freedom will hold it more easily by the means of

its own citizens than in any other way. (Machiavelli 9)

clearly provides evidence of this belief.

Machiavelli also concerns himself with ecclesiastical principalities. According to

Machiavelli ecclesiastical principalities, i.e. principalities controlled by the Catholic

Church, function more or less like that of a normal principality. The Pope was kept weak

by the “…use of the barons of Rome, who, being divided into two factions, Orsini and

Colonnesi, had always a pretext for disorder, and, standing with arms in their hands under

the eyes of the Pontiff, kept the pontificate weak and powerless.” (Machiavelli 24) This

division of power and turmoil within the principality is similar to that of a principality

consisted of a prince and barons. Similarly:

He [Pope Julius II] kept also the Orsini and Colonnesi factions within the bounds

in which he found them;…he held two things firm: the one, the greatness of the

Church, with which he terrified them; and the other, not allowing them to have

their own cardinals, who caused the disorders among them. (Machiavelli 24)

This is once again similar to a normal principality as well. The Pope applied pressure

and inspired fear amongst those who were causing the political turmoil and weakening

the central power. Thus, there are a variety of similarities between ecclesiastical

principalities and normal principalities.

The fifth main point Machiavelli concerns himself with is evil and immorality.

Machiavelli believed that evil and immoral actions can successfully maintain and cease

power, however, they are not glorious. Machiavelli’s first example of this is:

One morning he [Agathocles] assembled the people and the senate of Syracuse,

as if he had to discuss with them things relating to the Republic, and at a given

signal the soldiers killed all the senators and the richest of the people; theses dead

and held the princedom of that city without any civil commotion. (Machiavelli

17)

He also states “Those [evil actions] may be called properly used, if of evil it is possible to

speak well, that are applied at one blow and are necessary to one’s security…”

(Machiavelli 19) Thus, Machiavelli states that it is possible to gain power and retain it

through evil and immoral actions. However, he also states “Yet it cannot be called talent

to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friend, to be without faith, with-out mercy, without

religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory.” (Machiavelli 17) Consequently,

even though Machiavelli admits that evil and immorality are fairly effective means to

acquire and hold power there is no glory in it and it is a undignified way to obtain power.

An important subject that Machiavelli concerns himself with is military matters

and monetary matters. Pertaining to military matters Machiavelli believed that it is better

to have native soldiers than to have mercenaries or auxiliaries. Machiavelli’s statement:

Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one hold his state

based on these arms, he will stand neighter firm nor sage; for the are disunited,

ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly

before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and

destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by

them, and in war by the enemy. (Machiavelli 25)

clearly acts as evidence. He believed that mercenaries and auxiliaries wouldn’t fight with

all their heart, and take the highest wage offered to them, thus, they could easily be

turned against the hirer. Furthermore, they have no incentive to fight since they are not

defending their own homeland. Additionally, during peacetime the mercenaries simply

take their pay without providing any service. As additional support Machiavelli states

The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you

cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by

oppressing you, who are their master, or other contrary to your intentions; but if

the captain is not skilful you are ruined in the usual way. (Machiavelli 25)

On the other hand, native troops would fight for their leader and their country and

wouldn’t be as likely to chase their own personal ambitions at the leader’s expense.

Finally Machiavelli concludes this discourse on military by saying:

I conclude, therefore, that no principality is secure without having its own forces;

on the contrary, it is entirely dependent on good fortune, not having the valour

which in adversity would defend it. And it has always been the opinion and

judgment of wise men that nothing can be so uncertain or unstable as fame or

power not founded on its own strength. (Machiavelli 30)

Machiavelli then continues with monetary matters. He believed that being frugal is a

better track to go down than being generous. Machiavelli says:

…any one wishing to maintain among men the name of liberal is obliged to avoid

no attribute of magnificence; so that a prince thus inclined will consume in such

acts all his property, and will be compelled in the end, if he wish to maintain the

name of liberal, to unduly weigh down his people, and tax them, and do

everything he can to get money. (Machiavelli 33)

Consequently, the people will become angry and overburden with taxes, even though the

prince was generous with his money. If the prince was frugal with his money, however,

he would not have to overbear his subjects with taxes and will have a surplus of money

which he can occasionally indulge in and appease the people with without having to tax

them.

Machiavelli’s next main point is love, fear, and hatred. Machiavelli believed that

a prince should try to be loved and feared, but not hated. However, if a price must

choose between love and fear, according to Machiavelli, he should choose to be feared.

Machiavelli said:

It may be answered that one should wish to be both [loved and feared], but,

because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared

than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be

asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly,

covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you

their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far

distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. (Machiavelli 35)

As seen, Machiavelli believes that if a prince is feared he will be better off. Machiavelli

believed that men are less likely to betray someone they fear rather than someone they

love. He argues that a feared prince won’t be betrayed because men will be afraid of the

consequences of betrayal. The latter, however, will only result in betrayal because men

will feel that they will be forgiven if they love their prince, and they do not fear any

consequences for betrayal. This argument is evident is this passage:

…men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than on who is feared,

for love is preserved but the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of

men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by

a dread of punishment that never fails. (Machiavelli 35)

With fear, however, a prince must be careful so as to keep from being hated. Machiavelli

outlines his belief on being hated by saying: “

…a prince can easily secure himself by avoiding being hated and despised, and by

keeping the people satisfied with his which is most necessary for him to

accomplish…And one of the most efficacious remedies that a price can have

against conspiracies is not to be hated and despised by the people, for he who

conspires against a prince always expects to please them by his removal; but

when the conspirator can only look forward to offending them, he will not have

the courage to take suck a course for the difficulties that confront a conspirator are

infinite. (Machiavelli 39)

Machiavelli believed that if a prince is hated he must worry about conspiracies against

him and being overthrown. His subjects would be willing to overthrow him if they hate

him, but if they were content with him as a ruler they wouldn’t be anxious to attempt to

overthrow the ruler. To avoid being hated Machiavelli gives this suggestion

It makes him hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious and to be a

violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must

abstain. And when neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority

of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom

he can curb with ease in many ways. (Machiavelli 38)

This concludes Machiavelli’s discourse on love, fear, and hatred.

Machiavelli also discusses truthfulness. Machiavelli believed that a prince should

deceive his subjects into thinking truthful and posses many admirable qualities.

Machiavelli says:

…it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic [cunning and

forceful], and to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple,…,

that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to

be deceived. (Machiavelli 37)

Thus, Machiavelli believed that a prince should build his character on deceit, and to not

be completely truthful. Furthermore Machiavelli said:

…a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip form his lips that is

not replete with the above-named five qualities [merciful, faithful, humane,

upright, and religious], that he may appear to him who sees and hear him

altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious.

This quote further exemplifies Machiavelli’s belief that a prince should deceive his

subjects into thinking what he wants so he can rule without fear of conspiracy. To do this

a prince would need to deceive his subjects into thinking he is merciful, faithful, humane,

upright, and religious so they wouldn’t have any negative feelings toward the prince.

Subversion is another point that Machiavelli touches on. Machiavelli believed

that subversion must be avoided, or else the fall of a prince would be eminent.

Machiavelli believed that one of the greatest threats of subversion came from flatters.

Machiavelli’s statement “He who does otherwise [not allowing his ministers voice their

opinion] is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions

that he falls into contempt.” (Machiavelli 50) outlines his view on flatters. He believed

that the prince should be open to others opinions but be steadfast in his decisions.

Furthermore, he should only ask for opinions when he wants to and should listen to the

opinions he ask for, which is evident in the quote:

A prince, therefore, ought always to take counsel, but only when he wishes and

not when others wish; he ought rather to discourage every one from offering

advice unless he asks it; but, however, he ought to be a constant inquirer, and

afterwards a patient listener concerning the things of which he inquired; also, on

learning that any one, on any consideration, has not told him the truth, eh should

let his anger be felt. (Machiavelli 51)

Overall Machiavelli believed that the prince shouldn’t allow others to control him, or

deceive him with flattery.

The last major point Machiavelli talked about is that of power and leadership.

Machiavelli believed that the power and leadership of the prince must be based solely on

the prince. This is evident in Machiavelli’s quotes “Therefore it must be inferred that

good counsels, whencesoever they come, are born of the wisdom of the prince, and not

the wisdom of the prince from good counsels.” (Machiavelli 51) This evidence proves

Machiavelli’s belief that the prince is the center of leadership and power. He controls the

councils and leads the ministers and makes the ministers themselves great. Thus, the

prince can be a good leader, and control the power of the principality. Furthermore, the

prince should be feared, as previously discussed, to maintain power and to show his

power. The quote:

…men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than on who is feared,

for love is preserved but the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of

men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by

a dread of punishment that never fails. (Machiavelli 35)

exemplifies this thought. The price is able to exert his power over his subjects because

they fear the consequences of their actions and are loyal to him.

Machiavelli’s ideas are so appropriate to the historical realities of his time

because of the political turmoil of his time. With the Middle Ages recently ending the

political situation in Europe was very unstable. Furthermore, with the French invasion of

Italy there was more political turmoil as well. Machiavelli’s ideas, while seemingly

harsh, provided a sound foundation in the tumultuous sea of politics of the time.

Consequently, his ideas weren’t extreme for the time. Thus, Machiavelli’s ideas would

make the territories in Italy strong enough to fight aggressors who wished to invade and

would create stability in a time of great turmoil.

The quote “Machiavelli established a cleavage between political conduct and

personal morality.” truly exemplifies The Prince. Machiavelli did this by providing

historical evidence, and rationalizing his points. Throughout The Prince Machiavelli

provides historical evidence of past leaders who used the methods he suggests and tells

how effective they are. Often times these methods are considered immoral, but they are

effective and benefit the ruler. Additionally, Machiavelli provides reasons why his

methods would work. This would further make a ruler more willing to accept the

proposed methods because they have some reasoning behind the action. He also backs

the political conducts aspect with self-preservation. While he states the certain aspects of

his methods on political conduct are immoral he rationalizes them by preaching self-

preservation and the “greater good”. Consequently, the ruler would once again be more

wiling to allow for immoral political actions to happen and to proceed with these political

actions because they would be acting out of self-preservation, which is a rational action.

Additionally, Machiavelli is an exponent of deception, which then creates an outward

appearance of personal morality. Throughout The Prince he advocates deception. He

tells the reader to deceive his subjects into thinking that they are being taken care of in

the best fashion and their prince is a moral person who wouldn’t do anything to unjustly

harm them. By deceiving his subjects the prince could then act more freely and political

conduct would flow more smoothly. Thus, Machiavelli creates a practical application of

political conduct while separating personal morals so political conduct can be carried out

without the interference of personal morals.

The Prince still has some truth in modern times as well. For example, when

President Obama was on the election tail his campaign slogan was “Change”. After the 8

years of former President Bush’s policies the American people wanted a change in

policy. Thus, President Obama’s slogan was popular. Additionally, the American people

saw this as an opportunity to get rid of the former institution, i.e. the Republican Party,

and vote the Democratic Party into office. This is similar to the idea that Machiavelli

brought up discussing “mixed principalities”. He stated that mixed principalities are

easier to take control of than hereditary principalities because of the people’s lack of

bond to their leader. Another example of Machiavelli’s ideas in the modern world is his

idea of political killings to seize power. In the modern United States political system

physical political killings to seize power don’t happen. However, political killings

happen by killing politicians’ reputations. An example of this was the Ken Buck and

Jane Norton campaign. Jane Norton’s campaign took one of Buck’s comments, the

comment being: “Why should you vote for me? Because I do not wear high heels.”, and

claimed that he was sexist because of it. Her campaign attempted to destroy his

reputation and make it impossible for him to get into office because of it. The Prince

does still have modern truth in it but at the same time there has been some progression.

Machiavelli’s The Prince discussed his political ideas for his time. This work

was written to help solve the political turmoil of the time. Machiavelli discussed various

topics, the most important being: mixed principalities and princes, establishment and

governance of cities, law, ecclesiastical principalities, evil and immorality, military

matters and monetary matters, love, fear, and hatred, truthfulness, subversion, and power

and leadership. Machiavelli provided historical evidence and rational to support his ideas.

His ideas were sometimes accepted and used by leaders later in history, and while

Machiavelli’s political treatise The Prince was written in 1513-1514 it still has political

content that pertains to today.