Niccolò Machiavelli
Niccolò Machiavelli
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527)
was an Italian Renaissance historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and
writer. He has often been called the founder of modern political
science.He was for many years a
senior official in the Florentine
Republic, with responsibilities in
diplomatic and military affairs. He also wrote comedies, carnival songs, and
poetry. His personal correspondence is renowned in the Italian language.Machiavelli is best known for writing
The Prince, a handbook for unscrupulous politicians that inspired the term
"Machiavellian" and established its author as the "father of modern
political theory."
'The Prince'
Though
it was initially a dark period for his career, Machiavelli's time away from
politics gave him the opportunity to read Roman history and to write political
treatises, most notably The Prince. The main theme of this short work
about monarchal rule and survival is man's capacity for determining his own
destiny in opposition to the power of fate, which has been interpreted as the
political philosophy that one may resort to any means in order to establish and
preserve total authority. The work has been regarded as a handbook for
politicians on the use of ruthless, self-serving cunning, and inspired the term
"Machiavellian." While many believe that the book's title character,
"the prince," was based upon the infamous Cesare Borgia, some
scholars consider it a satire.It
must be recognised that The Prince was only a small part of Machiavelli’s
literary output. He wrote much more substantial works, such as the Discourses
on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, the Art of War, a History of Florence,
and even some plays, poetry and biographical sketches. In many ways these other
works were more representative of Machiavelli’s ideas than The Prince.
Secondly, it must be understood that Machiavelli’s work was part of the political
and national context of a Florentine Republic that is 500 years distant from
twenty-first century liberal democracy. Machiavelli’s era was that of the
Medici family, of naked conquest by military force, Machiavelli himself being
imprisoned and tortured for his beliefs and associations, something that was
not at all unusual in this period of European history. Thirdly, Machiavelli’s
political thought cannot be comprehended without an understanding of
Machiavelli the man, of his personal motivations and experiences, and of his
youthful dreams and his eventual professional disappointments. The key aspect
of Machiavelli’s life was the fact that he always desired to occupy political
office. In 1498 as a young man of 29, Machiavelli obtained a job as secretary
to the Second Chancery in Florence, for which he travelled on diplomatic
missions to cities within Italy and courts outside of it. He served in this job
for 14 years, meeting politicians and statesmen across Europe (people such as
Louis XII, the Emperor Maximilian, Cesare Borgia) and gaining experience of the
winding ways of power politics. He also gave advice on military tactics,
successfully organising infantry forces in specific Italian campaigns and
establishing a Florentine militia. However, Florence eventually came under
Papal control and (with Venetian help) the Medici were restored as a ruling
family; Machiavelli had always supported the Florentine Republic and hence in
1512 he lost his job. He was then arrested and tortured, but eventually exonerated
and released. He never returned to political office again.
The Princeis set against the backdrop of the Italian Renaissance, a period
of intense activity in art, science, and literature. Rich, sophisticated, and
cultured, Italy was the center of intellectual achievement in the Western
world, and scholars and artists from all over Europe flocked to it to absorb
its heady atmosphere. Even today, the achievements of Italian artists and
thinkers are prized for their beauty and originality. Michelangelo and Leonardo
da Vinci were Machiavelli's contemporaries, and Florence itself, with its
famous cathedral, was one of the capitals of Renaissance art.
It was also a period of religious change. The decadence and
corruption of the Catholic church, exemplified by the conduct of Pope Alexander
VI, brought about a backlash against Catholic authority. In Germany (at that
time, the Holy Roman Empire), the Protestant Reformation was gathering
strength, led by Martin Luther, the famous German reformer. In politics, as
well, change was brewing. The scattered feudal territories of the medieval
period were slowly being brought under centralized leadership, so that the
outlines of what would become the modern European nations were becoming
visible. The modern concept of the state was being born. War was the ruler's
most valuable tool in this struggle to create unified nations. The complexities
of European politics during this period can—and indeed have—filled large books.
However, because Machiavelli draws so many of his examples in The Princefrom
contemporary Italian politics, a brief introduction to the tangled history of
foreign involvement in Italy is helpful in gaining an understanding of the
book. Italy's increasing humiliation in the face of repeated invasions and duplicity
from within was a cause of intense resentment to many Italian thinkers. It is
this situation that leads Machiavelli to make his impassioned plea for a strong
leader to free Italy from "barbarian" domination in Chapter 26.
Italy was composed of five main political powers: Florence, Milan,
Venice, the Papal States (including Rome), and the Kingdom of Naples, far in
the southern tip of the Italian peninsula. Naples, in particular, had a vexed
history, with powers such as France, Spain, and the popes all laying claim to
it on various dynastic pretexts. The period prior to 1494 was relatively
peaceful and prosperous, with the various Italian powers generally well
balanced against each other.
The events that brought such turmoil to Machiavelli's time were
set in motion when Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan, invited French forces into
Italy, offering to support French claims to the Kingdom of Naples, and hoping,
in return, to conquer territory from the Venetians with the help of French
troops. The French king, Charles VIII, invaded in 1494. Though he was driven
out less than a year later by an Italian coalition that Sforza himself joined,
on his first entry into Italy, Charles met with practically no resistance, a
fact that was not lost on other European leaders. Machiavelli makes note of
this in Chapter 12, when he mentions that Charles was able to conquer Italy
with no more than a piece of chalk.
A few years later, Charles' successor, King Louis XII, also had
designs on Italy. Louis claimed that he had a hereditary right to the duchy of
Milan through his relation to the Visconti family, who had ruled Milan prior to
the Sforza family. Louis' interest in Italian territory coincided with the
ambitions of the powerful Borgia family. Pope Alexander VI, born Rodrigo
Borgia, wanted to make his son Cesare a force in Italy. To do so, he needed the
help of the French armies. Louis, meanwhile, needed favors that only a pope
could manage. In order to consolidate his position in France, Louis needed to
marry Charles' widow, Anne of Brittany, but could not do so until his marriage
to his current wife was annulled. He also wanted one of his advisors,
Archbishop Georges d'Amboise, made a cardinal so that he would eventually be a
candidate for the papacy. In exchange for these favors, Louis agreed to help
Alexander and Cesare conquer the Romagna region and to undertake a campaign
against the Kingdom of Naples, which both France and the pope had claims to.
Louis was also urged on by the Venetians, who wanted revenge on Sforza and Milan.
Louis invaded and captured Milan from Sforza in 1499. Many considered it poetic
justice that Sforza had been deprived of his dukedom by the very forces he had
first invited into Italy.
However, Louis' hold over Naples was weak. He initially installed
a puppet ruler in Naples (his cousin, Frederick of Aragon), but made a secret
arrangement to split the kingdom with King Ferdinand of Spain, who also claimed
a hereditary right to Naples. Ferdinand quickly reneged on the agreement and
drove the French forces out of Naples. Even so, the French still controlled
much of Italy. Cesare Borgia may have threatened French power in Italy after
his success in the Romagna region, but his father's sudden death left him
without resources or influence.
After Alexander VI's successor, Pius III, died after less than a
month in office, Cardinal Giuliano dellaRovere became Pope Julius II in 1503.
Julius earns several mentions in Machiavelli's narrative. As Machiavelli
observes, he was every bit as warlike and ambitious as Alexander, but his goal
was always to increase the power of the church, not to aggrandize his own
family. Unlike Alexander, he was a good manager of money and resources and
exercised restraint in his personal habits. He was also a wily politician.
In the power vacuum left after the collapse of Borgia power,
Venice had seized part of the Romagna region, which traditionally belonged to
the papacy, and they were also challenging Julius' authority in spiritual
matters. In 1508, Julius formed the League of Cambrai, which included France,
Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire, for the purpose of putting the Venetians back
in their place. The Venetian armies were defeated at the battle of Agnadello
(which Machiavelli refers to as Vailà) and Venice's conquered territories were
lost. Soon after, Julius, who feared the French's hold over Italy, began
working to get them out. During this period, Louis had Julius at his mercy on
more than one occasion, but never pressed his advantage, a move that
Machiavelli criticizes. Julius' efforts culminated in the formation of the Holy
League, which included combined forces of the Venetians, the Holy Roman Empire,
the Swiss, the English, and the Spanish. Despite a disastrous defeat at the
battle of Ravenna, the League ultimately drove out Louis and his armies in
1512, putting him out of power in Italy. Machiavelli alludes to this fact in
Chapter 3 of The
Prince when
he comments that it took the entire world to deprive Louis XII of his Italian
conquests.
The Florentines had been longstanding allies of the French. The
Soderini government supported Louis up until the bitter end and against all
advice, even as the French were pulling out of Italy. Their loyalty left them
at the mercy of Pope Julius and his Spanish allies, and this led directly to
the fall of the Florentine republic which Machiavelli had served for so many
years.
The Princeis an extended analysis of how to acquire and maintain political
power. It includes 26 chapters and an opening dedication to Lorenzo de Medici.
The dedication declares Machiavelli's intention to discuss in plain language
the conduct of great men and the principles of princely government. He does so
in hope of pleasing and enlightening the Medici family.
The book's 26 chapters can be divided into four sections: Chapters
1-11 discuss the different types of principalities or states, Chapters 12-14
discuss the different types of armies and the proper conduct of a prince as
military leader, Chapters 15-23 discuss the character and behavior of the
prince, and Chapters 24-26 discuss Italy's desperate political situation. The
final chapter is a plea for the Medici family to supply the prince who will
lead Italy out of humiliation.
In chapters 15-23,
Machiavelli discusses the following aspects of the character and behaviour of
the prince.
Machiavelli recommends the following character and behavior for
princes:
1.
It is better to be
stingy than generous.
2.
It is better to be
cruel than merciful.
3.
It is better to break
promises if keeping them would be against one's interests.
4.
Princes must avoid
making themselves hated and despised; the goodwill of the people is a better
defense than any fortress.
5.
Princes should
undertake great projects to enhance their reputation.
6.
Princes should choose
wise advisors and avoid flatterers.
CHAPTER-15 (HOW NOT TO
BE VIRTUOUS)
Machiavelli turns the
discussion from the strength of states and principalities to the correct
behavior of the prince. Machiavelli admits that this subject has been treated
by others, but he argues that an original set of practical—rather than
theoretical—rules is needed. Other philosophers have conceived republics built
upon an idealized notion of how men should live rather than how men actually
live. But truth strays far from the expectations of imagined ideals. Specifically,
men never live every part of their life virtuously. A prince should not concern
himself with living virtuously, but rather with acting so as to achieve the
most practical benefit.
In general, some
personal characteristics will earn men praise, others condemnation. Courage,
compassion, faith, craftiness, and generosity number among the qualities that
receive praise. Cowardice, cruelty, stubbornness, and miserliness are usually
met with condemnation. Ideally, a prince would possess all the qualities deemed
“good” by other men. But this expectation is unrealistic. A prince’s first job
is to safeguard the state, and harboring “bad” characteristics is sometimes
necessary for this end. Such vices are truly evil if they endanger the state,
but when vices are employed in the proper interests of the state, a prince must
not be influenced by condemnation from other men.
The proper behavior of princes toward subjects and allies remains
to be discussed. Many others have treated this subject, but Machiavelli bases
his observations on the real world, not on an imagined ideal. There is so much
difference between the way people should act and the way they do act that any
prince who tries to do what he should will ruin himself. A prince must know
when to act immorally. Everyone agrees that a prince should have all good
qualities, but because that is impossible, a wise prince will avoid those vices
that would destroy his power and not worry about the rest. Some actions that
seem virtuous will ruin a prince, while others that seem like vices will make a
prince prosper.
In this chapter, Machiavelli introduces the theme that will occupy
much of the rest of the book: how princes should act. He announces his
intention to turn the reader's expectations upside down by recommending that
princes be bad rather than good. He was consciously going against a long
tradition of advice books for rulers, the "Mirror for Princes" genre,
which predictably recommended that leaders be models of virtue, always
upholding the highest moral standards and being honest, trustworthy, generous,
and merciful. Machiavelli declares that this is fine if you are an imaginary
model prince living in a perfect world, but in the real world, a prince is
surrounded by unscrupulous people and must compete with them if he is to
survive. To put it in modern terms, he must learn to swim with the sharks.
Therefore, the prince must know how to behave badly and to use this knowledge
as a tool to maintain his power. Machiavelli recognizes that princes are always
in the public eye. Their behavior will affect their public image, and their
reputation will affect their ability to keep power. With this in mind,
Machiavelli advises that it is fine to avoid vices, but because no one can
avoid them all, the prince should be careful to avoid those that will most
severely damage his reputation and, therefore, his power. His consciousness of
a prince's need to control his public image would not seem out of place in the
media age, where public relations experts carefully groom and prepare
politicians for public consumption. Apparently flaunting all conventional moral
advice, he says that many things that appear good will damage a prince's power,
while those that appear bad will enhance it.
The contrast between the imaginary world of virtues and the real
world of vices could not be more plain. Now that he has everyone's attention,
he proceeds to dissect these so-called virtues in the next three chapters.
CHAPTER 16 (GENEROSITY)
Liberality, or generosity, is a quality that
many men admire. But if a prince develops a reputation for generosity, he will
ruin his state. A reputation for generosity requires outward lavishness, which
eventually depletes all of the prince’s resources. In the end, the prince will
be forced to burden his people with excessive taxes in order to raise the money
to maintain his reputation for generosity. Ultimately, the prince’s liberality
will make the people despise and resent him. Moreover, any prince who attempts
to change his reputation for generosity will immediately develop a reputation
for being a miser.
A reputation for generosity is
thought to be desirable, but developing it can be dangerous. Generosity
exercised in truly virtuous ways is never seen by others, so if you want to be
thought of as a generous ruler, you must keep up a lavish public display. To
support this habit, a prince must raise taxes and squeeze money from his
subjects. Generosity of this sort benefits few and harms many. The prince's
subjects will hate him, and no one will respect him because he is poor.
Therefore, a wise prince will not mind being called a miser, because stinginess
is a vice that allows him to reign. If a prince is giving away other people's
property, he can afford to be generous, but if he is giving away his own
resources, he will become grasping and hated or poor and despised.
A parsimonious, or ungenerous, prince may be
perceived as miserly in the beginning, but he will eventually earn a reputation
for generosity. A prince who is thrifty and frugal will eventually have enough funds
to defend against aggression and fund projects without having to tax the people
unduly.
In history, the actions of Pope Julius II, the
present king of France, and the present king of Spain all support the view that
parsimony enables the prince to accomplish great things. Some might argue that
successful leaders have come to power and sustained their rule by virtue of
their generosity, such as Caesar. But if Caesar had not been killed, he would
have found that maintaining his rule required moderating his spending.
In sum, generosity is self-defeating.
Generosity uses up resources and prevents further generosity. While parsimony
might lead to ignominy, generosity will eventually lead to hatred.
After teasing the reader with shocking revelations in Chapter
15, Machiavelli comes away sounding thoroughly conservative in this chapter,
discussing the supposed virtue of generosity. His focus is on the appearance of
generosity and what one must do to develop one's public image. True generosity,
he notes, would not get a prince a reputation for being generous, because no
one would see it. This is an important distinction. Machiavelli does not say
that true generosity is bad. What concerns him is the kind of forced display
that a prince must put on to develop a public image as a generous man.
Supporting lavish displays eventually makes a prince poor, forcing him to
exploit his subjects' resources. This does real harm to everyone, including the
prince. Thus the supposed virtue is no virtue at all.
He does qualify this observation by saying that new princes
who are trying to gain power must be seen to be generous, but after they have
power, they should immediately curtail their spending. He offers good examples:
Both Louis XII of France and Ferdinand of Spain were noted for their thrifty
habits, and both were energetic conquerors. On the subject of conquerors,
Machiavelli makes the interesting observation that because armies live off
looting and extortion, a leader of armies had better be generous or his soldiers
may decide to leave. According to Machiavelli, this is desirable, because the
property involved is not the prince's or his subjects', and therefore the
integrity of the state is not harmed.
CHAPTER-18 (PRINCES NEED NOT HONOUR THEIR WORD)
Machiavelli
acknowledges that a prince who honors his word is generally praised by others.
But historical experience demonstrates that princes achieve the most success
when they are crafty, cunning, and able to trick others. There are two ways of
fighting: by law or by force. Laws come naturally to men, force comes naturally
to beasts. In order to succeed, the prince must learn how to fight both with
laws and with force—he must become half man and half beast.
When a prince uses force, he acts like a
beast. He must learn to act like two types of beasts: lions and foxes. A fox is
defenseless against wolves; a lion is defenseless against traps. A prince must
learn to act like both the fox and the lion: he must learn, like the fox, how
to frighten off wolves and, like the lion, how to recognize the traps. In
dealing with people, a prince must break his promises when they put him at a
disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made the promises no longer
exist. In any case, promises are never something on which a prince can rely,
since men are by nature wretched and deceitful. A prince should be a master of
deception.
However, a prince must be careful to exude a
virtuous aura that belies his deceitful mind. Pope Alexander VI was one ruler
who excelled at this art. A prince should present the appearance of being a
compassionate, trustworthy, kind, guileless, and pious ruler. Of course,
actually possessing all these virtues is neither possible nor desirable. But so
long as a prince appears to act virtuously, most men will believe in his
virtue. If the populace believes the prince to be virtuous, it will be easier
for him to maintain his state. Moreover, men will judge their prince solely on
appearance and results. Thus, it doesn’t matter to the people that a prince may
occasionally employ evil to achieve his goal. So long as a prince appears
virtuous and is successful in running the state, he will be regarded as
virtuous.
Everyone knows that
princes should keep their word, but we see that the princes who have
accomplished the most have been accomplished at deception. A prince may fight
with laws, which is the way of human beings, or with force, which is the way of
animals. A prince should imitate the fox in cunning as well as the lion in
strength. A wise prince should never keep his word when it would go against his
interest, because he can expect others to do the same. In order to pull it off,
you must be a good liar, but you will always find people willing to be
deceived.
To sum it up, it is useful to seem to be virtuous, but you
must be ready to act the opposite way if the situation requires it. A prince
should do good if he can, but be ready to do evil if he must. Yet a prince must
be careful to always act in a way that appears virtuous, for many can see you,
but few know how you really are. If a ruler conquers and maintains his state,
everyone will praise him, judging his actions by their outcome.
This chapter concludes Machiavelli's discussion of the
qualities a prince should display. Keeping his feet firmly in the real world,
as he promised, he begins by stating that even though everyone assumes princes
should keep their word, experience shows that those who do not keep their word
get the better of those who do. This is Machiavelli's justification for deceit:
Because you can expect other princes not to honor their word to you, you should
not feel obligated to honor your word to them. Sebastian de Grazia, writing
about this chapter, refers to Machiavelli's precept as the "Un-Golden
Rule"—do unto others as you can expect they will do unto you. In this
bestial world, princes must act like beasts, imitating the clever fox, instead
of relying only on strength, as does the lion. In a world full of deceivers,
there must also be someone to deceive, and Machiavelli finds that there are plenty
of people willing to overlook all kinds of deceit as long as their state is
peaceful and prosperous.
The prince's control of his public image gets special
attention in this chapter. A prince must always appear to be truthful,
merciful, and religious, even if he must sometimes act in the opposite way.
Interestingly, these are the very same qualities he condemns Agathocles for
lacking in Chapter 8, but here, he advises the prince to dispense with them
when necessary. But the great mass of people will never see the prince as he
really is; they will see only the image he projects. The few insiders who know
the prince's true nature will do nothing to harm him as long as the people
support him, and the people will support him as long as he has been successful.
Here, Machiavelli sounds remarkably like a modern spin doctor advising a
politician on how to get good press.
CHAPTER-25 (ON FORTUNE)
Many people believe that fortune controls everything, so
that there is no use in trying to act, but fortune controls only half of one's
actions, leaving free will to control the other half. Fortune can be compared
to a river that floods, destroying everything in its way. But when the weather
is good, people can prepare dams and dikes to control the flood. If Italy had
such preparations, she would not have suffered so much in the present floods.
Princes are successful one day and ruined the next, with no
change in their natures. Two men may use the same method, but only one
succeeds; and two men may use different methods, but reach the same goal, all
because the circumstances do or do not suit their actions. If a man is
successful by acting one way and the circumstances change, he will fail if he
does not change his methods. But men are never flexible enough to change,
either because their natures will not let them or because they become
accustomed to a certain behavior bringing success.
It is better to be bold than timid and cautious, because
fortune is a woman, and the man who wants to control her must treat her
roughly.
Although it is often thought that fortune
controls human affairs, fortune controls only half of one’s actions, while free
will determines the other half. Fortune is like a flooding river: it is only
dangerous when men have not built dykes against it beforehand. Italy has not
built dykes, and as a result it has experienced tumultuous upheaval. Germany,
Spain, and France have taken better care and have reaped the benefits of
stability.
As fortune varies, one man may succeed and
another fail, even if they both follow the same path. Times and circumstances
change, so a prince must adjust to them in order to remain successful; however,
men tend to stay on the course that has brought them success in the past.
Circumstances allowed Julius II to act impetuously, but if he had lived longer,
he would have been ruined when circumstances changed. On the whole, however,
impetuosity surpasses caution. Fortune favors energetic youth over cautious
age.
This chapter is perhaps the most pivotal in The Prince, because Machiavelli
discusses the relationship of action and fortune in determining the prince's
success. Machiavelli uses fortune (fortuna) in at least two
senses. In Chapters 7 and 8, Machiavelli contrasts virtùwith fortune in the sense
of luck or the favor of powerful people. In those chapters, the contrast is
between what the prince can control (his own actions) and what he cannot
control (the favor of others). In this chapter, fortune refers more to
prevailing circumstances and events, which are still things that the prince
cannot directly control. Rather than taking the fatalistic view that all events
are controlled by destiny and that it is useless to work toward a particular
outcome, Machiavelli gives fortune control over only half of human actions,
letting free will influence the rest. If free will did not operate, all of a
prince's virtù would be for nothing.
Yet Machiavelli struggles with the problem of why one
person succeeds and another fails, even though they have employed the same
methods, or why totally different methods can arrive at the same outcome. To
explain this, he proposes that success comes whenvirtù is suited to the particular situation
a prince finds himself in. Machiavelli envisions fortune as a set of constantly
changing circumstances in which particular actions can bring about success or
failure. To describe it, he uses one of his few extended metaphors, making
fortune a force of nature, like a river that seems uncontrollable, yet can be
tamed and directed by human activity. If the Italian princes had made suitable
preparations, the "flood" of foreign invasions would not have swept
over the open and unprotected country.
Having affirmed the value of free will, Machiavelli limits
it by asserting that even though it may be possible to vary one's actions to
suit the times, no one ever does. Machiavelli implies that this is because virtùis an inherent, natural
quality that the prince cannot change. People act according to their character
and cannot change their natures. This line of reasoning brings Machiavelli back
to the pessimistic fatalism he rejected at the beginning of the chapter. If a
prince cannot change his nature, success depends simply on being lucky enough
to have a character suited to the times he lives in.
Fortune was frequently personified in Renaissance art and
literature as Fortuna, a
female figure who held a turning wheel to symbolize her constant state of
change. Fortuna's fickleness is her greatest trait; no sooner are you at the
top of her wheel than it turns, and you end up at the bottom. Drawing on this
symbolism, Machiavelli closes the chapter by saying that a man who wants to
subdue fortune must treat her like the woman she is, and approach her with
boldness and roughness. While Machiavelli's metaphor may be offensive to some
modern readers, it would not have been shocking in its own day. Even in modern
times, the saying "fortune favors the bold" can still be heard.
Comments
Post a Comment