Il Principe
Niccoló Machiavelli’s The Prince is often read an immoral guide citing, essentially, how to become a dictatorial leader. He is a largely misunderstood author who failed to find posthumous respect from the greats, like Shakespeare, but from Hitler instead (Adney, 1986 p 51). However, advices in the book that seem ruthless can be explained by history, analysis and personal aims of the author. The Prince is not an immoral treatise and this piece of writing seeks to prove that, with evidence both from the text, as well as the perspective on renowned academics such as Skinner and Chobald. Firstly, a brief historical background will be outlined followed by the authors personal perspective and aims and then numerous examples of moral or amoral advices directly from the text with analysis by academics followed by concluding remarks.
In the time of writing, the early 1500’s, Italy was broken up several regions and unremittingly under threat of invasion. The close proximity of these regions and the wealth that was both possessed and sought after gave way to strong tactical armies prepared to acquire monetary goods and territory. Machiavelli witnessed his great state come under threat in both 1494 and 1512, which was said to leave an impact upon him and influence his writing (Machiavelli, 2003 p III). Machiavelli was a great Florentine republican who worked as a civil servant from 1498 to 1512 (Adney,1986 p51). Through his employment he witnessed inner workings of government and the corruption and nepotism that came along with it. As a result, his patriotism swelled and he found a new respect for classical Roman ideals and a confirmation of his belief in strong leadership (although not a dictatorship).
Machiavelli’s personal and work experiences are the basis of The Prince as well as the ‘very peculiar’ society, culture, and era (Grafton, 2003 p xvii). In other words, it should not be read as an advice manual and replicated in every state at any given time. The 1500’s were uncertain times with a recent fall of the republic and change of power back to the Medici family. Importantly, The Prince was written whilst Machiavelli was in exile by virtue of the addressee of his dedication, Lorenzo de Medici, and there is a large consensus that it was written as a job application, which puts to question the objectivity (Adney, 1986 p53).
Machiavelli was a new breed born out of the Renaissance called a pessimistic humanist. He believed man to be naturally selfish, fickle, deceiving and that man will only act good through necessity (Machiavelli, 2003 p54). This is made transparent in The Prince as in chapter XVII where he says a prince must not trust his men unless they are paid because men are full of broken promises (Machiavelli, 2003 p54). Machiavelli writes about nobles and how they are not his equals and should be kept to a bare minimum because they will force him to act unhonourably by asking for favours that may result in violence (Machiavelli, 2003 p33). Due to his fundamental belief of human nature, Machiavelli places the prince at a plateau that allows whatever to be done to keep the masses unified and peaceful, which includes trickery. He mentions that a prince should appear religious (p58) so the people keep their faith as well, but it can be argued that these are not harmful tricks but rather tactics to ensure the calmness of the realm.
Keeping the aforementioned information in mind, one can be more sympathetic to the sometimes harsh tactics that are suggested much in the same way civil liberties get suspended during times of war or state emergency in today’s politics. Habeas Corpus has been suspended twice in U.S. history for those reasons (Harper, 2007). After all, threats to the domain were real and with the combination of corrupt politicians and an impudent populace the prince must exert strength and use any means at his disposal to aid Florence to flourish. Machiavelli tells us in chapter XV (2003, p50) that if a prince has to take a course of action that does not illustrate virtuousness then he must not dwell on what his subjects will think, because difficult and occasionally immoral decisions must be made for the sake of the republic. In Florentine politics, immoral decisions were made regardless and corruption was abundant (McAlphine, 2000 p4). In fact, this still stands true today in much of the world so what was being presented was only shocking because Machiavelli was the first to acknowledge it whilst reserving judgment.
Machiavelli clearly states in other chapters that acts of moral turpitude are not to be done frivolously. For example, in chapter VIII it is explained that cruelty must only be used when ones safety depends upon it and rejects leaders that come to power by killing, betraying and acting irreligious (Machiavelli, 2003 p29). It is important to distinguish that a prince should only do morally suspect things when it is for the good of the whole or when he must reaffirm his power over the people in order to maintain control and ultimately - peace. Testimony to that is in chapter XVII where Machiavelli explains if the sovereign is to be held to cruel repute for the sake of his countrymen to be united and loyal, then punishment of dissident, even execution, must be followed through to avoid civil disobedience. Additionally, a prince should build his state on a sound foundation that includes good laws (Machiavelli, 2003 p40) that are adhered to rigidly for all, including ministers and nobles (Machiavelli, 2003 p76). This is a breath of fresh air to the corrupt royal courts all over the continent.
Rather then describing The Prince as immoral, amoral is an adjective that does it more justice. Machiavelli is more concerned with giving genuine advice and that includes situation where one must put the country above all else, one can say he was simply a realist. Federico Chabod, an Italian scholar, says Machiavelli did not posses the talent of diplomacy and he “does not always succeed in restraining the vehemence of his feelings,’’ which can lead to misjudgment of the greater picture being portrayed (Chobad, 1958 p67). The Prince has a pagan reading, which extrapolates where Machiavelli explains a prince must be part fox, part lion (Machiavelli, 2003 p56). The Catholic Church was adverse to The Prince and remains to be so today. It’s speculative the pagan themes running through the book contribute to the aversion.
Another argument is that he is a unilateralist with theme of the end justify the means flowing continuously throughout the book. The Prince was an early example of realpolitik with chapter XVI exemplifying this. The sovereign must never be overgenerous unless it is not with his own money. The states income comes from taxation; therefore, if spending is ostentatious ultimately the people must pay. Instead, it is suggested that spending be ‘parsimonious’ to guarantee a strong army and less taxation (Machiavelli, 2003 p52). Therefore, being overly generous will eventually lead to being both despised and hated, neither of which is desirable (Machiavelli, 2003 p53). Secondly, the final chapter exposes the ultimate goal of restoring political unity in Italy. Subsequently, the advice presented in the book is presumably meant as stepping-stones for that ambition that once again illustrates the end justifies the means theme. Putting morals to one side briefly could do all of Italy the great favour of reunification and restoring the great Roman ways.
To conclude, the above evidence sufficiently proves Machiavelli’s The Prince is not wholly immoral. In contrast to immorality, textual analysis illustrate themes such as liberty like not overtaxing, sacrifice like a leader putting his reputation on the line for his country, and virtue like not practicing unwarranted cruelty. To be completely immoral is to display no figment of ethics but only sheer dishonestly, evil and nefarious behaviour. One last remark will prove the thesis outright as morality is attested with the following quote: ‘’… A prudent man [a prince] must always follow in the footsteps of great men and imitate those who have been outstanding,’’ (Machiavelli, 2003 pg19).
Adney, D. (1986) Machiavelli and Political Morals. Edited by Muschcamp, D. London: Macmillan Edu Ltd.
Chabod, F. (1958) Machiavelli and the Renaissance, New York: Harper&Row.
Harper, D. (2007) The Civil War Available online at: < http://www.etymonline.com/cw/habeas.htm> [Accessed on the 9th of December 2009].
Machiavelli, N. (2003) The Prince, London: Penguine Penguin Books.
Kristjana Björg Sveinsdóttir, a teacher in Iceland, recently wrote an op-ed in an Icelandic news publication. I discovered the article when many of my countrymen shared the link on facebook and expressed, with great enthusiasm, how much they agreed with her point of view. The title of the piece of writing is 'Iceland! Only for the rich'. This is a clever, controversial and thought provoking title; the article itself is ten fold that. It is a good summary of what the majority of Icelanders are talking about at their kitchen tables every night with their spouses, in the canteen with their colleagues and at the pubs with their friends.
