Niccolò Machiavelli is a pivotal transitional figure in the history of Western philosophy and political thought. His most famous work is The Prince, but his more important work in the Discourses on Livy. Both are meant to be read together and together The Prince and Discourses are a full treatise on Machiavelli’s theory of the State. The Prince, however, has had a more enduring legacy for the supposed connotation of Machiavelli’s “realpolitik.” The Prince’s true legacy, however, is its break with classical political philosophy and the inauguration of that realpolitik of modern politics.
Before we turn to the text itself, it is important to know some background. Machiavelli grew up in a turbulent time in Italian and Florentine history. The French had just invaded the north of Italy in bid to dominate Italy (especially Naples). Italy was now embroiled in the Italian Wars where the Italian states were sandwiched between the Kingdom of France and the Habsburg Empire. At the same time the Medici family had just arisen to power in Florence through a coup. Chaos was everywhere and Machiavelli takes this chaos and conflict as the basis of his politics (chaos and conflict is foundational to politics). Rather than virtue and the “good regime” of Plato, Aristotle, or Cicero, Machiavelli embraces a far starker and “secularized” Augustinian portrait of politics: power, chaos, and confusion; he breaks with Augustine in his support for the importance of sovereign power and the political order whereas Augustine thought it was best to be skeptical of political power precisely because of the dangers of power and abuse as the result of human sin. Additionally, although titled “The Prince,” the book is really a treatment over the nature of “principality”; in other words, a form of the State.
Chapters 1-2: Breaking with the Classics
Right away Machiavelli breaks with classical political thought which had concerned itself with questions of political virtue, virtue ethics, the good regime, why we should strive for virtue and the good regime, but most importantly: the three forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and constitutionalism or democracy). Machiavelli establishes a new dialectic in politics: there is either hereditary political forms and non-hereditary political forms. This dichotomy can be found in monarchy, aristocracy, or constitutionalism/republicanism/democracy. Thus, the real understanding of political forms is this. It’s rather simple: hereditary political orders are based on bloodline and non-hereditary political orders are not. Furthermore, politics is based on virtue at all. It is premised on power and the exercise of power!
Chapters 3-5: Mixed Princedoms and the Problems of Political Governance
After establishing this seemingly obvious observation as to the true nature of the political, Machiavelli turns to the problem of mixed princedoms which is becoming a more apparent problem in their time – though there are historical and ancient examples of mixed princedoms too. For Machiavelli, the mixed princedom is difficult to maintain because the people do not share similar languages and customs. Mixed polities are naturally more unstable because people do not feel attached to each other and are skeptical of the “other” and especially the “other Prince.” In short, it is easier to rule a uniform or homogenous state or nation than one divided by different languages, customs, and historical experiences. But since that age of politics seems to be expiring, we are left with the crisis of mixed princedoms and how to best rule in this new situation. (Note how this is reflective of the current geopolitical crisis in Italy where Italians, French, Germans, and Spaniards are fall fighting and vying for influence and control over Italy at this time.)
The mixed princedom is becoming a clearer reality of politics – the age of the homogenous state is dying – and therefore drastic measures must be taken for a political ruler to maintain their power and sovereignty in these situations. Machiavelli says that it is better to always be on the side of the people; people have expectations and will turn on the prince if he falls short of those expectations. Machiavelli is saying that there is a conflict between what the people expect and what the ruler desires. The astute prince who desires to hold onto his power will try to synthesize his bid for sovereignty with the hopes of the people. In this way one can avoid the constant distrust of the other concerning their foreign ruler. Thus, Machiavelli is basically advising the prince to be prudent, cautious, and not to alienate the people – especially if you rule over a mixed polity.
Here Machiavelli turns to the issue of sovereignty. The people are not sovereign. The prince is sovereign. The greater the sovereignty the greater the ability to hold onto power and the greater the prospects of people being attached to you.
Machiavelli highlights the dilemma of sovereignty and kingship with Alexander the Great, Darius of Persia, France, and the Ottoman Empire (Kingdom of the Turks). It was easy for Alexander’s heirs to retain hold over the conquered Persian Empire, paradoxically, because Darius ruled in a de-centralized manner. The people of Persia were more closely attached to the local governors and court ministers, so to speak, than to their king. Thus, when Alexander disposed Darius, and eliminated the local governors, establishing himself as the universal sovereign, the people of Persia were not clamoring for the “return of the hereditary king” upon Alexander’s death. There was a smooth transition to the Diadochi.
Kingdoms based in ancient bloodlines and centralized bloodline authority are much harder to conquer, Machiavelli says, than the benevolent kingdoms that are nominally rooted in bloodline but the real political apparatus are the local governors. Machiavelli is basically saying that the best way to hold onto power is through centralized sovereignty.
Machiavelli, in Chapter 5, turns to how to best govern over a new province, people, or territory that is ultimately different from yours. He says there are three historical examples of how rulers and states have dealt with new conquest: destruction of the new land, taking up residence in the new land, or appointed local rulers and peoples from the newly conquered land to rule as tributaries. Machiavelli explains that the latter option always fails. Thus, there are really only two viable options with how one deals with newly conquered territory: you either destroy it (like the Romans did to Carthage) and rebuild over the ruins, or you take up residence in the new land so the people can visibly see you, become attached to you, and therefore feel like you care about them. (Because you share the same heritage of your countrymen whom you moved residence away from, they will remain loyal to you based on ancestral lineage and patriotism.) Machiavelli seems to suggest that destruction and then taking up residence is the best of both worlds.
At the very end of the chapter, though only two sentences, these ending sentences of chapter 5 are very important as to why destruction is necessary. Political memory, Machiavelli tells us, especially in republics, is very powerful. People remember their freedom, their history, and what they and their ancestors have fought for. Thus, by not destroying that memory, you invite yourself to rebellion and discontent over time. If, on the other hand, you wipe out that memory you can much easier subjugate the newly conquered territories. One can read into these issues of modern political memory too where those nations and peoples who had successfully defended and fought for their national sovereignty are skeptical of ever surrendering it. Conversely, Machiavelli says if you don’t destroy them, then you must reside with them, so they don’t come to hate you. Again, there are only two viable options in dealing with newly conquered lands: destruction or moving residence to the newly conquered territories to ease animosity.
Chapters 6-9: The Skill, Merit, or Luck, of Princes
Machiavelli now turns to a discussion of merit, skill, virtue, luck, and fortune and how these all intersect with the ruler. Machiavelli begins by talking about the skillful, or meritorious ruler. Contrary to what Wikipedia says, a very careful reading of the text indicates that Machiavelli thinks that merit is how the ruler exploits favorable circumstances. Virtu is demonstrated in political leaders by those who “seize the moment” or the opportunity before them. Thus, opportunity (or good fortune) is entirely correspondent with merit – merit depends on circumstance and true merit is reflective in how the ruler exploits this situation. Basically, Machiavelli is setting up two forms of luck (of Fortuna/Fortune): there is the ruler who happens upon a fortunate circumstance, understands this, and acts to take advantage of this favorable circumstance (Ch. 6) vs. those who blindly blunder their way to success by sheer luck in of itself (Ch. 7).
As Machiavelli writes, which makes this clear: Moses had to find the Israelites in bondage first before leading them out of slavery; Romulus was fortunate he never made his home in Alba and therefore was able to found Rome as a result; Cyrus was lucky to find the Persians, like the Israelites in Egypt, disgruntled with their overlords; and Theseus was able to exploit the disunited Athenians. In each case, these rulers/princes “arrived at the right time” so to speak, but more importantly (and this is what true merit is according to Machiavelli) they were able to exploit for their own gain the favorable circumstances they happened upon. So yes, contrary to Wikipedia’s reading, merit and luck do go together. It is that Machiavelli sees merit tied to luck of circumstance which is exploited, vs. those who never really exploited such circumstances and happened to gain power by sheer luck in of itself.
Machiavelli argues in Chapters 6 and 7 then, that those who blunder their way to success have an easy time to achieving success (because it is all luck) but subsequently have a hard time maintaining what luck has granted to them, while those who calculated their strike have a hard time – initially – in rising to the top but once they do they secure their power and fortune. (In more modern cases, we can see Napoleon and Hitler, for instance, having been entirely lucky which is why they failed to hold onto their power; in contrast to the historical examples given by Machiavelli where men like Moses, Romulus, Cyrus, and Theseus struggled to rise to the top though the circumstances were calling for them to do so.) In sum, then, Machiavelli is saying that prudence and understanding of circumstance is necessary for the successful prince. The most skillful prince, that is, the most meritorious prince, is the one who understands his surrounding, the events taking place all around him, and the circumstances of his time.
Chapter 8 deals with princes who secure power by brutality and immoral deeds. Machiavelli takes this as a given in politics. Readers of Max Weber’s “Politics as Vocation” may find familiar overtures here in that politics is not the realm of the saint. Politics is a brutal, immoral, and often deadly enterprise. Machiavelli advises the prince that he will, in fact, have to get his hands dirty. There are no “pure” princes of absolute virtue (again, Machiavelli breaks with the ancients in this regard). He advises the prince that when he has to engage in such brutal deeds (and he will) that he does so in one fell-swoop so as to minimize the appearance of immorality and brutality. If one constantly acts brutally the people will catch on; but if one acts brutally very quickly and concisely, that memory will fade when good times arise in the aftermath of criminal and immoral actions.
Chapter 9 is very important, and, I think, very relevant for our time. Machiavelli argues that the prince is caught in a never-ending struggle between whom he represents: the people or the nobles (e.g. the “ruling class”). This is a problem for the prince because his sovereignty rests more on the will of the people than on the nobles. In other words, Machiavelli endorses a sort of national populism. The nobles, however, are those best suited to help the prince rule his territory and partake in the managerial engines of the political. To alienate the nobles means to have few supporters to run the important cogs of the political apparatus. Basically, we are stuck in a dilemma: 1) the people love the prince but the nobles despise the prince; 2) the people hate the prince but the nobles love the prince.
Machiavelli says that the prince who arrives on the will of the people should do everything possible to retain that good will of the people. However, when a prince arrives into power from the backing of the nobility he must reach out to the people so as to appear to be their friend. This is why Machiavelli is so hard to understand at times. Which does he actually support? (You need to read the Discourses for Machiavelli’s true thoughts.) Machiavelli is a pragmatist in offering political advice. If, as a prince, you came to rule because of the people you must keep the support of those who propelled you into power. If, as a prince, you came to rule because of the nobles, you keep on good terms with the nobles, but you have to subsequently reach out to the people so as to have their public support as well. Basically, one’s political situation is wholly relative.
Additionally, Machiavelli also thinks that being on the side of the populace is better to consolidate one’s own sovereign power. Being on the side of the people gives you a free hand of centralization, especially in times of crisis when you “act on behalf of the populace” so to speak. The nobles, on the other, always seek to constrain the prince and keep what power they have – or worse, expand the power they have which thereby deprives the prince of his greater power. Politics is about appearance and power. Which is why, as Machiavelli closes chapter 10, he states it is necessary for the prince to centralize his power, expand the power of the State, and command the fidelity of the populace to be willing to die for the State.
Again, it is important to remember the context in which The Prince was written: Italy is suffering from chaos and conflict, under invasion from France and the Habsburgs (the Germans and Spaniards). Already we should see that the basis of The Prince (and Discourses) is about how the Italians can re-unify and fend off invasion from the two great monarchial powers of Europe, and why, ultimately, that republicanism is far more potent and powerful than monarchies can ever dream of being. We will continue with our reading of the Prince, looking at Chapters 10-19 next. Whether we like Machiavelli so far might depend on whether we are “realists” or “idealists.” Machiavelli is no idealist and thinks idealism is for the foolish and naive. As he says in Chapter 15, which we will explore next, “And the manner in which we live, and that in which we ought to live, are things so wide asunder, that he who quits the one to betake himself to the other is more likely to destroy than save himself.”
And yet, his realism, though perhaps frightening to idealists, is – undoubtedly – true if you’re not blinded by your own idealism. We must remember that the Prince is written about how to keep power. Machiavelli basically argues that the prince should embrace the reality of the politic concerning power because it is in the prince’s interest to do so and in the public’s interest that the prince do so. A much more nuanced Machiavelli, who is a staunch republican and advocate of mixed rule (though few people understand as to why), appears in the Discourses on Livy. How do we act within the realism of this framework is Machiavelli’s big question he is trying to answer. We must remember this when reading Machiavelli. He is not out to create the utopia or ideal society, for those who think this way will only end up destroying themselves and their people. Rather, we must embrace reality for what it really is about: power and conflict, and how to use power to confront conflict and end chaos.
*
As we continue examining Machiavelli’s The Prince, we turn to Chapters 10-19 which contains his most famous phrase of it is better to be feared than loved. Well, Machiavelli didn’t exactly say those specific words in that order, but his recommendations to the Prince is that it is better to command fear than to be loved and we’ll get into why in a moment. Building off from the previous chapters, chapters 10-19 continue to build on the themes of power and sovereignty which dominate the chapters we’re about to cover and – it is within the confines of power and sovereignty, that we will make better sense of Machiavelli’s advice about being feared rather than being loved.
The Strength of Princedoms: Chapters 10-11
Chapters 10 and 11 deal with the internal strength of principalities. For Machiavelli, it is best for principalities to be internally strong; that is, not dependent on others for assistance or strength. In other words, contrary to what students of economics learn, it is best for a state to strive for self-efficiency. While a state may not be able to be as self-sufficient as it would like, its power is premised on its internal capabilities. States that have internally strong and robust economies, a strong population base, strong points of interest and military centers, will ward off possible invasion from outsiders more easily than states that are internally weak.
Machiavelli is not suggesting a sort of fortress isolationism, the type of “Splendid Isolationism” of the United Kingdom in the 19th century or American isolationism prior to the Second World War. On the contrary, a wise and prudent prince also makes alliances and forges deals with other leaders to strengthen himself through alliances. However, one should not have to be dependent on others for their strength. One should be able to rely on himself, his territory, his state, and his people, for strength.
Strength and Military Arms: Chapters 12-14
Considering that Machiavelli advises a state to be internally strong, he logically transitions to commentary on the nature of military forces and what a prince should seek in military forces. It was commonplace in the Renaissance era to have small standing armies. Most rulers looked outside of their kingdoms and territories for mercenaries to produce their armed forces. Machiavelli advises against this type of outsourcing military duties and responsibilities. His reasons are straightforward: “Mercenaries and auxiliaries are at once useless and dangerous, and he who holds his State by means of mercenary troops can never be solidly or securely seated. For such troops are disunited, ambitious, insubordinate, treacherous, insolent among friends, cowardly before foes, and without fear of God or faith with man. Whenever they are attacked defeat follows…” Machiavelli proceeds to give examples throughout history of mercenary armies failing their masters in battle.
The question of mercenaries is not necessarily whether mercenaries are good warriors. They may very well be. The problem with mercenaries is that they are loyal to no one but themselves, and their promised dividends for their service. In other words, being loyal to self (and money), they are not invested with the national cause. By not being invested with, or to, the national cause, they are unreliable at best. When the going gets rough the mercenaries will desert. They have their own lives and families, far away, to attend to. If not that, then they will quickly turn on their overlords to save their own skins. Much like a prince who is dependent on other states for his strength, a prince who is dependent on mercenaries for his military strength is dependent upon others rather than himself. In this manner he has less power and sovereignty than he thinks. His power and sovereignty is vested in the hands of outsiders.
Machiavelli turns the mercenary dynamic on its head here. It is not mercenaries who are at the beck and call of their foreign master or overlord, rather, it is the master (or overlord) who is really at the beck and call of his mercenaries. The mercenaries are whom the master has placed all his trust and hopes and prospects in. If they desert, if they renege, or even if they engage in treachery, all that the prince has worked and strived for is lost. Quite the opposite of conventional logic, but Machiavelli has a point here: in hiring mercenaries you are dependent on them. They don’t need you, but you need them. The hope was that by paying them they would serve you. But money only goes so far.
By chapter 14 Machiavelli argues for strong national armies as the only responsible and reasonable practice of military affairs. National armies are invested with the public weal. They embody the esprit de corps and are more willing than mercenaries to fight and die for their country and family than mercenaries. Furthermore, while auxiliaries and allied dependency is better than pure mercenaries, only a national armed force embodies internal strength and sovereignty. One is not dependent upon cowardly mercenaries or allies who, naturally, will seek to defend their land and nation first rather than yours. Thus, the prince must be internally strong militarily if they are to be sovereign and powerful.
At the same time, the importance of concentrating on military affairs is about concentrating on political and foreign affairs. One never knows when he will be threatened. The survival of his state is always at stake. Thus, since concern for the political is the upmost concern of the prince, he ought to always be concerned with military affairs. A strong military represents a strong national weal. It represents the determination of the State, and its people, to endure and survive. A weak military represents that the State, and its people, along with its leaders, are no longer that concerned with their own national sovereignty. As such, they are not really that concerned about their survival. Therefore, the prince who enlists and establishes a strong national military is a prince who is concerned with sovereignty, self-survival, and displays to the rest of the world he is serious about maintaining his sovereignty and power through the powerful national army he has constructed and now maintains. One never knows when Fortuna, or Fortune, may turn against him. Thus, he always needs to prepare for the worst. Machiavelli firmly believes in the old maxim: “In times of peace, prepare for war.” Virtu, or some form of political excellence, is necessary to counteract Fortune. Political excellence takes on the character of “always prepare for the worst.”
The Character of the Prince and Princedom: Fear and Avoiding Hatred, Justice and Cruelty, Chapters 14-19
Chapters 14-19 are among the most infamous from The Prince. Here Machiavelli outlines the general characters and qualities that a prince should embody. Again, it is important to remember that the actual theme of the entirety of the prince is about sovereignty and power. Thus, chapters 14-19 must be read with this in mind.
What unites these chapters is about how a prince should be feared rather than loved, and how a prince is to avoid hatred (or contempt) from his subjects but not appear weak and effeminate at the same time. Thus, Machiavelli is very Aristotelian in arguing for a sort of mean between excesses. At the same time Machiavelli is also suggesting something that often baffles readers. He does suggest that fear does not necessarily lead to hatred. Fear and hatred are not synonymous to each other. Furthermore, Machiavelli comments on justice and cruelty and outlines a philosophy of consequentialism.
The reason why a prince ought not to be loved is because his power now rests in the hands of others. Again, a theme should become very apparent to readers of The Prince: Sovereignty always should rest in the hand of the prince and not be dependent on others. This also stems from Machiavelli’s ‘low view of humanity.’ As he writes, “Men are a sorry breed.”
Love is premised on obligations and mutual duties. The problem with love is that, since men are a sorry breed, you can never be sure if those who claim to love you will follow up on their obligations to you. Since man is entirely self-interested, the moment others see it in their advantage not to oblige you their duties and obligations based on love or fealty, they will reject you. Thus, if one is too overly loved, one is once again under control of the lover or lovers. One is not free in of himself in his own power and sovereignty.
Thus, it is better to be feared rather than loved because in being feared, the people (others) see in you the power and sovereignty necessary of a prince to maintain the power and sovereignty of the state. As Machiavelli also explains, fear is not identical with hatred. He again highlights examples of history between Hannibal and Scipio where Hannibal, who was feared, never suffered mutiny of his multi-national army but was never hated. Scipio, on the other hand, faced several uprisings from his soldiers because of his leniency. While not hated by his men, they did not fear him so they felt that they could get away with certain actions because of Scipio’s liberality. “I sum up by saying, that since his being loved depends upon his subjects, while his being feared depends upon himself, a wise Prince should build on what is his own, and not what rests on others.”
Because sovereignty and power are the two intertwined themes of the Prince, Machiavelli advises that a prince should always choose his own sovereignty and power (which depends on himself) whenever possible. The moment one outsources, to use modern language, responsibilities to others, one is weakening their own sovereignty and power. One becomes dependent on others rather than dependent on himself.
This theme of self-power and self-interest extends to honesty and truth. A prince should only “keep his word” when it suits him to do so. If a prince could get away with being a liar or a fraud, then that is what he should do. One only ever needs to maintain the illusion that he is honest. Politics is a brutal game, as Max Weber noted more than 400 years later. Politics is not about honesty. Politics is about power. Thus, whatever allows one to keep power and attain more power is the course of action the prince (e.g. politician) should take. Sometimes that does mean keeping one’s words and promises. Many times, however, one will have to break those words and promises to maintain power. Since this is the reality of politics one should strive to maintain the illusion of honesty.
To avoid hatred Machiavelli notes, in one of his longer chapters (Chapter 19), that people are base animals and will not hate the prince if they are not deprived of their property and women (or sex more generally). Building from chapter 9, Machiavelli recognizes and advises the prince to see the two groups (constituents) that comprise every nation: the aristocracy (e.g. the “ruling class”) and the commoners. The prince must court both sides when it suits him just as he said in chapter 9 about how having the people on your side allows for greater centralization of power (at the expense of the aristocracy) while having the aristocrats on your side allows you to generally have access to the more enlightened and refined segments of the population. Nevertheless, just like he suggests in chapter 9, Machiavelli again states that the prince should always be on friendlier terms with the majority population (the commoners) rather than the nobles or aristocrats because the majority is always more powerful than the minority (not to mention, again, that the aristocrats try to hobble the prince’s power by retaining as much power for themselves). It is fair, though anachronistic, to consider Machiavelli’s politics to be one of national populism.
Here is one of the keys, and often misunderstood, points of Machiavelli’s political theory, “To be brief, a Prince has little to fear from conspiracies when his subjects are well disposed to him; but when they are hostile and hold him in detestation, he has then reason to fear everything and everyone.” For Machiavelli it always better to be on the side of the “masses” because they are the ones who hold real power if they are ever organized to exert their power (in number). Thus, it is best to either be on the side of “public opinion” or to appear to be a benefactor of the commoners. Hence the anachronistic, but accurate, description of Machiavelli’s politics being one of national populism or sovereign “republicanism.” In modern contexts, this might help explain why politicians turn with the tide of public opinion on many issues (or if they’re in the bag of the elite – aristocrats – why they hate the people, and in this show why they’re not very good Machiavellians). By being ‘on the side of the masses’ one avoids hatred (or contempt) from those who are the real threat to political power (the common majority). One doesn’t necessarily need to be loved by the masses, but one should not alienate the masses to the point of them having nothing but hatred and contempt for the prince.
Thus, the prince must always be aware of threats internal and external to his rule. One needs to strike that balance between taking away too much and giving too much. In taking away too much, he will be hated and risks being assassinated like many of the Roman emperors. In giving too much, he will be seen as weak and effeminate and others will try to seize the day for themselves in the prince’s weakness. In some sense Machiavelli is Aristotle without justice. He advocates finding the mean, but the mean is always for one’s self-power and sovereignty.
At the same time Machiavelli’s comments on justice, cruelty, liberality, and clemency, is all about consequentialism. Prince ought to be merciful and not cruel. But cruelty is necessary. Mercifulness is also good, but sometimes mercy can lead to one’s downfall. When it suits the prince to be just, in order to maintain power, the prince should be just. When it suits the prince to be liberal, in order to maintain power, the prince should be liberal. When it suits the prince to be cruel, in order to maintain power, the prince should be cruel. And so on and so on.
Machiavelli is an instrumental consequentialist. Since the art of politics is about maintaining (and expanding) power, which is necessary for sovereignty, Machiavelli is advising the prince to adopt consequentialist ethics. This is crucial to understand and never forget about Machiavelli! Machiavelli says there are times to be just and honest. There are also times to be cruel and fearsome. Machiavelli is not as “harsh” as the “Machiavellians” make him out to be. There are moments when being just, honest, and virtuous (in the classical sense) are to be acted upon by the prince. But when it becomes necessary for the prince to adopt cruelty, break promises, and be deceptive, then the prince must do that as well. The prince must understand the moments to be just, honest, and virtuous, but the prince must also understand when it becomes necessary to be cruel, break promises, and be deceptive when the state demands it. In other words, what are the consequences of the actions the prince will take? If justice is to enhance power and maintain power, be just. If it is necessary to be cruel (temporarily), then one must be cruel. What Machiavelli never states is that one should always be feared and cruel or unjust. He merely says times will arise when the prince must be feared or cruel or unjust in order to safeguard the sovereignty of the state.
*
Now we will finish our reading of The Prince by examining chapters 20-26. One thing should become clear in reading The Prince. Machiavelli’s text is one about power and sovereignty. It is advice about how best to attain, retain, and strengthen, power and sovereignty. This is what the prince, and the State, should always and primarily be concerned with.
In finishing the last chapters of Machiavelli’s most famous work, The Prince, we will tie up loose ends and come to an understanding of what Machiavelli was saying in his work and what Machiavelli was not saying in his work. To review, up to this point Machiavelli’s Prince is about “practical advice” on new princes who have risen to power and how they should maintain their power. The questions of sovereignty and power are the main themes that Machiavelli is exploring, in which power leads to sovereignty and sovereignty is the aim of princely politics.
Chapter 20: Fortresses Fail
Chapter 20 is an interesting interlude into the politics and military usefulness of fortresses. Strong defensives structures have a long and storied tradition in politics and warfare, but Machiavelli notes that the use and reliance upon fortresses often fail. They fail, in part, because a fortress represents a decay of primal will and resoluteness. There is also the issue of losing hope when a fortress falls and in that fortress falling the prince slides himself into despair and a mentality of defeat. (He spent so much time and effort into the fortress as his salvation and in its loss, he doesn’t know what else to do now.)
By relying on fortresses, one is relying on something outside of themselves for the maintenance of their rule and power. Again, based on the previous themes and chapters, one should always rely on themselves in order to secure and maintain power and sovereignty. While fortresses can have benefits, as Machiavelli notes, they are not to be seen as permanent substitutes for the necessity of the resoluteness and reliance on oneself to maintain. As Machiavelli says toward the end of the chapter, “the best fortress you can have, is in not being hated by your subjects. If they hate you no fortress will save you.”
Again, that theme of Machiavelli being something a national populist is once again on display here. (Yes, I realize that this is an anachronistic term, but Machiavelli regularly advises the prince to be on the side of the people. The “aristocrats” or “elites” are less dangerous than the angry mob. While you should try to balance the interests, Machiavelli always decides that the prince ought to side with the people when push comes to shove.)
Chapter 21: Reputation Matters
Chapter 21 shifts gears and discusses the importance of reputation in politics. In other words, reputation matters. If a prince has a reputation of being trustworthy this is to his benefit. If a prince has a reputation of being untrustworthy this will be harmful to him. (And on this note, Machiavelli might as well be offering practical advice to the rest of us about life in general.) As he writes, “A Prince is likewise esteemed who is a staunch friend and a thorough foe, that is to say, who without reserve openly declares for one against another, this being always a more advantageous course than to stand neutral. For supposing two of your powerful neighbors come to blows, it must either be that you have, or have not, reason to fear the one who comes off victorious.”
What Machiavelli begins to start outlining in Chapter 21 is a return to Chapters 6-8: opportunity and action. Neutrality is the weakest course of action one should take when action is demanded, and so is advising potential allies (or enemies) that they should remain neutral when you should probably be doing everything to win them to your side. One should always take decisive action. Decisive action in favor of friends leads to that reliable and trustworthy reputation. Decisive action, even against foes, leads to a certain fear and respect for the prince among his enemies in which they will always think twice before their action. To illustrate an example from ancient history Machiavelli cites the Roman-Seleucid War in which the Seleucid King Antiochus advised neutrality among the Aetolians while the Romans advised taking up arms in their favor. Antiochus erred in thinking the Aetolians would side with the force offering them nothing. Decisive action is always the best course of action. From this Rome also learned that the Seleucids were weak and unwilling to do whatever was necessary to defeat them (i.e. by offering benefits to the Aetolians as a short-term interest).
Furthermore, Machiavelli notes that one should not ally with stronger powers. This is because in doing so you are effectively subjugating yourself to the stronger power. Again, one of the themes that runs throughout the Prince is sovereignty and power. In allying with a stronger nation, you are effectively losing your sovereignty and power as you become dependent on the stronger power.
However, having many friends can be beneficial. You are counted as being trustworthy and reliable. Victory only cements this further among the perceived reputation of your friends. Even in defeat, though unfortunate, you gain a strong reputation among those friends whom you fought to the bitter end with.
But Machiavelli also advises prudence. Citing the ruin of Venice in their alliance with France, a single mistake can ruin a state or dynasty. The prince must always be prudent. Examining his options before him. He must take into account his best interests. But after examining and taking into consideration the interests at play, Machiavelli then advocates decisive action. No waffling. Hesitation comes off as a sign of weakness. Others will pounce if they sense weakness.
Chapters 22-23: The Court and Secretaries, or Why Having Trustworthy and Truth-Telling Advisors Matters
Concerning the management of political affairs Machiavelli. The purpose of secretaries is that they serve you and have the best interests of the state, or the prince’s interest, at heart. Secretaries that are “out for themselves” undermine your rule.
Thus, there is a dialectical game at work. The prince needs to surround himself with ministers. Ministers are also self-interested people. Ministers will fear their overlord if they consider him to be intelligent and work to serve him and the common good of the state. Ministers who consider the prince to be weak and unintelligent will engage in their own activities which lead to the subversion of princely authority and are not people whom you can trust.
Machiavelli then turns to the issue of political sycophants. This is perhaps a lesson that Hillary Clinton should have learned from Machiavelli during her 2016 election campaign if the stories about her being surrounded by flatterers and sycophants are true. Truth is an important virtue in politics in the sense that the prince must hear the truth if he is to be properly informed of what is besetting him and his rule. Those who ignore the truth and rather engage in pure flattery do the prince a disservice. They also do the nation a disservice. The “hard truth” matters to the prince. The hard truth matters to the state.
Machiavelli believes that having advisors, secretaries, and other such people in the prince’s court who tell the truth – even if it is the hard and harsh truth – is to the benefit of the prince. Machiavelli shows a certain appropriation of Aristotelian philosophy here insofar that one should make decisive decisions with as much truthful information as possible. To make a decision based on lies (flatteries) could bring about the prince’s ruination. And since Machiavelli’s work is all about the maintenance of power and sovereignty, that means flattery runs counter to what the aim of politics is about. To maintain power, and to make good decisions, sometimes we need to have the harsh truth told to us. Even if we don’t necessarily want to hear it. Only in this harsh truth always being told can we come to a fuller understanding of problems and predicaments at hand and act accordingly.
Chapters 24-25: The Role of Fortuna (Fortune) in Political Affairs
Besides power and sovereignty, fortune and prudence are the other paired themes that run throughout the Prince. Going back to Chapters 6-8, fortune is one of the prerequisites for merit according to Machiavelli. There must be fortunate opportunities before the prince if the prince is to ‘seize the moment’ and rise to the top. But Machiavelli is clear that fortune is only half of the equation. “I think it may be the case that Fortune is the mistress of one half of our actions, and yet leaves the control of the other half, or a little less, to ourselves.”
Going back to Chapter 6 wherein the prince of merit was commented on, you should recall that such figures had found themselves situated in circumstantial moments that cried for action. The prince of merit is the one who understood the opportunities that fortune had placed before them and they acted to seize that moment accordingly. It is that ability to understand fortune that represents a prince’s merit. Likewise, a prince must always be on guard against fortune which may sway against him at any time. One must take actions against fortune changing direction in other words.
When discussing the princes of Italy who blame fortune for their porous state they now found themselves in, Machiavelli rather blames them. “Let those princes of ours, therefore, who, after hold them for a length of years, have lost their dominions, blame not Fortune but their own inertness.” This returns us to that theme of decisive action. In politics there is always the necessity of action. Fortune comes and goes, reveals herself, and it is now the task of the prince to act decisively and accordingly. According to Machiavelli the weeping princes and princesses of Italy who have lost their power and dominion and blame “bad luck” for their circumstances are truly the worst of princes and rulers. It was their lack of action, their improper action, or both, that caused the circumstances that they find themselves existing in. Referring back to Chapter 7, “This, I believe, comes chiefly from a cause already dwelt upon, namely that a prince who rests wholly on Fortune is ruined when she changes.”
Machiavelli advises the prince to understand that not everything is under his control. Luck, or Fortune, is very much part of the world. In other words, the irrational exists in the world. The irrational is part of politics. We cannot know everything. We cannot control everything. We must understand this and always be on guard. Prudence against Fortune is always a hallmark of a good prince (or politician). “For if to one who conducts himself with caution and patience, time and circumstances, are propitious, so that his method of acting is good, he goes on prospering; but if these change he is ruined, because he does not change his method of acting.” We must always be aware of when Fortune, or opportunity, comes knocking.
Fortune always brings opportunity is what Machiavelli is saying. The prince must be aware of this. The “moment” is “upon us” is an apt idea that is rooted in a certain Machiavellian philosophy. The conclusion to draw from what Machiavelli is saying by linking opportunity with Fortune is that Fortune can be controlled! Fortune (or Fate) is not something outside of human control.
Chapter 26: The Fortunate Moment of the Medici (if They Seize the Moment)
The closing chapter of the Prince is a sudden change of tone. But Machiavelli was wittily and slyly already changing tone to reach this point in his text. Now addressing the Medici princes directly, he exhorts them to liberate Italy from the invading barbarians who are destroying Italy (the Germans and Spanish and French who are embroiled in the Italian Wars). Like Moses or Romulus or Cyrus beforehand, there is a moment of opportunity before the Medici if they strike at the opportunity: to unite Italy and be considered fathers of a united nation. This would also, in Machiavelli’s eyes, all but guarantee their maintenance of power and increase of sovereignty. Fortune has set so much in motion but now it is time for human action.
The final paragraphs discussing the weaknesses of the French, Spanish, Swiss, and German armies is also something pretty important in the long legacy of Machiavellian philosophy. Know thy enemy. Knowing thy enemy is one of the responsibilities of the prince. The good prince, the prudent prince, the wise prince, knows his enemies and therefore knows the best way to defeat them when that opportunity arises. Machiavelli, a student of the reports of the various battles, writes of the various weaknesses of the forces that have beset Italy. If only a prince aware of these weaknesses trained accordingly, he would be able to overthrow the enemies.
Within the broader picture, the reason why the Medici are so aptly situated to be unifiers of Italy is because not only have they returned to power in Florence, but Florence is now one of the strongest city-states in Italy seeing that Milan and Venice have fallen. Furthermore, a Medici sits in Rome as the head of the Catholic Church and controls the Papal States. The center of Italy is firmly under Medici control. The north is in a state of chaos. The opportunity is there for the Medici if only they take action. Of course, we know the Medici didn’t. But Machiavelli’s political theory of power and sovereignty, fortune and prudence, cold practicality and opportunism has long lived beyond the Medici who failed to heed to Machiavelli’s call.
In Sum
Having examined this short and influential treatise chapter by chapter, we can ask ourselves the question of how Machiavellian was Machiavelli? We can also ask ourselves what is Machiavelli really saying in the Prince?
Machiavelli is writing to princes who have just recently attained power. He is therefore advising them how to maintain the power they have just acquired and how to appear like the other stable princely dynasties across Europe and across history. Therefore, Machiavelli understands politics as primarily being about power.
Additionally, Machiavelli is living in a time of great transformation. Modern political philosophy is generally considered to be about theories of the state. Earlier political philosophy was primarily concerned with ideal questions: What is the best political type or form, why is virtue important to politics, what is justice and why is justice important, etc. Machiavelli is living in an age when the emergences of modern states is coming to the fore. As such, Machiavelli is well aware of this world historical moment of transformation and advising the prince on how to consolidate state power. The theme that emerges in this subtheme of the book is sovereignty. How do you best maintain sovereignty? Machiavelli answers by arguing that the only way to maintain sovereignty is to increase your political power, in principle, the power of the state. (In the case of principalities, the power of the state is invested in the prince.)
Within broader strokes is Machiavelli’s crypto-nationalism. He is seemingly a strong supporter of some form of Italian nationalism and unification against those foreign forces that are running rampant through the country. Machiavelli’s crypto-nationalism borders on a certain nationalist populism insofar that he regularly advises the prince to recognize that the true power is in the hands of the people rather than the elites. While the ideal is to balance both sides, when push comes to shove it is always better to have the people behind you then the nobles, aristocrats, clergy, or other “notables” and “elites” of late Renaissance society.
At the same time Machiavelli tells us that we must recognize the irrational forces at play in our world and throughout history. That irrational actor in the world is what Machiavelli calls Fortuna, or Fortune. Things never go “according to plan.” However, Fortune always comes knocking which brings opportunity to those who can seize the moment. When it does we must have the prudence and intelligence, and will, to recognize it and act decisively. One never knows when Fortune will come knocking again. Taking advantage of opportunities is one of the hallmarks of the good prince. It is necessary if one is to maintain their power and sovereignty too. In some sense, Machiavelli is subtly telling us, Fortune can be controlled if a prince recognizes his moment to act.
Lastly, Machiavelli is a consequentialist. It is not that he throws away the importance of honesty, virtue, ethics, justice, mercy, and so forth. Rather, he subjects these ancient views to a new standard: Will it advance the cause of power and the sovereignty of the state? If the answer is yes then by all means be honest, virtuous, ethical, just, and merciful. If the answer is no then you must be willing to be cruel, unjust, and lie so that good may come. This demands prudence and fortitude among princes and states. They must assess the situations and circumstances before them and address them accordingly. Was Machiavelli a Machiavellian? Yes. Was he as Machiavellian as some say or as popular outlets sometimes portray him? No. In fact, a reading of the Prince and Discourses on Livy will probably lead one to conclude that the essence of Machiavellianism is more about state power, the limits of state power (what is the most the political expedience of the state can achieve), and national sovereignty, and within this, what type of government best embodies the necessities of modern state theory.
The Prince should be read as a primer for princes, but also as a compendium to Machiavelli’s longer but equally important (but less well known) Discourses on Livy. Though Machiavelli’s political outlook in the Discourses are more sharply republican (since he is not writing a “primer for princes”), what unites the Discourses and the Prince is Machiavelli’s theory of the state. In his theory of the state, which begins to be seen in the Prince, one can recognize the importance of sovereign power in Machiavelli. Machiavelli is a sovereignist theorist. Sovereignty demands power. Sovereignty also needs a strong public will. The Discourses reveal that Machiavelli felt republicanism to be the best political form to marry with the demands of sovereign power; The Prince, then, is the primer for sovereign power.
________________________________________________________________
Paul Krause is the editor-in-chief of VoegelinView. He is writer, classicist, and historian. He has written on the arts, culture, classics, literature, philosophy, religion, and history for numerous journals, magazines, and newspapers. He is the author of Finding Arcadia, The Odyssey of Love and the Politics of Plato, and a contributor to the College Lecture Today and Making Sense of Diseases and Disasters. He holds master’s degrees in philosophy and religious studies (biblical studies & theology) from the University of Buckingham and Yale, and a bachelor’s degree in economics, history, and philosophy from Baldwin Wallace University.
________________________________________________________________
Support Wisdom: https://paypal.me/PJKrause?locale.x=en_US
Venmo Support: https://www.venmo.com/u/Paul-Krause-48
My Book on Literature: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1725297396
My Book on Plato: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08BQLMVH2
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/paul_jkrause/ (@paul_jkrause)
Twitter: https://twitter.com/paul_jkrause (@paul_jkrause)
Discourses on Minerva 