Category: Machiavelli

This essay discusses the views and arguments of the famous philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) by analyzing and interpreting his theoretical perspectives we come to understand the ways in which he thought to acquire power and to maintain it as a ‘Prince’. In addition to this, we will interpret his work through examples from his book “The Prince” but also through modern day examples that will help us understand clearly. Discussing more on his principalities of being a good prince (ruler) in state, the argument here is how Machiavelli’s views on state and its ruler or rulers are important and how it benefits the way in which we see our own governments today.

In Machiavelli’s view, a good politician is not one who is friendly, kind and honest, however someone who is occasionally underhanded and dark, someone who knows how to defend in rich and bring honor to the state. Overall this is the most important goal. Machiavelli stated that being nice is indeed an important virtue in general, however citizens need effectiveness. He argues once we understand this requirement, we find ourselves less disappointed and a lot smarter in regards to our wants and needs in life not only as politicians but also as citizens. To understand Machiavelli’s thought to obtaining power and take hold of it, we must understand his analytical theory, he splits his political theory with “Prince” and “Republic”, meaning, in Machiavelli’s time, “Prince” meant ruler and “republic” meant shared rule.

(Strauss, 1978) Machiavelli made various distinctions to make sense of politics. He elaborated a lot on 2 types of principalities. First, ruler with all the power which in a sense would be a hard principality to take over and second, ruler with nobles, the distinction between both principalities is that, not only the ruler has power, but the nobles have power as well, in time they will become is content and have the urge of wanting to become the ruler. Thus, schemes against the ruler will be planned and the only way to stop this from happening is to kill the important people and their families whether it be rulers or nobles. This principality is what Machiavelli stresses on especially in terms of obtaining power and advising ways to withhold that power. “Rulers must have to establish, restore or maintain order and stability” ( Matravers & Pike & Warburton, 2014)

In Machiavelli’s book the Prince, he thoroughly explains through historical illustrations his political views and theories. Machiavelli stated when a foreign party enters a country, people who have an existing grievance or hatred towards the ruling power are naturally drawn towards this new existing challenger. Despite conquering territory, the romans attempted to appease the majority of local people and keep down any challenges to their power. Several – taken by the romans to ensure they successfully added other lands to their region. Romans set up colonies and maintained friendly relations with weaker powers, Aetolians however at the time ensuring they did not allow any increase strength in smaller states. Secondly ignored requests of friendships from stronger kingdoms, for example the kingdom of Macedonia, third they did not allow foreign parties to gain authority however Aetholians allied with another power the Antiochus ii from Syria and defeated The King of Macedonia, weakening the stronger power. Contradicting this, The Romans did not allow Antiochus to have any state so they killed Antiochus and also Aetolians because the Romans refused to give any strong party authority. Machiavelli encourages Princes to establish alliances however warns them not to make allies too strong as they can easily turn on you and the game plan you created gets you killed and your ally wins. An illustration of this is King Louis II versus Alexander the VI. Machiavelli depicts power as a scarce resource by actin in a way that solidifies your own power will simultaneously weaken others. To Machiavelli giving others power not only weakens yourself but showcases your faults and weakness to the ally, thus turning on you using the power you once fed them with. ‘He who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined; because that predominancy has been brought about either by astuteness or else by force, and both are distrusted by him who has been raised to power.’ ( Machiavelli , 2009)

The responsibility of a good prince is to defend the state from external and internal threats to stable governance this means he must know how to fight, have a good reputation and have the ability to manage those who surround him. People should not think of him as soft or easy to disobey nor should they see him as a cruel ruler which will then portray him as disgusting in his society Overall Machiavelli suggests a good prince should be someone who seems unapproachably strict but have reasoning as well. There are few factors that Machiavelli suggests on how a prince should act and keep his power he has earned. One of the greatest principalities is “It is better to be feared than loved”, like one of Socrates most famous quotes “ it is better to be just but thought of as unjust than to be unjust but look just”, Machiavelli believes indeed “it is good to be compassionate , loved and compassionate but it is better to be compassionate, loved and honest when it is useful” . Being feared at your job as a leader or boss is not enough to secure the loyalty of workers. Strength and discipline are required to keep them under control. Good leaders are admired but strong leaders are obeyed being over compassionate enables disorder. This theory for Machiavelli has been used throughout the course of history. Fear and intimidation have often been used as an effective means of motivation in Machiavelli’s era. Cesare Borgia inspired fear by committing cruel acts, however in the end, peace and ordered was restored in a state that was powerful. Machiavelli points out that every prince would be thought of as being merciful but he believed a prince should not mind being cruel, Borgias’ behavior of killing Remirro De Orca VII was in fact merciful as though his acts of cruelty, he saved his people from societal and political chaos. Machiavelli talked about two great leaders Scipio Africanas and Hannibal Barca, both who he used as examples to illustrate the difference between how they both ran their armies and how their act as leaders benefited the state. Prince Hannibal who enacts cruel punishment is not cruel if his behavior creates stability. In contrast, a prince such as Scipio who shows mercy is not really merciful if it allows disorder to grow, which in the end will hurt everyone. A limited member of severe punishments will affect a small group of individuals whereas being excessively merciful can cause disorder and damage the community.

“It is better to be feared than loved”, Arguably the most famous statement from philosopher Machaivelli , however, throughout time has been misinterpreted and misunderstood; this breeds one criticism that is constantly argued by other theorists. Firstly, in an ideal world Machiavelli said it is better to be feared and loved, however realism points out that both factors do in coincide with each other. The argument that it is better to be feared than loved has been face valued and out of content, giving the impression that it is simply encouraging to be deviant and contradicts radical behavior this has led to centuries of abuse throughout history. Thou, when taken into context of what Machiavelli advocates as a princes’ ultimate goal to maintain the state, we can see that this goal requires the people to be compliant which fear achieves.

Machiavelli does not support using cruelty for its own purpose but only to benefit the prince and preserving the state. Machiavelli continues to advice prince’s on how to acquire and keep power. To avoid being hated, prince’s simply have to be feared. He argues that by using the power to protect his citizens and not interfering with their lives, the price can be feared not hated. It is important for a prince to avoid being hated as Machiavelli argues it is deadly as being hated on can lead to be overthrown by your own subjects. Alternatively, if the people fear their prince, the fear acts a more powerful commitment of support this is due to peoples fear of what the lack of support can lead to. Machiavelli also suggests that in order for a prince to achieve fear not hatred, the prince most only be cruel when it is necessary and should not injure his people or take their property. However, threat of punishment should be made clear, as a leader who does so has a far easier time of keeping control of his subjects. Individuals will also comply if the prince does not threaten their lives or property, therefore if the prince wishes to compose discipline there should be a proper reason why and also justification of why the lives will be taken. ‘On this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.’ (Machiavelli, 2009)

In Machiavelli’s view the fear of punishment is constant, the feeling of affection is unreliable therefore when ordering the rulers by their strength the weakest only depends on love, a stronger command inspires fear in his people, the strongest prince instils both fear and love and is not hated but feared. Therefore, it is important for a prince to behave in a sensible manner which also involves cruelty but not to a point where the prince is hated.

Machiavelli’s insights are important, he writes that we cannot be good at everything not only because of our limited resources and abilities but also it is in conflict with our moral codes. If not politics but within businesses or family life which require difficult decisions and sacrificing neo-Christian values of kindness for the sake of practical effectiveness, we may also have to lie just to keep relationships and friendships afloat or ignoring employee’s feelings just to keep the business stable and running.

Thomas More’s Utopia offers an analysis of European culture, proposes a model against which that society can be estimated and maybe fixed, yet the book eventually reasons that the best way to perfection is through Christianity. Whereas, Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince places a wide range of conflicting interpretations upon key sections of his works (particularly chapters VII-VIII and XV-XVIII) and a plethora of notable critics and philosophers have contended that Machiavelli distinguished between the role of church (morality) and statecraft or politics. In my paper, I will show the role of the Church in state matters according to Machiavelli and More by showing the point of convergence and divergence, the linkage between politics and morality, the concept of virtues, and religion for ecclesiastical principles in The Prince and Utopia.

One of the striking points of convergence between More’s Utopia and Machiavelli’s The Prince is the avowed interest in the necessity for structure in governance where the role of ‘church’ may be marginalized when a ruler takes a ‘secular’ rather than a ‘theocratic’ approach. In Utopia, Hythloday describes the city of Aircastle, which structures its government similarly to every other city in Utopia. Accordingly, thirty families appoint a leader, called a Stywards; ten Stywards are overseen by a Bencheater. All the Stywards choose a Mayor, who rules for life. Interestingly, to prevent the Bencheater from conspiring with the Mayor to subjugate the people, Stywards are given first authority in any matter concerning the populace (Thomas More, Utopia, Book II, p. 54). In The Prince, Machiavelli states that a strong country or acquired principality is always necessarily governed by a monarch. Machiavelli hypothesizes that this method of governance is best for preserving peace and unity in any kingdom. As his treatise is primarily concerned with conquest, the successful rule of new principalities always takes three steps (Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter V,). Firstly, the complete ruin of the previous societal and political construct must be secured. Secondly, the new king must consolidate his new domain. Thirdly, the king sets up an oligarchy, specially chosen by him and dependent on his graces and patronage of the church or a moral body. The subjected peoples should also be given the freedom to live under their own laws. So, both More and Machiavelli agreed that structure in government was necessary for the preservation of order and unity. Yet some people would take issue with the argument that why did More and Machiavelli diverged on how the government needs to be structured? While More proclaimed a government based on equality, Machiavelli was inclined toward domination. However much like More, Machiavelli too espoused a ‘code of honor’ among rulers that must never be violated or breached. He cited the grievous example of Agathocles of Syracuse, who ascended to power through heinous means (Machiavelli, Chp. VIII, p. 34). Machiavelli argues that such a ruler could achieve power, but never a lasting glory. Yet, it cannot be called ‘talent’ to subjugate and slaughter fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory. Thus, the pivotal role of the Church was highlighted to the extent of showering a ‘benevolence’ on the ruler. Machiavelli has commented that every conquest must be occasioned by violent upheaval, but no newly acquired principality could be successfully ruled by “brutality, cruelty and inhumanity, together with the endless crimes” (Machiavelli, Chp. VIII, p. 34). In other words, rulers cannot hope to achieve lasting peace in any new domain if he, like Agathocles, will persist in perpetrating gratuitous violence on his new subjects. A new prince inspires fear, but never hatred, if he wants his new domain to prosper. Nevertheless, a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and their women. The divergent between Utopia and The Prince is that in Utopia “there is no such thing as private property” (More, Book II, p. 53). This is quite prominent as More believed that war and violence were often inspired by the wicked ambitions of hegemonic rulers. In More’s egalitarian society, everyone is equal, and all work equally for the greater good of the society they live in. There is no self-interest, but rather, common interest, which is the prevailing philosophical ideal espoused by all Utopians. In More’s treatise, Hythloday states that “in Utopia they have a six-hour working day” (More, Book II, p. 56). Both men and women contribute to the common welfare. Hythloday then voices More’s stand and opinion on idle priests, noblemen, and gentlemen, who contribute nothing towards the common good. Instead, they are like parasites, who prosper through the labors of others. In More’s utopian kingdom, even rulers like the Stywards work. More than anything, these rulers work to set a good example for those they lead.

Machiavelli has not legitimatized political means by reference to any political ends, and he never completely separated politics from morality as so many scholars have claimed. Machiavelli’s sheds a spotlight on the nitty grittiest of politics and Church (i.e., organized religion). This is evident from a conspicuous but rarely cited comment Machiavelli makes in reference to Agathocles, the tyrant of Syracuse, in The Prince: “On the other hand, we can hardly describe killing fellow citizens, betraying friends and living without loyalty, mercy or creed as signs of talent” (Machiavelli, Chp. VIII, p. 34). Machiavelli clarifies by juxtapositioning successful rulers and unsuccessful ones. Each group may comprise of laudable men of virtue depending upon the kind of the goals towards which they endeavor. A man such as Agathocles, whose personality seems to conform perfectly to the list of scandalous moral attributes Machiavelli discusses in chapters XV-XVIII of The Prince, is, paradoxically, condemned by Machiavelli. Power does not, therefore, automatically confer glory or virtue, nor is might synonymous with right for Machiavelli. In essence, a successful prince may frequently act outside the boundaries of traditional ethical or religious codes. It is here the more’s Utopia sees an ‘eye to eye’ with what Machiavelli offers as an advisory to the rulers. Machiavelli recognizes this fact and approves it. But he distinctly places the merely powerful rulers from the eminent men of virtue by reference to the ends or goals toward which these rulers strive. A careful analysis of The Prince brings out that Machiavelli does not argue that all means are justified in the pursuit of any ends. He does not completely separate moral standards from political actions.

Machiavelli has a careful perusal of virtue, human quality of which there is no hope of success. This individualistic perspective marks his thought as reflective of the preconceptions of the age. Unlike More’s views presented in Utopia, Machiavelli accepts the optimistic premises of such Italian humanists and argues for at least limited free will-man controls roughly half of his actions while fortuna rules the other half, Human virtue must contend with fortuna, the personification of all the contingent forces in the world. The fortuitous conjunction of a man of virtue and a favorable fortuna-who, like a woman, is always more likely to smile upon an energetic and courageous young man-may allow a new prince, like the two Medici, to take advantage of any historical opportunity or occasion. Success in this sublunary world, however, is never completely guaranteed, as the case of Cesare Borgia demonstrates.

Regarding the ecclesiastical principalities, Machiavelli says that they are sustained by the ancient institutions of religion, which are so powerful and of such a kind that they keep their princes in power in whatever manner they act and live their lives. These princes alone have states and do not defend them. They have subjects but they do not rule them. The states remain undefended and are never taken away from them, and the subjects, who are ungoverned show no concern, and they do not think about, nor are they able to sever, their ties with them, they do not break their ties with them. These principalities, then, are the only secure and happy ones. But Machiavelli says that since they are protected by the institution of religion and are always exalted and maintained by God, it would be the act of a presumptuous and foolhardy man to discuss them. Here again, More’s Utopia underscores what can be safely considered as an ‘agnostic’ presentation of religion or church-no theocratic supremacy is ever endorsed in Utopia. If somebody accepts there is not great beyond, as indicated by the Utopians, at that point that individual will act childishly looking for quick physical and mental joy and not act temperately in anticipation of future reward. Utopia has no place for the hegemony of church or religion and only a consensual ideation-at the utmost level.

To conclude, Machiavelli’s The Prince has a commentary that cannot presume to discuss a state ordained by God fairly drips with sarcasm. Machiavelli was well aware of the thoroughly worldly ambitions of the Renaissance popes and bitterly resented their effect on Italian politics. Whereas More’s Utopia goes on to envision a world governed by equality with no allowance to church to thrust its power, pelf or privilege on ‘equal men and women’ in the kingdom. In this paper, I have shown the role of Church in state matters according to Machiavelli and More by showing the point of convergence and divergence, the linkage between politics and morality, the concept of virtues, and religion for ecclesiastical principles in The Prince and Utopia.

In Machiavelli’s, The Prince, he discusses with the reader what a prince should look like and how he should act in the presence of his kingdom. Many of these traits are what everyone man and woman should follow, including being compassionate, strong, and intelligent. Consequently, Machiavelli really focuses on the traits of a true prince, such as Julius Caesar. Caesar was a ruler who ruled by force, kept his word, and had his hands on cruelty and mercy. These three traits make what a true prince and Machiavelli would support Caesar in these acts. Furthermore, force, a man of his word, cruelty, and mercy is one of the three main traits of a prince and hence makes Julius Caesar a perfect form of a prince.

Julius Caesar’s power by force is one of the three traits of a prince he has. When he came to power in 60 BC, he forged an alliance with Pompey, a general from this era, allowing him to have complete authority over Rome. He also allied with Cassius, a wealthy patrician of the time. With these two men in his back pocket, he could be a leader of complete force. As Julius Caesar once said, “Without training, they lacked knowledge. Without knowledge, they lacked confidence. Without confidence, they lacked victory” (“Julius Caesar Quotes.” 1). Caesar was all about victory and he had to get his victory. After the alliance with Pompey and Cassius, the people saw that he was strong and they supported him. He ruled with confidence in himself and therefore that confidence showed in his ruling. Through his confidence, he was able to rule by force. He was also a man of many talents, allowing him to assume full rule over Rome. He had humor, charm, and personality that enabled him to win over his power. His ability to speak well also worked to his advantage because he was able to persuade the people of Rome and his enemies to his favor. Moreover, Machiavelli’s vision of a prince shows that Caesar’s power by force strategies nominate him for a perfect prince.

A man of his word is one of the most powerful me there is. Machiavelli’s vision of a prince included this very attribute. During the Galactic Wars, Caesar was captured by a band of pirates in 75 BC. He told the men to take captured him that when they set him free, he will hunt them all down and kill every last one of them. Hence, when he was released, the pirates thought he was joking, but little did they know that he had not forgotten. A little while later, Caesar returned to kill every man of that clan. In this action, although ruthless, Caesar showed that he was a man of his word. He showed everyone around him that he meant business and this sent a message to his enemies. As Julius Caesar once stated, “If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it” (“TOP 25 QUOTES BY JULIUS CAESAR (of 70): A-Z Quotes.” 1). Moreover, Caesar was a man of power, but he was also a man of his word. To seize power, you must break the law, and when he went to conquer Pompey and Cassius, he did this very thing. He also observed power as the life it was a person it’s self. He kept his word when conquering Pompey and Cassius, hence he kept it throughout his reign.

Since Caesar had a rule over his kingdom and was a man of his word, Machiavelli’s vision of a prince shows that Caesar is a perfect man for the job.

In chapter 17 of The Prince, by Machiavelli, he advocates that a ruler should be Cruel and Merciful. He should have a sense of mercy, but not be taken away with being too merciful. Cruelty restores order and lets the prince be sure that in a state of conflict or war, that he will have the backs of the people and have an army to fight for him. When Caesar went to conquer Pompey in 48 BC, he left Rome with 20,000 soldiers. These men were war veterans and were skilled fighters under Caesar control. During the war, the encountered Pompey, who had 50,000 soldiers at his disposal. While they were outnumbered, they really had the advantage — Caesar. Caesar was a cruel leader that would not accept defeat. They went into that battle and won, coming home victorious. It is important for a leader to have a nice side, but if they want to keep their kingdom in line, they have to approach with cruelty. Machiavelli stresses this importance in his book and would proudly look at Caesar as a prince. Although a prince should have so mercy in his playbook, cruelty shows the peasants of the kingdom who is in charge and evidently, leaves the prince with an army.

Consequently, Julius Caesar makes the perfect form of a prince showing that he has the traits of force, a man of his word, cruelty, and mercy — the three main traits. When coming home from defeating Pompey, he showed force in his action and displayed he was in charge. After being captured by pirates, he told them that he would come back and kill them, and he did — keeping his word. Lastly, When he went to conquer Pompey, he showed that strength is not just in numbers, hence showing his sense of cruelty over merciful. All of the things Caesar did in his career show that he is a version of the prince that Machiavelli who have supported. Hence, the traits to be a prince shown through Caesar’s actions reveal his inner prince — the perfect prince.

In 1516, Thomas More, a English writer, lawyer, and philosopher, wrote Utopia. The word Utopia is a combination of two Greek words and is defined as no-place. It is a play on the words Eutopia, a perfect place, which More used to imply that although utopian lifestyle is desired it is impossible to attain. Utopia is divided into two books. Book one criticized Europe’s political system and book two described a utopian island. Utopia was written during the Renaissance movement. The Renaissance began in Italy in the 15th century and later spread to different parts of Europe. More included himself as the narrator and used the fictional characters of Utopia and their attitudes about public service to reveal leadership that is very different from the royal service of the Renaissance.

In book 1, Thomas More meets his old friend Peter Giles. Together they meet with Raphael Hythloday who is a world traveler and philosopher. Hythloday is very knowledgeable about government and ruling. Giles and More are interested in hearing his ideas. Giles suggests that Hythloday put his knowledge to use and become an advisor to a king. Hythloday says he is not interested in becoming a slave to a king as an advisor ends up being subservient like a slave because he isUTO always trying to please the king. He believes that advisors are just puppets to the king and furthermore the king is only interested in gaining more wealth and territory rather than governing their land properly. Hythloday says that he has seen this problem in European society and that he has in his opinion visited a perfect society were these issues do not exist. In book 2 Hythloday describes the perfect society of Utopia. These advisor issues do not exist in utopia because citizens have an equal say on how they are governed. There is no reward for being favored by politicians and rulers. Everything is done for the common good of society.

In contrast to Europe during the Renaissance, utopia is the ideal and perfect society where everything is done for the good of its citizens. There is no concept of individualism so it is similar to a communist society where everything is shared equally amongst the people. In Utopia the ruler of every thirty households was called the syphogrant. On top of every ten syphogrants and their household was the head phylarch. Together the syphogrants elect a governor who holds office for life .

Utopia is an agricultural society. This focus on the land promotes harmony amongst the people as all citizens have to work for their food and then the produce is evenly distributed. Consequently, there is no private property in Utopia. everything is kept in storehouses and distributed when necessary. This leads to reduced or little crime and jealousy because everyone has what they need. Additionally, the utopians are tolerant of other religions as a number of religions exist on the island.

During the 15th century Italy was divided into city-states. The renaissance started in the city state of Florence. The Medici family rose to power over Florence. In order to prove that they were rulers, the Medici family were patrons of the arts. Benozzo Gozzoli was commissioned by the Medici’s to paint the frescoes for The Chapel of the Magi. These paintings were used to show Cosimo de Medici’s power and his humbleness, since these were the most important qualities of a leader in the renaissance period. The artist painted Cosimo riding a donkey a symbol of humbleness while his son Piero, the current ruler of the Medici family, was riding on a white horse to symbolize the power and nobility of his family .

These characteristics of a ruler are also seen in a The Prince. Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian renaissance political philosopher, wrote The Prince in 1523 as a guidebook for rulers. Machiavelli stated that a ruler should be both feared and loved . If one cannot combine both it is safer to be feared than to be loved. As it is written, “for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of man is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” Therefore, people are less likely to plot against leaders they fear than a leader they love. He writes though, that it is crucial for a prince to be feared in a way that if he is not loved he does not become hated. When necessary, a talented prince who wished to stay in power would put aside traits such as honesty, integrity, generosity, and compassion in order to instill fear in both his followers and his enemies, since fear engenders respect. Additionally, Machiavelli claimed that for a ruler that if the end results are appropriate the means are justified. He said that “the action of a prince should be governed solely by necessity .” Machiavelli felt that a prince is above moral and religious affairs.

During the renaissance, Baldassare Castiglione wrote The Book of the Courtier . Castiglione was a courtier, a noble who was part of the kings court. His book illustrated the virtues of an ideal Renaissance courtier. He wrote how it was important for a leader who is an example to all of society, to have been born into a noble family as he will be more respected and revered. It is also imperative that a courtier should be knowledgeable in the handling of arms; he should know how to deal with every type of weapon both on foot and on horse. He must be well-mannered and conduct himself with the utmost respect. Castiglione held that a ruler used kindness and skill to gain respect.

More wrote utopia in order to highlight the political corruption in Europe. His use of fictional characters was a creative way to distance himself from his own controversial ideas. More revealed his satirical plan through Raphael Hythloday. The name Raphael refers to the angel of healing while the last name Hythloday means speaker of nonsense in Greek. Through the character Hythloday, More brings out his own beliefs that the kings and their advisors were really only interested in themselves and not their subjects. Likely a reflection of his own complicated relationship with Henry VIII. In contrast to Hythloday, it was known that More was a catholic and lived during the early years of the Protestant Reformation. He was merciless against the Protestants and persecuted them. It is therefore ironic that a main approach in utopia was religious tolerance.

More was one of the first authors to establish a paradigm for the ideal world. He created a framework for fantasy life and an ideal world that is still in use today. Even though More believed in Utopia an ideal world he called his novel Utopia to demonstrate that there is no real perfect place. Each of the authors discussed above describe different mechanisms for attaining true leadership including, humility, fear, and kindness but a true leader needs to be empathetic to the people and sympathetic to their needs but maintain aspects of all these types of leadership to be a successful leader.

Fear, to a great extent, breathes life to a story we tell ourselves. The power to demand loyalty by inducing fear is one that holds advantages over love. Machiavellian values tend to take shape in our lives whether from politicians or people in our daily commute. Niccolo Machiavelli, while not Machiavellian himself, it remains arguable that the qualities of Machiavellianism extend out to all manners of people put under stress from the real world.

In retrospect, historians and philosophers alike point out the human nature of shifting sides when situations turn unfavorable. Machiavelli does not shy away when exhibiting “how historians and philosophers often fault the people for inconstancy” (McCormick, 724). “For pledging allegiance to a prince one minute and then cheering for liberty the next” (McCormick, 724). “People may claim to want one thing or another -in taverns, in their homes or on the street- but that they often choose something quite different when they are formally empowered to deliberate and decide within the bounds of assemblies.” (McCormick, 725). “Institutions that formerly empower the people to make decisions themselves, Machiavelli suggests, allow the people to clarify their preferences and moderate their impulses.” (McCormick, 726). “Machiavelli insists that the people both freely discuss and directly decide legislative and judicial matters in their assembles” (McCormick, 724). This expands on Machiavelli’s claim that a non-democratic government frequently causes people to grow indecisive. When people eventually settle on a certain side, they immediately proceed to the opposition in a matter of short notice when everything goes south. With democracy, people can freely communicate their opinions without worrying about the choices of their peers.

From history to modern times, some contemporary leaders may act with no regard for ethical norms. The article “The Machiavelli Measure: Which modern Leaders Fit the Definition?” challenges how today’s politicians fit “some Machiavellian criteria, but falls short on others.” (Barnard, 2). “Trump doesn’t mind a bit of deceit when it suits his purpose, and he certainly doesn’t apologize for telling lies.” (Barnard, 2). “Rodrigo Duterte has embraced at least one element of Machiavellianism. His zero tolerance policy on drugs and other crime is nothing short of ruthless.” (Barnard, 2). “Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and China’s Xi Jinping are clever politicians… They’re ambitious, exploit opportunities, and have managed to manipulate the systems under which they work to their own advantage.” (Barnard, 2) A manipulative leader “rises to the top political position. He lets nothing stand in the way of his ambition and yet he turns out to be an effective leader, enabling good things to happen economically and socially, charming his constituents along the way.” (Barnard, 1). Today’s modern leaders do possess Machiavellian characteristics. By way of illustration, when any political position brings with it a set of responsibilities, they can accede to opportunities for abuse in power. Politicians can follow unorthodox methods when leading their country with some of their actions ranging from questionable to downright illegal to remind people how to fear. The same systems used to elect a leader in some of these instances hold loopholes or can become manipulated to a politician’s liking to ensure that they stay in influence for an extended period of time.

Looking past the leaders of modern times, humans since their existence have remained tempted to display Machiavellian values when left unchecked. Under circumstances, everyone displays Machiavellian values from time to time; the human nature of committing immoral deeds exists, but with moral guidelines established within society, people choose to remain civil. Humans fall susceptible to healthy practices as much for faulty ones when “so many things unite” (Machiavelli, 2532) appearing beneficial, but healthy practices, for the sake of social acceptance, remain held onto. Free will exists, and everyone exhibits the capabilities of either keeping to ourselves or inflicting harm on adversaries “revered and worthy of admiration” (Machiavelli, 2533). Detachment is a part of everyone’s lives; people need solitude every now and then. When left to their vices, people can constitute invidious schemes that befall naturally and thus “unable to resist” (Machiavelli, 2533) temptation. The existence of society emboldens us to fall align with traditions and societal norms that mold us into acting civil attributable to a system of checks and balances. Jealousy, a normal human emotion, oftentimes becomes bottled up for two reasons: reputation and stability. Whenever certain individuals receive credit for anything, their actions introduce the option of bystanders to feel envious and could choose so to sacrifice their social standing for the purposes of inflicting harm on the same individuals. Whenever people carry on their lives alone, they’re receiving a lack of judgment and therefore can come up with ill-intent plots, unless surrounded by daily social interactions.

Thus, humanity showcases susceptibility to both the good and the bad, or else we wouldn’t remain human. To take away from this, people in political positions hold the power to commit immoral deeds that qualify as Machiavellian, but the same remains said for the everyday person. What society can take away from this is one’s capabilities to unethical tendencies; channeling Machiavellian virtues into practice can cause adverse effects, namely, inhibiting positive growth, and inviting unwanted attention from adversaries.

Works Cited

1. Barnard, Loretta. “The Machiavelli Measure: Which Modern Leaders Fit the Definition?” The Big Smoke, The Belleford Group Pty Ltd, 2018, 1-3, thebigsmoke.com/2018/05/24/the-machiavelli-measure-which-modern-leaders-fit-the-definition/.
2. Machiavelli, Niccolo “The Prince.” Norton Anthology of World Literature: Second Edition, Ed. Peter Simon, W.W. Norton & Company, 2009, 2532-2534
3. McCormick, John “Subdue The Senate: Machiavelli’s “Way of Freedom” or Path to Tyranny?” Political Theory, Vol. 40, No. 6, Sage Publications, Inc., 2012, 714-735

There have always been various forms of government throughout society. People have been ruled by leaders, princes, and presidents. Certain philosophers such as Plato, Lao-Tzu, and Niccolo Machiavelli have proposed their views on how to show power. While Lao-Tzu and Plato had similar views compared to Machiavelli, they developed different actions when it came to people. The views of Plato, Lao-Tzu, and Machiavelli will develop the government as we know today. In this comparison, what do these three philosophers reveal about how different a government is?

Lao-Tzu, who is a Chinese philosopher known for ‘Tao-te Ching.’ Lao-Tzu believed in the power of the people. ‘Lao-Tzu takes the question of the freedom of the individual into account by asserting that the wise leader will provide the people with what they need, but not annoy them with promises of what they do not need (Jacobus 56).” Plato, on the other hand, was a student of Socrates who worked on philosophical essays. Plato believed in a spiritual form. ‘In order to live ethically, it is essential to know what is true and, therefore, what is important beyond the world of sensory perception.’ (Jacobus 581). Deeper into the views on government, Lao-Tzu wanted people to believe in Tao. ‘Who relies on the Tao in governing men doesn’t try to force issues or defeat enemies by force of arms (Lao-Tzu 60).’ In other words, Lao-Tzu wanted a peaceful way of living; where the government did as the people wanted. ‘Governing a large country is like frying a small fish. You spoil it with too much poking (Lao-Tzu 64).’ Plato’s view of society can be found in ‘The Allegory of the Cave.’ Plato suggests that the people in the cave is society, and the people are prisoners that are looking beyond the meaning of life. ‘Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a culture which they have never received. We have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens and have educated you far better and more perfectly than they have been educated, and you are better able to share in the double duty (Plato 588).’ Plato and Lao-Tzu philosophies of what a ruler should be are similar when it comes to the spirit of a person. Plato and Lao-Tzu believed in individual happiness when it came to the leading role.

In comparison to Plato, Machiavelli saw a completely different view. Machiavelli thought a leader should control his nation without the fear of uncertainty. Machiavelli believed that by having a military and equipped was a priority for a leader. ‘Nevertheless, a prince must be cautious in believing and in acting, nor should he be afraid of his own shadow; and should proceed in such a manner, tempered by prudence and humanity, so that too much trust may not render him imprudent nor too much distrust renders him intolerable (Machiavelli 91).’Plato, on the other hand, suggests the opposite. Plato believed a ruler must be truthful and have knowledge and discipline. ‘Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others; we shall explain to them that in other States, end of their class are not obligated to share in the toils of politics (Plato 588).’ Plato believed in the four virtues of wisdom, courage, self-control, and justice. Compared to Machiavelli, Plato thought a ruler can never be unfair and people should not harm others. In the end, Machiavelli believed that a leader would do well by being superior rather than Plato’s views on the government by caring for the people.

With regard to whom Plato would most likely agree with when it came down to beliefs, Plato was more for Lao-Tzu views on government. Lao-Tzu and Plato saw similar views regarding how a leader should rule his people. Plato and Lao-Tzu were more content with the people running society. Both philosophers wanted the same goal, which was wisdom. Plato and Lao-Tzu spread their beliefs through the thoughts of others. Plato was searching for this wisdom of others, where Lao-Tzu was more natural. Both of these philosophers are on different paths but believing that the way to succeed in being a leader was to not force it.

In conclusion, Machiavelli had different beliefs compared to Plato and Lao-Tzu. Machiavelli believed in a strict leader, and the use of war and guns, Plato and Lao-Tzu believed in natural wisdom and the rise of the people. All these views were necessary when it came to surviving and operating mankind. In today’s society, each belief is something people would want as a leader.

Morality is the “differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal” (Medium). Throughout this course the theme of morality is brought up in readings read in this course like “The Trial and Death of Socrates” written by Plato and the book “The Prince” written by Niccolò Machiavelli. When talking about morality people have different meanings of the word or different views on morality. There is not one definite definition. The two books mentioned above share a central theme of morality but in both books view morality in very different perspectives.

Upon reading Plato, Socrates views morality in the highest decree. When Socrates was standing trial for “corrupting the youth,” and many other things he defends himself by voicing his opinion about what he thought is right. In the book he states, “Someone might ask if he feels remorse about what he did that will ultimately get him killed. Socrates replies with his answer by saying that the person is wrong and that this should not be looked at as life or death situation but instead look at it as if this man did a good or bad thing” (Plato pg. 31). Socrates is valuing highly of what he believes is moral to him. He perceives that doing the right thing is more imperative than taking a path that will save him in the end. He thinks that accepting his fate is more moral than the obvious. He wants the jury and the prosecutors to know that if they sentence him to death than it will hurt them more than it will hurt him in his opinion because he knows that what he is fighting for is worth fighting for and dying for what he believes in is worth it. Socrates does not regret his actions. He would rather die for what he believes in than admitting that he is “corrupting the youth” and many other things that he is accused of. Whereas for Machiavelli, he seems to strike down the idea of morality. He reckons it useless and, in a way, Machiavelli is saying that a leader should put up a facade. For instance, a leader could show that they possess these qualities but do not have to put these qualities into action. In the Prince, it states, “So, a leader doesn’t have to possess all the virtuous qualities I’ve mentioned, but it’s absolutely imperative that he seem to possess them” (Prince). In other words, the prince can put up a front but does not have to practice it. Machiavelli believes this is true because this can lead the people into rebellion. If as a prince and we always do the right thing then people can take advantage and think that this prince is weak. In addition to Machiavelli views of morality it also ties in with the quality of virtues.

Machiavelli’s idea of “Virtu” is that it is a drive, talent or ability directed toward the achievement of certain goals. In other words, a prince should do anything necessary to get what he wants or do anything in his power for his state. For instance, being evil and cruel if necessary. In the book he states, “A prince should lead and take the good path to be a good leader, but when necessary a prince should use evil or know how to use evil during situation when need it” (Machiavelli). This is the most vital quality a prince must have to be great according to Machiavelli. In Machiavelli’s opinion leaders can have a reputation of being moral but does not have to practice morality. The overall message Machiavelli is trying to get across is to stay in power; any means necessary to accomplish these goals are acceptable. He clearly sees the importance of brutal force and evil. Here Socrates would not agree with Machiavelli at all. In Plato, Socrates believes that as a leader or a person we should have a moral virtue. A quality for being morally good. In the book he states, “for the unexamined life is not worth living for men, you will believe me even less (Plato pg. 39). People should examine their life and as a person we should do good in life which in turns will lead to happiness, but Socrates would also think that people do have a choice to be bad but as a person we do not have to choose that path to do bad things we can choose to be good. Socrates in the end believes good in a man.

Though Plato and Niccolò Machiavelli are two different worlds apart in their principles both writers had a view on what morality is. Plato saw the world through Socrates’ eyes where in his era, people started to question their beliefs and started to think about what is right and wrong and questioning god and etc. whereas in Machiavelli piece was written during the development of renaissance as a guide to how successfully govern and how to be a great leader and how to hold that power that they get ahold of. Also, in Machiavelli’s period the only way to succeed is by abandoning traditional moral values and adopting ways even if it is not morally right to be a successful leader. In a way both writers were brought in eras that were difficult in a sense.

In many ways, Socrates in Plato and Machiavelli would disagree with one another on certain ideas. In Plato, Socrates would view a prince who possesses qualities that Machiavelli believes a prince should have as an egocentric ruler and Machiavelli would view Socrates as a risky and dangerous idealist which would lead the state to rebellion which in Machiavelli’s eyes he would see that as weak and that whomever ruling that state does not know how to control their state, so he would think that the prince is incompetent of leading or ruling.

Machiavelli’s thoughts toward morality is amoral or in other words there is a lack of morality. This is because in his book he talks about what it takes to be a great leader at any cost. In comparison to Plato, Socrates is trying to spread the idea of knowledge and speaks of happiness. Connecting this back to morality Machiavelli thinks that being moral can sometimes lead to the people to rebel because if we show weakness then people will not listen. Whereas in Plato, Socrates believes that if we have moral values and we do not commit acts of evil then we have happiness.

Niccolò di Bernardo del Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy on May 3rd, 1469. He is known in history as the father of modern political philosophy, though he is also known for other things. Machiavelli served as a senior official in the Republic of Florence, taking responsibility for diplomatic and military affairs. He was also a writer across numerous mediums, including poetry, comedy, and song writing. Furthermore, the personal letters he wrote to people in his life are considered very important to historians and scholars. He also worked as a secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence from 1498 to 1512, after the Medici were out of power. Machiavelli’s greatest claim to fame is the book he wrote called The Prince, written in 1513 after he was exiled from Florence. The book is said to have been dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici. Since publication, the word “Machiavellian” has been used to describe corrupt politicians who use fear and cunning to keep their political power. The policies of modern “Machiavellian” leaders can be traced back to the ideas presented in The Prince. In the book, Machiavelli describes specifically how a leader can stay in control without losing support from their followers.

Machiavelli believed that in order to keep power, a leader could not always be a “good” person. He also believed that people lived in ways that they were not supposed to live, and that these actions would lead to their destruction. Something Machiavelli states in the book is that, “…in the actions of men, and especially of princes, the end justifies the means.” He also says that sometimes when a person is in a position of power, actions that might be considered brutal or immoral are often necessary. In Machiavelli’s own words, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot have both.” Machiavelli believed instilling fear was an effective way for a ruler to control his subjects. In The Prince, he says that punishing an individual for their actions is justifiable if it benefits the community as a whole. Effectively, these punishments would serve as a lesson to the rest of the community. Machiavelli’s main point is that as long as their subjects see the outcome of a leader’s actions as positive, it does not matter how the outcome came to be. Ultimately, the ends justify the means, regardless of morality. The only thing a leader would need to worry about is not pushing things too far to the point that they are hated by the community.

Machiavelli also states that good leaders must convince their subjects that they possess certain positive qualities in order to keep them in check. The specific words he uses in chapter fifteen are: “One is reputed generous, one rapacious; one cruel, one compassionate; one faithless, another faithful; one effeminate and cowardly, another bold and brave; one affable, another haughty; one lascivious, another chaste; one sincere, another cunning; one hard, another easy; one grave, another frivolous; one religious, another unbelieving, and the like. And I know that everyone will confess that it would be most praiseworthy in a prince to exhibit all the above qualities that are considered good.”

These words mean that even if a leader does not possess these positive traits, they need to convey that they do in order to keep the community on their side. Another idea that Machiavelli presents is the contrast between were fortune and virtue. In this context, virtue refers to the actions that are taken by a ruler that convince others that they are worthy of respect. Fortune refers to the power and influence gained by performing virtuous acts. Machiavelli emphasizes virtue over fortune because fortune isn’t something a leader can directly control. However, they can control their actions, and by taking virtuous actions they can gain the favor of the population.

Machiavelli also emphasizes that a good leader must know how to respond appropriately to threats. In his own words, “It is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves.’ Machiavelli is essentially warning rulers to be wary of acting too quickly when they feel threatened by inside or outside forces. The leader would have to be sneaky and cunning (like a fox), and not to go full force before they know the motives of their opponents. However, when conflict is unavoidable the leader must show the strength of a “lion” to gain respect from the opposing side. Ultimately, the important thing is to know when to hold back and when to assert your dominance. Along with this point Machiavelli believed that if a leader’s people failed him it was due to some error that the leader has overlooked. He believed it was necessary for a leader to build up a faithful community and a strong team of people on his side.

As stated before, many world leaders throughout history have been described as “Machiavellian.” A modern example of a leader that displays these Machiavellian qualities is the President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte. He does not tolerate people rebelling against the law in any way. He uses brutality and fear to maintain his power, just as Machiavelli suggests in his book. Citizens that are breaking the law are shot do not get arrested or tried. Instead, they are immediately shot on sight. This goes along with Machiavelli’s beliefs about instilling fear upon citizens. It also directly relates to the point Machiavelli makes about punishing people that break the law in order to show other citizens what could happen if they rebelled.

Another example of a leader that has been known to use Machiavellian methods is Vladimir Putin. Often, he has justified questionable actions by claiming that the outcome is beneficial for society. For example, some people see the relationship between Donald Trump, and Putin as inappropriate. They are closer than another President of the United States has been with Putin. Some speculators think it benefits both countries, but mending the relationship between the two countries. While others believe, there is something sneaky going on. He has also been known to manipulate or even change the system to work in his favor. However, many citizens of his country view him as cynical but charming, keeping in line with Machiavelli’s idea of a ruler being respected instead of loved.

Arguably, one final modern-day example of a leader that uses Machiavellian methods to hold power is Donald Trump. Like Putin, Trump has a dedicated following despite the fact that he has been caught lying and bullying other politicians in order to get his way. As stated before, these qualities were necessary at some points in Machiavelli’s opinion. They both share the belief that having a strong state is better than having a good and moral state. Furthermore, Trump’s scapegoating and inhumane treatment of illegal immigrants are examples of immoral actions that he believes to be justified, as they allegedly benefit the United States as a whole. This echoes Machiavelli’s belief that the ends justify the means. However, one way that Trump does not embody Machiavelli’s beliefs, is that he has gone too far and lost respect from many U.S. citizens.

Why are we still reading a book that was written over five hundred years ago you might ask? Machiavelli is one of the important voices in history when it comes to the concept of political thought. Through his writing, Machiavelli is the first to directly separate ethics from politics. Through his writing, Machiavelli always tends to have a realistic point of view. This book also shows readers what looking at the world through an immoral perspective is like. Many of Machiavelli’s core methods can be seen in modern day leaders. It just goes to show that old ideas have carried their way into modern society many times after the book was written.

Modern politics are the actions or activities concerned with achieving and using power in a country or society. In this modern world modern politics is playing a major role in shaping and developing the society into a better place to live in, but at the same time it can also be lethal if it falls under the person with no sound knowledge about how modern politics. So basically it is like a necessary evil in the society. Now there are many political philosophers who have come and gone, different political thinkers have different ways of interpreting the way the society functions, some believe that the best government is absolutely no government and believes that everything about the government is representative and that’s why it must be abolished. Some say that a single ruler should have control over every aspects of the government and of people’s lives, in some cultures the ruler is considered as god in human form and some believe that individual rights should be promoted and all the people should be treated equally. Of all the philosophers I am going to talk about Thomas Hobbes who was an English philosopher and was considered to be one of the founders of modern political philosophy, he is well known for his book Leviathan which talks about the famous social contract theory, and the next philosopher I am going to talk about is Niccolo Machiavelli who was an Italian Renaissance diplomat, philosopher and writer well known for The Prince which was written in 1513. He was also known as one of the father of modern political philosophy and political science like Thomas Hobbes. (Sorell, 2020)

Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher in the 17th century and is known as one of the few philosophers who are considered as the true great philosophers, his book Leviathan which is considered as one of the most important literature in the modern politics which rivals in significance the political writings of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Kant and Rawls. He believed that state or society cannot be secure unless at the disposal of an absolute sovereign, from this there comes an idea that no individual can hold rights of property against the sovereign, and that the sovereign may therefore take the goods of its subjects without their consent. His social contract theory which talks about justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal to the agreement that would be made among suitably situated rational, free and equal persons. He has a constructive impact on subsequent work in political philosophy because of his methodological innovation. Hobbes wrote several versions of his political philosophy, including the Elements of Law, Natural and Politic. For him the goal of politics is to provide for a way out of the state of nature. In the state of nature people live in “continual fear” of the “danger of violent death”. To leave the state of nature each person would have to surrender their right “to everything even one another’s body. (Williams, 1996)

Now comes Niccolo Machiavelli who was just as influential and important as that of Thomas Hobbes. Machiavelli was from a wealthy and prominent, holding on occasion Florence’s most important offices. His father Bernado, a doctor of laws. Machiavelli’s name came to evoke through The Prince, he considered political battles not through the view of morality but considered as a board game with certain set of rules. He is sometimes seen as the prototype of modern empirical scientists, building generalizations from experience and historical facts and giving importance on the uselessness theorizing with the imagination. His popular ideology called Machiavellianism is often considered as godless, screaming and self-interested,it also suggest an unprincipled lust for power. Machiavelli was considered as a man inspired by the devil to lead good men into their own doom. He proposes a systematic, logical and scientific approach to the art of statecraft, which has many advantages, through his political thought, there was entry of modern political thought which incorporates modern political notions of secularism, open-mindedness, patience, the importance of rights etc.

Machiavelli and Hobbes each rejected the classical and medieval intellectual traditions that preceded them. Specifically they rejected the Aristotelian faith that the whole lot in the nature, along with human beings, has a telos or end to which it aspires, furthermore both depart from the classical view that human beings are sociable by nature and the view of the ancients that virtue exists in the world independent of human beings in this way the works of Hobbes and Mechiavelli represented a break with the classical tradition and together helped form the basis of modern political theory. Hobbes and Mechiavelli both had similar iconoclastic ambitions unseat and defame the tradition of the medievalists and ancients, diverged in fundamental ways about both the goal of politics and the way to best achieve that goal. Both thinkers lived through extreme political turmoil during their lives thus both men saw internal political stability as being a necessary condition for any higher goals. (Gill)

Thomas Hobbes described everything in a way that we can relate to and understand even if we have never read about him in detail, he believed in self-preservation all costs and he put this believe into practice when he rightly declared himself as one of the first to flee at the outbreak of the civil war. Afterwards, he was quick to return when the French government was unable to offer the same protection to the commonwealth. Thomas Hobbes is a very important figure in modern politics because he believed the origin of law and the state. Hobbes rejected the moral value of all virtues that do not proceed from this fear. Our desire for peace is the fundamental law of nature he also thought the good life was not found in striving for human excellence but incommodious living. This seems to be the foundation of modern life. (Chadwik, 2016)

In Machiavelli’s various works, he propagates the usage of violence in them. So much so that it is impossible not to think of violence when you think of him. He utilises the The Prince to convey messages of mass killings and near genocides as a means of maintaining power as a ruler. It is evident that he advocates for its necessity. In his short story Belfagor, he writes about how this demon violently possess women and mob chasings. Machiavelli is an obsessive, and is an ardent supporter of violence, as proven by his various works.

Throughout Machiavelli’s most famous work, The Prince. The theme of violence is mentioned either literally or figuratively. Violence is not only a theme in the prince, but it is also a central theme. Calkivik in his article writes that violence in the prince is “central”(Calkivik, pg.1). One could argue that without violence the prince would be an empty book, and would not be the masterpiece it is without it. Upon reading the book, it is impossible not to consider violence being important, there would be no substance in the book without it. In order to be a good prince, Lorenzo de Medici needs to be violent directly, or indirectly using violence through proxies. Machiavelli says that he will teach Lorenzo how to consolidate and gain power(Scarci), these promises that Machiavelli made to Lorenzo in the dedicatory letter can only be achieved through violent means. In the book, Machiavelli takes Lorenzo through a step by step process on how to use violence, when to use violence, and what type of violent forces to use. Calkivik states that the brutal honesty that Machiavelli writes about violence and political consolidation in the prince is what makes the prince intolerable(Calkivik,pg.1). A prince would not be feared by his foes, could not consolidate and keep his power, or gain any power without using violence.

Chapter 5 of the prince is the first part of the book where Machiavelli mentions the use of violence, specifically how to use it effectively. In this chapter, Machivaelli states that there are three ways to keep citizens who lived in democracies at bay(Scarci). The prince can use military force to kill them all, use military force and occupy them, or create a tax system(Scarci). Another mention of violence is in chapter ten of the prince, where he states that in order for a prince to inspire the people in his principality to defend the state, the prince must convince his subjects that fighting will give way to glory(Scarci). Fighting for the principality will bear fruit later. However, a prince must first convince his subjects that acting violently is the right course of action, not just sit there and let an attack happen(Scarci). A prince must instill the violent mindset in his proxies so they can do his bidding, and do so obediently and right. Hutchings and Frazer address Machiavellis violence in their article. They say that a prince must be organised in order to keep the peace in the city and need to keep composure in war(Frazer, Hutchings. Pg. 2). They also say that military disorganization cannot happen and it is important that a prince be organized militarily(Frazer, Hutchings. Pg.2). Further proof that the prince needs to completely be in the violent mindset. They say that military competence and valour are prevalent themes in the book(Frazer, Hutchings. Pg.2), both are violent themes.

In chapter fourteen, Machiavelli states that a prince must be interested in war and must be knowledgeable in the mechanisms of war in order to be a good leader(Scarci). What Machiavelli means in this chapter is that the only acceptable action that a prince should be concerned with is war(Scarci). A prince needs to study everything about war, the various battles throughout history, learn more about potential attackers use of infantrymen, cavalry, or mercenaries, even the terrain the armies will fight on. Machiavelli states that the prince must even train himself physically for the rigors of war by doing physical activity in the wilderness(Scarci). A prince constantly needs to be in the violent mindset to be able to reach his full potential.

Furthermore, in chapter 12 of the prince Machiavelli expands on the idea of violence when he turns his attention towards the military, specifically its soldiers. In The Prince, Machiavelli talks about the types of militaries a state can have, his own, auxiliaries which are another states military and mercenaries, who are paid soldiers(Scarci). This chapter is evidence for violence by proxy, as Lorezno is not explicitly being violent, but is still indirectly being violent. In this chapter, Machiavelli is teaching Lorenzo how to be a good prince by teaching how to successfully implement violence, and how to use it(Scarci). In chapter 12, he talks about the downfalls of having mercenary armies and auxiliary armies and how one must have a citizen army(Scarci). Mercenary armies are a terrible option because their sole purpose for fighting is for financial reasons, and for that reason they cannot be trusted(Scarci). The commander of a mercenary army is not any better, it is a lose lose situation with a mercenary commander. He can either be competent, which indicates that he has ambitions bigger than just winning the war, which the prince should be concerned with(Scarci). However, he could also be incompetent and lose you the war(Scarci). Machiavelli uses the case of Francesco Sforza, a mercenary who became the Duke of Milan after betraying the royalty of Milan, a state he was paid to fight for(Scarci). He switched allegiances to the Viennese and turned the milanese army against the king(Scarci). The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy similarly writes ”the liberty of the state is contingent upon the military preparedness of its subjects”(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Pg. 6). Auxiliary troops are a bad idea as well due to the fact that it sends a message to the princes enemies that the principality is weak and cannot defend itself(Scarci). That is evident by the prince borrowing troops from a more powerful principalities army(Scarci). Auxiliary troops should also be met with great suspicion since their loyalties are to a different prince(Scarci).

The theme of violence is not only a theme in the prince, but is also a theme in his short story the devil takes a wife. Similarly to Machiavelli’s authorship in the prince, . The short story revolves around an archdevil named Belfagor who is residing in hell(Scarci). He is tasked by a committee of devils to gather information on what life is like up above, on the earth(Scarci). Belfagor takes on the identity of a man named Roderigo and marries a woman named Onesta, someone who he actually falls in love with(Scarci). He chooses to reside in Florence due to the high amount of loan sharks in the state(Scarci). Another reason why Belfagor decides to reside in Florence is because his earthly occupation will be a loan shark(Scarci). Unfortunately due to Onesta being a heavy spender, Belfagor loses all his money to the loan sharks and is soon indebted to them(Scarci). As he is chased out of Florence by the angry mob he is forced to hide in manure to save his life(Scarci). Later on in the second part of the short story belfagor spends his time doing adventuring and makes an agreement with Gianmatteo the peasant(Scarci). In the second part of the short story, the plot revolves around Belfagors violence around women, this is portrayed by him possessing women(Scarci). Belfagor possessing women was done so Gianmatteo can exercise the women for pay(Scarci). When Gianmatteo exercises the women Belfagor leaves the women’s bodies and makes it seem like Gianmatteo was the reason for them being cured(Scarci). A final act of violence is seen in the last part of the short story, where Gianmatteo cannot exercise the King of Frances daughter successfully(Scarci). Belfagor simply refused to leave her as he was not indebted to Gianmatteo anymore(Scarci). It was not direct violence like the possession of the women at the beginning of the second half of the short story, or the mob chasing in the first part. It was indirect violence, more specifically the successful use of the threat of violence. Gianmatteo says to Belfagor that his wife Onesta will be arriving shortly and that she is mad(Scarci). Scared at the thought of encountering his angry wife, Belfagor leaves the child and goes back to hell(Scarci). In this short story, the theme of violence is evident. Violence is the main characteristic of the titular character Belfagor, his wife Onesta, the setting, Florence and the people. Machiavelli describes Florence as filled the loan sharks, violent people, that is the perfect setting for a devil. The reason why Belfagor has chosen Florence as his place of residence was that he wanted to stay a violent individual and found that Florence was the ideal place for him to be himself. It was a place that he can be the most like himself, he would not have to try as hard to fit in since it is already an evil place. This is proof that Florence in the devil takes a wife is an inherently violent, if a devil can see the city and its people as a place that he can easily fit in, the reputation of the city must be questionable at best.

In summary, it is evident that Machiavelli’s obsession with violence can be seen in his various works such as the prince and the devil takes a wife. In the prince he advocates for the killing of people, and teaches Lorenzo de Medici how to use violence directly and directly in various chapters in order for him to be a good prince. Furthermore, even in his fictional writing the devil takes a wife, it is seen that Machiavelli is an obsessive of violence by writing about mob chasings and the violent possession of women, and with the ultimate conclusion being resolved by violence it further proves that Machiavelli is an inherent fan of violence, and that is something crucial to his identity.

Bibliography

1. Machiavelli Niccolò, and Peter E. Bondanella. Prince (Oxford Worlds Classics). Oxford University Press, 2005.
2. Machiavelli, Niccol. The Divell a Married Man. Or The Divell Hath Met with His Match. Publisher Not Identified, 1647.
3. Scarci, Manuela. “ITA198H The Prince – The Dedication,Ch.1-Ch.5.ppt.” ITA198H. University of Toronto. Lecture.
4. Scarci, Manuela. “ITA198H – The Prince – Ch.8-Ch.11,pptx.” ITA198H. University of Toronto. Lecture.
5. Scarci, Manuela. “ITA198H – The Prince – Ch.12-Ch.18.pptx.” ITA198H. University of Toronto. Lecture.
6. Scarci, Manuela, “ITA198H – Belfagor,pptx.” ITA198H. University of Toronto. Lecture.
7. Nederman, Cary. “Niccolò Machiavelli.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 28 May 2019, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.
8. “Welcome to My.access — Please Choose How You Will Connect.” My.access – University of Toronto Libraries Portal, https://link-springer-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/article/10.1057/ip.2016.12.
9. Frazer, Elizabeth, and Kimberly Hutchings. “Virtuous Violence and the Politics of Statecraft in Machiavelli, Clausewitz and Weber – Elizabeth Frazer, Kimberly Hutchings, 2011.” SAGE Journals, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00841.x.