Category: Machiavelli

Introduction: Machiavelli’s Controversial Legacy

Niccolò Machiavelli was a political thinker, philosopher and diplomat in Renaissance Italy. His most famous text, The Prince, was controversial; leading to him being labelled an immoralist and a teacher of evil.

Machiavelli’s Departure from Traditional Morality

Machiavelli’s ideologies held in The Prince were an outlandish step in political thought; disregarding a large proportion of the beliefs that were held in the texts of antiquity which had seen a revival in the Renaissance period. In The Prince, Machiavelli defends and promotes the use of violence for a leader, shown by the fate of Remirro de Orca. [1] In this extract, for the benefit of Cesare Borgia’s tenure, Remirro is horrifically executed; humiliated as his corpse is laid to rest in the centre of town, split in half. This episode encapsulates the rhetoric of Machiavelli; that the Prince must do what is necessary to consolidate his power. In doing this, Machiavelli forgoes concepts that were a feature of his contemporaries’ work, for example the concept of natural law. Natural law dictates that all people have inherent rights, given unto them not by a political body but by “God, nature or reason.” [2]

Machiavelli goes against this concept in both The Prince and Discourses of Livy; where in the latter he simply states, “All men are bad.” [3] This attitude is also shared in The Prince as he labels men “fickle” as well as “covetous to gain” [4] thus showing his belief that men lack the inherited moral authority that is natural law. Rather, that there are cowardly, power hungry men in the world devoid of such moral code.

The Debate on Machiavelli as a Teacher of Wickedness

This abandonment of moral ideals has led to the debate of whether Machiavelli was a teacher of wickedness, pushed by Leo Strauss in his work: Thoughts on Machiavelli. Strauss argues that Machiavelli had become a “teacher of wickedness”[5] thrusting a concept of wicked morality onto the West, departing from the arguments for natural law.

Defining Wickedness in the Context of Machiavelli’s Teachings

To identify whether Machiavelli was a teacher of wickedness, a definition of wickedness is required. The word wicked first arose in the 13th century and has since been defined innumerable times. For the purposes of this essay, the definition held in the Oxford Dictionary is what I will be measuring Machiavelli against, although the validity of this definition is questionable, it is concise with two key elements, making it easier to delve into.

Wickedness is defined as the quality of being evil or morally wrong [6]. Therefore, to establish if Machiavelli was a teacher of wickedness, his teachings must either be evil in nature or morally wrong. So, to begin with, the moral aspect of Machiavelli’s teachings.

Morality is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour,[7]. In The Prince, Machiavelli ignores the concept of normative morality, that every individual is underpinned by the same set of moral rules.

Machiavelli’s Moral Relativism for Rulers

Instead, Machiavelli views the Prince as having a higher morality. This is the concept that there is a higher morality for rulers, as they take on different responsibilities than those ruled. They must also take actions which the ruled must avoid, for example murder. This belief, pushed by German scholar Friedrich Meinecke, suggests that although there is a moral code as a leader, it is just different to that of the ordinary man. This proves that Machiavelli does not teach immoral lessons, but instead is teaching moral lessons designed solely for a ruler, meaning he is not a teacher of wickedness.

Machiavelli “did not deny the validity of Christian morality, and he did not pretend that a crime required by political necessity was any less a crime. Rather he discovered . . . that this morality simply did not hold in political affairs and that any policy based on the assumption that it did would end in disaster.” [8] This shows that Machiavelli was not an immoralist as he does not deny the morals’ existence, simply that the ruler does not follow the same ones. This therefore shows that he is not a teacher of wickedness as he is not advocating wicked acts from the majority; he accepts that a citizen murdering another is immoral. Instead Machiavelli is teaching a ruler how a ruler acts, and as they have a different set of values, an act considered wicked by standard moral values is not considered as such by the values of the Prince. If it is fair to separate the moral codes of different groups of society, it can be argued that Machiavelli is not a teacher of wickedness, but a teacher of a different set of morals not accessible to the majority of the public.

Justification of Machiavelli’s Moral Separation

The validity of this separation must be questioned as it is a significant leap, to say different groups should have different sets of moral code. We can find justification in this concept in the world of the philosopher via Plato’s writing in the Republic. [9] Here Plato describes people as being split into three groups (Artisans, Auxiliaries & Philosopher Kings) based essentially on the metals found in their soul. Each group has their own tasks and therefore must have different restrictions to their morality. A Philosopher King must act in a different way to the Artisan for them to be different. The Artisan must accept the life of sacrifice and arduous work for the sake of the Kallipolis just as the Philosopher King must use a different set of morals to go about their tasks.

Additionally, Nietzsche also concurs with this concept, stating that each person has a different set of virtues and that a standardised set of rules and principles would be to eliminate each individual skillset.[10] His belief is that to fully fulfil human excellence is to allow each to become what they should, meaning separate groups of people would have different sets of morals. This therefore supports Machiavelli’s claim that different groups can have different sets of moral values, providing a precedent and in turn justifying this separation.

We also find justification in real world examples. Political leaders often have two immoral decisions in front of them where there is not a clear moral option if we use the standard view of morality. For example, choosing between who should die and who should live after deciphering the enigma code. Therefore, for rulers there must be a different view on morality. This justifies the view held by Machiavelli, showing that he is not a teacher of wickedness but of the reality of ruling.

Machiavelli on Violence: Necessity or Evil?

The second part of wickedness is evil. For this section, I am going to weigh up whether the violence in The Prince is justified or if it is an evil teaching that is promoting the abuse of those ruled. In the context of politics, violence is normal. This is seen throughout history. From the story of the foundation of Rome where Remus is killed by his brother [11] to the change in rule in England in 1066 due to the violent death of Harold Godwinson [12] violence is a key part of leadership change. This is important to note as The Prince is a text on how to achieve a unified Italy, meaning Machiavelli is teaching for a significant shift in power in Italy. ‘It is the introduction of such new methods of fighting that enhances the reputation of a new ruler, establishing him as a great leader.” [13] It is evident that, Machiavelli is being a realist, recognising that to see effective change, death and violence are not only necessary but desired thus to ensure the legitimacy of the new regime. This aspect of the work must consequently not be wicked teachings, as Machiavelli is teaching what happens in reality.

However, the depiction of violence is particularly gruesome, which could be seen as going to unnecessary levels of gore. Machiavelli justifies this by showing the result of a lack of violence within a regime. He depicts how Savonarola relied on the good nature of the men14] when he took power in Florence and that, to begin with, it worked. Yet, when people changed their opinion of him, he was catapulted into prison and subsequently hanged in May 1498 alongside two friars. Posthumously, their bodies were burnt to a crisp and the ashes tossed into the Arno river. This context gives insight into the violence of the time period, thus showing why Machiavelli placed such importance on violence to repress the public mob who could turn on the ruler at any point if they did not fear him. This is why it was better to be feared than loved. The Prince has to control all that he can, and he can control how much he is feared, but he cannot control the opinion of men who will turn at the first sight of difficulty. His teaching in this regard is therefore not wicked, but in line with the violence that the 16th century could offer.

Conclusion: Reevaluating Machiavelli’s Reputation

To conclude, it is evident that Niccolò Machiavelli is not a teacher of wickedness; holding the view that the intention is to show that the Prince has a higher level of morality. This means that that things which would be deemed as wicked for a citizen is not for a ruler as they are held to a different standard. It is a teaching of how to rule; as a ruler you must bypass what is seen as morally correct to succeed. It is a concept offered by a man dealing with the realities of the situation he found himself in.

Bibliography

1. Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1469-1527. The Prince. Harmondsworth, Eng.; New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books, 1981. Chapter 7
2. Kelsen, Hans 2007. General Theory of Law And State. The Lawbook Exchange. p. 392.
3. Machiavelli, N., 2009. Discourses on Livy. University of Chicago Press. Page 15
4. Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1469-1527. The Prince. Harmondsworth, Eng.; New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books, 1981. Page 62.
5. Strauss, L., 1958. Thoughts on Machiavelli (Glencoe, IL. Free Press, 9, pp.12-13.
6. Oxford Online Dictionary https://www.lexico.com/definition/wickedness
7. Oxford Online Dictionary https://www.lexico.com/definition/moral
8. Berlin, I., Hardy, H. and Hausheer, R., 1972. The originality of Machiavelli. first published, pp.33-100. Page 47.
9. The republic Plato.; Reginald E. Allen (Reginald Edgar), 1931- New Haven : Yale University Press c2006. Book IV
10. Solomon, R.C. and Higgins, K.M., What Nietzsche Really Said. January 2001. Schocken Books.
11. Wiseman, T.P., 1995. Remus: a Roman myth. Cambridge University Press.
12. Barrow, M., 2013. Bayeux Tapestry And The Battle Of Hastings 1066. [online] Primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk. Available at: http://primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/bt/tapestry.htm > [Accessed 4 August 2015].
13. Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1469-1527. The Prince. Harmondsworth, Eng.; New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books, 1981. Chapter 26.
14. Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1469-1527. The Prince. Harmondsworth, Eng.; New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books, 1981 Chapter 7

Niccolo Machiavelli’s views on military have been misinterpreted since his work on The Prince was first written, readers take his thought of how a country should be ruled the wrong way, and are offended and displeased by his views. They think that he believes that the end justifies the means, that a leader should lie to the people, and that a ruler has to rule with force and punishment. In actuality, Machiavelli means no such thing, he describes that there are times and certain situations when the good human nature of a leader can outweigh the means and the morality of a ruler’s actions. He talks about military use and its importance into having a successful Prince and a country feared by others.The Prince is considered to be one of the most important of nonfiction literature written in the history of mankind. It gave an accurate and truthful description of the method of governing.

Throughout a prince’s leadership if he does not have complete control over the people and the government an outbreak can occur. This is because it has proven to be dangerous when people in your country start to have their own thoughts and ideas about how they want to be governed. Machiavelli understands this and how important it really if to keep control at all times. In Europe around the 14th century, the church was entangled in politics, and everything else. People were competing for control, and at the time Lorenzo de’ Medici was struggling to keep the country out of an outbreak after the return of power for the Medici family after being thrown out of power for a little while. After some conspiracy theories surrounding the medici’s loss of power, Niccolo Machiavelli was exiled from Florence by Lorenzo . Around this time many ideas were floating around Italy about how they should be governed and some feared and pressure for Lorenzo de’ Medici to do good. Although Medici did well as a ruler he was missing one factor that would almost get himself killed. Bernardo Bandini de Baroncelli and Francesco de’ Pazzi stabbed Medici’s brother to death and almost killed Lorenzo but failed as he escaped with wounds. This created more controversy with how Lorenzo de’ Medici continued to rule. After being exiled from Florence Machiavelli, in an attempt to be allowed back into Florence, write his most famous piece of work The Prince, where he explains his theories for becoming a successful prince and presents it to Medici. This does not work as Machiavelli is still exiled from Florence but the context of the prince shocked most of the readers and will forever be one of the most controversial pieces of work in Italian literature. In the Prince By Niccolo Machiavelli, he suggests a secular state, which would allow the leader to do that which is necessary for the country and his continued reign, though not necessarily moral. The ends do not justify the means, yet sometimes if the end is necessary for the continuation of a society, then the means do not have to be morally bound.

Machiavelli understands the importance of a military force, and how important it is that a country is kept in order, even if that means lying to the people to get them to fight against a common foe. Even though this may seem a little cruel it is important to understand that Machiavelli believes that if this is not done that it is possible to have people start to rebel against you. A ruler cannot please everybody all the time, so, therefore he has to be cunning to maintain control. “ Dominion, he writes, is acquired by arms, either one’s own or those of others.” (Web source) . This quote highlights the facts of weapon use in Machiavelli’s ideal government and how he feels about how control needs to be acquired by weapons because weapons play a big part of the fear factor that makes a Prince seem Powerful. “Good arms (and good friends) will protect the prince against internal and external dangers, but soldiers pose a constant threat in the form of conspiracies.” (Web source). One of Machiavelli’s key concepts to being a successful prince is not having anyone cause a threat around you because that is when that person can create a rivalry and that can be really bad for the country if people begin to turn on you. This is why Machiavelli stresses having a powerful team around you and a good military to protect you from any threats before they get serious.

By tying the church to the government, people expect the government to behave morally, but oftentimes, an entirely moral ruler will be overthrown by another country. A ruler cannot show any weakness, or else he will no longer be feared enough to keep him in power, and his reign will be over. People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear because they fear the punishments for failure by the military. In The Prince, Machiavelli asserts a certain character, who Machevelli appears to have a lot of love for Cesare Borgia. Machiavelli talked about how important it is to make it seem like as a prince you are always listening to the people you govern so they feel like they are a factor in the laws and rules that will be placed on them, but at the same time, you use military to scare people into never going too crazy with ideas and so people do not try and riot or create havoc. Machiavelli also says that in order to create a “overpower” look for a prince, you need to have a strong military that other countries fear. Machiavelli says “he was able to sustain armies with money from the church people, and with that long war to lay a foundation for his own military, which later brought him honor” talking about the current king of Spain, Ferdinand of Aragon and how his use of military as a force to be reckoned with created trust with his people and generated an extreme about of respect about what the king was doing. The people admired the king after his actions to build up an army and to defend and to take other countries.

Overall Machiavelli’s use of military has created controversy but has proven to work. Machiavelli’s art of war has changed the way people think about how a prince should act by allowing the reader to relate to how leaders today act vs how they used to act and how Machiavelli’s “Ideal Prince” should act. His use of having military as a fear factor and having military as a way to gain respect and trust with the people in your country gave Italy a new way to think of their leaders. The techniques and theories that Machiavelli provided in The Prince will continue to show readers today how smart he really was.

On May 3, 1469, a man by the name of Niccolò Machiavelli, was born in Florence, Italy. Known as the father of modern political theory, he was most famous for his strong efforts in his book titled, “The Prince.” This book alone gave a clear indication that Machiavelli was a non-believer and yet pessimistic. In his early life at that time in the thirteenth century and forward, Machiavelli’s family was very rich and conspicuous, as they were known for holding Florence, Italy’s most notable government positions. When he grew older, around the year 1494, Machiavelli filled in as an ambassador in the administration for several years under the ruler, Piero Soderini. That so in the year of 1512, Piero Soderini was ousted of his royalty as he was overruled by a royal ménage known as the Medici family, to which they accumulated all responsibility for Florence. About a year after their overruling, in spite that he was never seen as guilty of any wrongdoings, Machiavelli was wrongfully blamed and criticized for plotting against the Medici family forcing them to capture, torment, and banish Machiavelli from the city. These experiences he had gone through proves that he knows the true qualities that are essential for a good prince to conduct a sound government. In these three steps, you will be able to see clearly what Machiavelli believed were the sounding steps needed in order to be an outstanding ruler.

Throughout Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” he describes many different qualities a prince needs in order to be a great leader. One of those classifications would have to be virtues. He seems to describe virtues as qualities that are lauded by others, for instance, someone who holds benevolence, compassion, and commitment could be defined as someone who is considered virtuous. He gives reason that a sovereign should rely on endeavors to appear to be moral and that prosperity of righteousness can exhibit antagonistic to the domain. As a ruler should not so much evade obscenities but, callousness or deceitfulness should be used by them to benefit the state. Savagery and corruption should not be looked for after to benefit their own but, morals should not be looked for after for the prosperity of its own excellencies and wrongdoings that they should be considered as a tragic commitment. Each move the ruler causes must be considered thinking about its effect on the state and not to the extent of its inherent excellence.

Another quality role Machiavelli stood for was the acceptance of great laws pursued normally from having a strong-standing military. Machiavelli inverts the traditional comprehension of war as an important, yet a not conclusive, component of the states, and rather affirms that effective war is the very establishment whereas all states are manufactured. A vast amount of “The Prince,” is portrayed to show how to precisely conduct a war and how to adequately sustain a city. As well as displaying how to treat subjects in recently procured regions and how to avert local rebellion that would divert from an effective war. Be that as it may, Machiavelli’s portrayal of war includes something other than the immediate utilization of military power, it involves strategic procedure, geographic authority, and authentic investigation. Inside the setting of Machiavelli’s Italy when urban communities were always undermined by neighboring realms, the zone had endured control battles for a long time and his technique for survey practically solved all issues of state through a military focal point that was an auspicious development in political reasoning.

Machiavelli insists that different characteristics are inborn in human sense. People are normally self-interested, disregarding the way that their fellowship for others can be won and lost. They are content and happy so long they are not losses of something horrendous. They may be dependable in prosperous events, in any case, they will quickly turn intolerant, dumbfounding, and advantage driven amidst adversity. People acknowledge regard, generosity, mental determination, and dedication in others, notwithstanding, by far most of them don’t show these moderations themselves. Want is commonly found among the people who have achieved some power, be that as it may, most normal residents are content with the same old thing and thusly don’t ache for extended status. People will regularly feel a sentiment of duty in the wake of tolerating some assistance or organization, and this bond is normally not adequately broken. Eventually, loyalties are won and lost, and selflessness is once in a while preeminent. Such explanations about human impulse are as often as possible exhibited as diversions for the book’s proposal to sovereigns. While Machiavelli backs up his political disputes with concrete bona fide evidence, his declarations about society and human sense at times have the character of doubts rather than recognitions.

In conclusion, Machiavelli truly stood by and believed these three true qualities that were essential for a good prince to conduct a sound government. Throughout his lifetime and after, he perplexed the basic proposal that guidelines may be by and large extraordinary recommendation that the standard of normal human objectives subject to contemplations of virtues, human nature, and warfare. This was rarely recognized and it was thought so little of that the people who followed up on something as opposed to these convictions were seen as not right. Shrewd principals are mishandled on unforeseen various levels in contrast with what he had decided for them, that for the most part acknowledged human actuality. His assumptions of government power have gone upward from these zones to the fundamental components of the individuals’ fight for control. Machiavelli was truly a pioneer in his time and now. That after almost 500 years since his death, his bizarre yet notorious mindset is still talked about today.

Renaissance is a period of growth when discoveries, explorations, inventions, and values once again were wildly focused on which allowed influential intellectuals to promote innovative shifts in thought. Niccolò Machiavelli was just one of many divergent thinkers who contributed to learning and change, however, his controversial reputation, questionable ambitions, and overall thought-provoking written works make him stand out as a famously influential Renaissance man with startling ideas. Born in Florence, Italy, of a non-wealthy aristocrat, Machiavelli’s father, Bernardo, was a lawyer and small landowner, and Machiavelli’s mother, Bartolommeo, gave birth to him in 1469. Machiavelli was schooled in Latin literature, receiving a humanist education. As Florence was a center of philosophy and the arts during his childhood, Machiavelli grew up reading the classics in his father’s library and was increasingly exposed to political figures like Marcello Adriani. Machiavelli was knowledgeable, educated, and skilled in a wide range of fields. He strove for further development as a man of progress, he was a humanist who aimed to separate the Christian faith from politics, and his profound and innovative ideas were of grand impact and influence. This allowed him to become a prominent and controversial Italian Renaissance figure.

Machiavelli did not limit his capabilities, he strove for all knowledge as an Italian diplomat, philosopher, politician, historian, playwright, humanist, and poet. Although specializing in politics, he was a classical scholar who continued to learn, develop, and advance. This can be seen as he began his political career in 1494, as a government clerk to which he quickly rose in ranks and was appointed a diplomat position, entering the Florentine chancellery. This position allowed him to travel to places like France, Rome, and Aragon, exposing him to several forms of government. He established the Florentine militia and excelled while in charge of republic foreign affairs until 1512 when the Florentine government was overthrown, and the Medici dynasty regained lost power. Machiavelli was not only dismissed from office but arrested and tortured under suspicion of conspiracy. He was exiled to an estate near Florence where he refused to give up, and he began his studies in the classics once again to further advance his knowledge. Machiavelli began writing about his own political philosophy to gain favor and to prove his usefulness as a politician. Seeking to give advice he wrote his most influential works The Prince and Discourses on Livy. He further made use of his written works by displaying his profound knowledge of politics and dedicating them to influential men. By the 1520s he began to gain power once again and worked on minor political commissions. Machiavelli died in 1527 before he could regain his old position, however, Machiavelli’s skills as a Renaissance man were not put to waste or left undiscovered as years later when his famous works were published Machiavelli’s final thoughts, advice, and arguments gained attention quickly. Although Machiavelli was a controversial figure for his particular stances on religion, politics, and morality, he was unquestionably a man of profound knowledge, numerous capabilities, and unprecedented progress as even after his death he remained relevant for his ambitious ideas.

During the Renaissance, the relationship between politics, religion, and morality was a prevalent issue as humanism dominated this period and as result, many intellectuals focused on issues regarding human betterment, the human world, and the individual rather than the spiritual world. Much like other famous Renaissance figures, Machiavelli was a humanist who also wanted to break free from religious control and promoted the separation of the state and the church. He often discussed the relationship between religion and politics and is known for advancing “the secularization of politics” as he believed politics should have the primary goal of developing and maintaining a powerful state. Machiavelli argued, “In order to succeed in politics, one had to learn to abandon goodness, at least at times” and thus, Christian faith and politics could not go hand in hand as Christian traditional or moral values limited the success of politicians. Machiavelli studied many topics of humanity regarding history, philosophy, and even poetry, and like many other humanists, he inspired new possibilities of human thought and ideals while trying to educate the people and separate politics from religious values. He provoked new thought by challenging the prevailing views which can be seen when he declared the government’s role is not to maintain and distribute justice but to focus on “growth and expansion.” As a Renaissance humanist and political philosopher, Machiavelli focused on political efficiency and effectiveness rather than moral behavior. He used his knowledge to promote what he argued was proper and effective state conduct without regard for traditional notions of Christian values of right and wrong.

Machiavelli was not afraid to put his divergent ideas into words which contributed to his controversial reputation as a “teacher of evil” or a political schemer. Despite his reputation, Machiavelli was nonetheless a prominent Renaissance figure who sparked heavy debates and discussions about the role of the state and religion. Machiavelli made his most influential impact as a Renaissance figure through his written works, such as The Prince, as he had many theories on how to establish a good republican government, the uses of deceit, and the importance of a person of power being loved or feared. Many of Machiavelli’s ideas have various interpretations such as his argument: “A prince ought to encourage fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred.” Through different interpretations some Renaissance authors viewed Machiavelli as a “prophet of unification” and some referred to him as a “Machiavellian” who promoted success through scheming. Whether Machiavelli inspired evil or not he was still of grand impact as he examined how politics actually worked rather than how it should have worked in a moral sense and even long after his death his influential ideas continued to appear in works. Such as, in The Commonwealth of Oceana, 1957, by James Harrington, Machiavelli is discussed as the “prince of politics.” Although many authors and political philosophers have also disapproved of Machiavelli’s teachings, as he may have taught oppressive rulers how to gain power, many authors have nonetheless been influenced by Machiavelli’s innovative views, observations, and analysis of politics. For Machiavelli, the ultimate goal of the state was stability and so through his written works, like The Prince, he advised states on how to hold power and discussed the problems of a “princely” government. Beginning a new stage of political thought, Machiavelli’s examination of how politics functioned, and his profound ideas on political success lead to his own success as a historically influential Renaissance philosopher.

In conclusion, Machiavelli lived in a time with many political implications. He was exposed to significant political changes as the Medici dynasty interfered with the upbringing of the Republic of Florentine. He strived to educate Florentine citizens and promote political thought through his written works as he realized the need for the strong political rule and the establishment of an effective and central government. Machiavelli was significantly knowledgeable in ideal behaviors for successful politicians. Having been exposed to many politicians and forms of government, he wrote the famous works The Prince and The Discourses of Ivy which focused on his recommended characteristics and behaviors for rulers and politicians, along with his ideals on political practices. Machiavelli was a man who focused on furthering his career and knowledge, he was a humanist who helped secularize politics and a novelty who challenged society with his divergent ideas. Although the Renaissance is often remembered for art and architecture, Machiavelli’s progressive work as an influential statesman and writer has greatly impacted history like any other important figure of the Renaissance.