Nickhil Singh
Title: Machiavelli
Every once in a while you get to read a book that makes your spine tingle with ambivalent feelings of excitement and disgust. In this type of book, the author says all the dirty, scandalous things you constantly think about and even may think are true, but never have the guts to actually say in public. Machiavelli's The Prince is exactly this type of book.
However, the big question surrounding The Prince is Machiavelli's intention with the book. On the surface, it seems as if he condones an "end justifies the means" policy wholeheartedly, but if you have ever read Machiavelli's Discourse on Livy you would know that the two books seem to contradict each other. On the one hand, Machiavelli reveres Caesar Boergia in the Prince as one of the leaders with the most "virtue" he has ever seen.(Remember that Caesar is the conniving and self serving man in the Prince who will do anything to get his way). Yet in Discourse on Livy, Machiavelli goes out of his way to admonish Boergia. As he says, "Caesar is so much more detestable as he who has done an evil is more to blame than he who has wished to do one."
In addition, Machiavelli regarded himself as a staunch Republican and political theorists have concluded the same thing about him based on their writings. Based on the above evidence, we can conclude that Machiavelli wrote the Prince for some reason other than a love for seizing and holding power. Perhaps Machiavelli was a sycophant who would do anything to get back into public life. Perhaps Machiavelli thought only authoritarian rule could unite Italy against its enemies. Maybe he wanted to instruct republics in the way princes think, so that they could resist them. Or even perversely, Machiavelli may just have been in love with any type of virtue!
As you can see, the answer is not easily unearthed, yet this is the joy in reading Machiavelli. While he can entertain and humor you, he can make you repulse in disgust; this is the mark of a great writer. You have to literally sit there and rexamine his tongue and cheek expressions and cliches over and over again.
One great example of Machiavelli's humor comes in his description of ecclesiastical powers. As he says,
IT ONLY remains now to speak of ecclesiastical (relating to the Christian Church) principalities, touching which all difficulties are prior to getting possession, because they are acquired either by capacity or good fortune, and they can be held without either; for they are sustained by the ordinances of religion, which are so all-powerful, and of such a character that the principalities may be held no matter how their princes behave and live. These princes alone have states and do not defend them, they have subjects and do not rule them; and the states, although unguarded, are not taken from them, and the subjects, although not ruled, do not care, and they have neither the desire nor the ability to alienate themselves. Such principalities only are secure and happy. But being upheld by powers, to which the human mind cannot reach, I shall speak no more of them, because, being exalted (raised, made noble) and maintained by God, it would be the act of a presumptuous (arrogant) and rash (reckless) man to discuss them.
Nevertheless, if any one should ask of me how comes it that the Church has attained such greatness in temporal (worldly) power, seeing that from Alexander backwards the Italian potentates (rulers) (not only those who have been called potentates, but every baron and lord, though the smallest) have valued the temporal power very slightly- yet now a king of France trembles before it, and it has been able to drive him from Italy, and to ruin the Venetians- although this may be very manifest (clearly visible), it does not appear to me superfluous to recall it in some measure to memory.
Only Machivelli can simultaneously acknowledge his inability to speak of the gods and still find reason to pontificate about them with a straight face; this is classic Machiavelli in The Prince . Only he can be as sneaky, and still allow the reader to feel as if he or she has not been cheated by the author.
We should also explain that Machiavelli does not only entertain the reader, but he educates, as well. A classic example of Machiavelli's didactic style of writing can be seen in Chapter 13 when he says,
Therefore, let him who has no desire to conquer make use of these arms (auxiliaries) , for they are much more hazardous than mercenaries, because with them the ruin is ready made; they are all united, all yield obedience to others; but with mercenaries, when they have conquered, more time and better opportunities are needed to injure you; they are not all of one community, they are found and paid by you, and a third party, which you have made their head, is not able all at once to assume enough authority to injure you. In conclusion, in mercenaries dastardy (cowardliness) is most dangerous; in auxiliaries, valour. The wise prince, therefore, has always avoided these arms and turned to his own; and has been willing rather to lose with them than to conquer with others, not deeming that a real victory which is gained with the arms of others.
I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions. This duke entered the Romagna with auxiliaries, taking there only French soldiers, and with them he captured Imola and Forli; but afterwards, such forces not appearing to him reliable, he turned to mercenaries, discerning less danger in them, and enlisted the Orsini and Vitelli; whom presently, on handling and finding them doubtful, unfaithful, and dangerous, he destroyed and turned to his own men. And the difference between one and the other of these forces can easily be seen when one considers the difference there was in the reputation of the duke, when he had the French, when he had the Orsini and Vitelli, and when he relied on his own soldiers, on whose fidelity he could always count and found it ever increasing; he was never esteemed more highly than when every one saw that he was complete master of his own forces.
When attempting to espouse his virtues of a prince, Machivelli does not patronize the reader. Instead, he states a claim and then backs this claim with empirical evidence. In contrast to other political leaders, he does not rely on an argument based soley off of logos or pathos. Machiavelli uses history as his source for inspiration.
Yet even after all of this, we still get back to questioning Machievelli's intentions with The Prince. It may be that his techniques are so effective that he engages the reader, however, it remains to be seen why he does this and what his intentions are with the book. Does he want us all to be "Machivellian" in thought?! Does he want to warn us of what we could become if we stray too far from the path of rightousness?
Only You, the reader, can make this decision because nobody really knows... And if you cannot figure it out, don't worry too much about it. (I can't figure it out myself, either). Instead, enjoy the ride that is Machiavelli. Learn to enjoy this brand of political rhetoric, and you will discover a whole new world of philosophy.
Want to reach me? E-mail me at nickhil@nickhil.com
