The IS and OUGHT of Niccolo Machiavelli

Volume 3 | Issue 1

Article 8

1989

The IS and OUGHT of Niccolo Machiavelli

Krista Stearns '89

Illinois Wesleyan University

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Ames Library, the Andrew W. Mellon Center for Curricular and Faculty Development, the Office of the Provost and the Office of the President. It has been accepted for inclusion in Digital Commons @ IWU by the faculty at Illinois Wesleyan University. For more information, please contactdigitalcommons@iwu.edu.

©Copyright is owned by the author of this document.

Recommended Citation

!X8J\der Lumber closing." The

Daily

re close to boiling." The Sunday

!Shed

again

in Crain's." The

Daily

>per battle, Kankakee loses its own

,farch 1988, 77-78.

wnty Assessment.

Chicago: The

Fan-The IS and OUGHT of

lr.

Chicago Tribune,

9 April 1988, 10.

_{Niccolo Machiavelli}

1(rista Steams

I

View of Florence. Photo by Susanna Woodard.

Niccolo Machiavell

Notorious for his treatise .

human historyasa ruthless

power and oppression. Ho

the republican government

greatest work, The Discour5t

rule by the people in order tc

style of republican govemn

paradox? Only through can

history of renaissance Italy i

twentieth century audience

The politics of 15th j

general, were tumultous. ~

witnessing a crumbling rep

figure Savonarola. F1orenc~

nornical problems, the resc

regaining Pisa. Pisa was a 1

French occupation. The Fre­

to Florentine liberty. Vario

other cities in the northerr

seemed determined to spli

kept in mind that Europe .. were just beginning to gair

confusion, Machiavelli, a f1

vation of Florence and It

instrumental in establishin

View of Florence. Photo by Susanna Woodard.

Niccolo Machiavelli has long been termed the teacher of evil.

Notorious for his treatise The

Prince,

he has earned a reputation in human history asa ruthless individual consumed with the intricacies of

power and oppression. However, most overlook his contributions to

the republican government in Florence, as well as, what is perhaps his

greatest work, The Discourses. In

The Discourses

he extolled the value of rule by the people in order to attain liberty. He also revered the Roman­

style of republican government. How does one reconcile the apparent

paradox? Only through careful evaluation of the nationalistic political

history of renaissance Italy is one able to expose the true Machiavelli to

twentieth century audiences.

The politics of 15th and 16th century Florence, and of Europe in

general, were tumultous. While only in his twenties Machiavelli was

witnessing a crumbling republic under the leadership of the religiOUS

figure Savonarola. Florence was facing other grave political and eco­

nomical problems, the resolution of which depended upon Florence

regaining Pisa. Pisa was a valued trading post, as well as a target for

French occupation. The French and other powers were seen as a threat to Florentine liberty. Various European powers had already captured

other cities in the northern part of the peninsula and all the powers seemed determined to split Italy among themselves. Here, it must be

kept in mind that Europe was still in a feudal state of affairs. Nations

were just beginning to gain a sense of nationality. In the midst of such confusion, Machiavelli, a Florentine nationalist interested in the preser­

vation of Florence and Italy, became active. For example, he was

instrumental in establishing the rural citizen militia. This militia was a

56

key factor in the eventual regaining of Pisa in 1509 after thirteen years

of warfare.1

The political upheaval that the people of renaissance Italy witnessed helps to explain the fascination with war and power for

which Machiavelli is so well known. He, in fact, became particularly interested in the practical aspect of winning wars and wrote books such

as the Arle della Guerra on the subject. This demonstrates two things:

one, that Machiavelli's infatuation with war was a natural reaction to

his world asdisarmament is to the people of today, and two, that he was particularly interested in the practical world.

J.

H. Whitfield inhis book

Discourses em Machiavelli,

in support, states that "before the time of The

Prince..

Machiavelli had never written a treatise without some practical

purpose, and some special contexl."2

The Prince

is no exception. In

writing this treatise it isclear that Machiavelli had in mind the establish­

ment of a strong leadership in Florence. This leadership would now hold Florence together, but, eventually, the leadership would gain

considerable strength so as to unify Italy in order for her to reassert her greatness. Furthermore, The

Discourses

are a natural progression from

The

Prince.

In both works he professes many of the same techniques of

rule and retains his observations on human nature. He regards these

observations as underlying constants that must be considered in any regime, autocratic or republican.

The practical side of Machiavelli may be best explained by

today's term realpolitik. This concept is demonstrated in Machiavelli's

famous phrase from The

Prince,

"the end justifies the means."3 As Max

Lerner states, Machiavelli distinguishes between what is and what

ought to be.'

Machiavelli primarilyconcernshimself with empirical realm, view­

ing accurate appraisal of existing conditions as the only way to rule

successfully. He reserves an:

Discourses.

But, despite the i

republican forms of govenu

to the empirical remains. In

strong military, stresses the

controlling the people, reil

Periclean leader, and, finall,

consent for the longevity II

commonalities will be exp8J

realism and nationalism in I

Nationalism, altholl

that helps to reconcile the

examination. Not only was

Italian nation, but, hisbelief

tionary for his time. In

lac:

religiOUS, for he places it as

in The

Prince

as we see M

preferences which are so

pr

was also practiced in Machi

governmentinFlorenceand

despite the form ofgovemn:

The Discourses

when he stat;

any means.

For where upon then justice or iJ

ofshame,! allothercc should be,

of the cour

.,·,,,iiotr

g of Pisa in 1509 after thirteen years

at the people of renaissance Italy

scination with war and power for

m. He, in fact, became particularly winningwars and wrotebooks such

ject This demonstrates two things: with war was a natural reaction to IOOpleof today, and two, that he was

calworld.

J.

H. Whitfield in his book 1, states that "before the time ofThe

en a treatise without some practical

d."

2 _The

_Prince

_{is no exception. In}

achiavellihadinmind the establish­

lrenee.

This leadership would now

,tually, the leadership would gain

'Italyinorder for her to reassert her

trses are

a natural progression from

ses many of the same techniques of

In human nature. He regards these

nts that must be considered in any

IUavelli may be best explained by

ptis demonstrated in Machiavelli's e end justifies the means."3 _{As Max}

:J.ishes between what is and what

himselfwith empirical realm, view­ :onditions as the only way to rule

successfully. He reserves any normative discussion for the theme of

The

Discourses.

But, despite the idealized theme applauding the virtues of

republican forms of government, the importance he fonnerly attached

to the empirical remains. In The

Discourses

he retains an emphasis of a strong military, stresses the role of religion as a means of unifying and

controlling the people, reiterates the necessity of a strong, almost

Periclean leader, and, finally, Machiavelli emphasizes the need of mass

consent for the longevity and security of any regime. Many of these

commonalities will be expanded upon more as I discuss Machiavelli's

realism and nationalism in specifics.

Nationalism, although referred to earlier, is an important ideal

that helps to reconcile the two texts, and requires a more detailed

examination. Not only was Machiavelli a proponent of a sovereign

Italian nation, but, his belief in the importance of the state was revolu­

tionary for his time. In fact his conception of the state was almost religious, for he places it as the highest good. This is blatantly the case

in The

Prince

as

we

see Machiavelli wavering from his democratic

preferences which are so prevalent in The

Discourses.

This nationalism

was also practiced in Machiavelli's own life by serving the republican

government in florence and by resolving to partidpate in public service

despite the fonnof government. Machiavelli best delineates his view in

The Discourses

when he states that the country should be preserved by

any means.

For where the very safety of the country depends upon the resolution to be taken, no considerations of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, nor glory or of shame, should be allowed to prevail. But putting all other considerations aside, the only question should be, What course will save the life and liberty of the country75

Here, as in The

Prince,

Machiavelli is willing to forego morality

and his convictions of the superiority of republican rule in order to

assure the higher good of the preservation of the state. Government is

not about preserving individual liberties, but rather preserving the

existence of the state.

Additionally, it is reasonable to conjecture that these national­

istic ideals were an offspring of his realism. In Machiavelli's world European powers were consolidating, particularly France and Spain

which were at their zenith at this time. In the interests of protecting Florence, its citizenry, Italian culture, and the liberty of the future,

Machiavelli saw an Italian nation as the onlymeans of recourse. But this

would call for order, and an order that could only be realized through

the leadership of a prince. A prince was needed for the people were

weak. The new, unified nations emerging in Europe were the force with

which to be reckoned. To survive, the Italians, too, must unify and

practice the ruthless, superficial politics that the rest had already

adopted. Machiavelli was not the progenitor of the practice, he just

happened to be among the first to put it in writing.

An analysis ofMachiavelli's reallsm bestexplains why Machia­

velli wrote his little treatise illuminating the immorality of effective,

princely rule. Aside from the bellicose nature of government that Machiavelli continuouslywitnessed, perhaps the one thing that had the

most profound influence upon him was the diplomatic missions for the

republican government that Machiavelli participated in during the

early 1500s. These missions helped him to view the strife in the penin­

sula from an international perspective. He watched the cold, deliberate

machinations of foreign leaders anxious to wield their influence upon

the weak Italian states. His visit to the court of Cesare Borgia was

especially enlightening. It was there where his strong beliefs on

fortuna

58

and

virtu

fully developed.

Under Borgia, Mad

things, is beyond the conm ruinous effects. But Machia'

made to prevent the winds (

This is best exemplified in

fortune to a river that

can

be

and dykes. For Machiavelli,

Florence. The series of conJ

power of the Church had (

citizenry which was only

under the hand of strong Ie

could Florence be saved. 1

needed for the success of

a

present. Machiavelli's assUI

was restored inFlorencein .

years until the ousted Medi

The austere measul

Machiavelli's goalofrestom which would subsequently

of government. Thisisasim

Lerner. Langton, somewha­

The Discourses

as a follow

stabilized by following dir

then tum to

The Discourses

I

handbook for a return to re

be used most effectively w

role as a consultant to the

I

·chiavelli is willing to forego morality iority of republican rule in order to

!lel'Vation of the state. Government is

liberties, but rather preserving the

Ible to conjecture that these national­

his realism. In Machiavelli's world lting, particularly France and Spain

5 time. In the interests of protecting lture, and the liberty of the future,

IStheonlymeans of recourse. Butthis rthat could only be realized through

lCe was needed for the people were

terginginEurope were the force with

>e, the Italians, too, must unify and . politics that the rest had already

e progenitor of the practice, he just ) put it in writing.

i'srealismbestexplains why Machia­

linating the immorality of effective,

ellicose nature of government that

ed,perhapsthe one thing that had the nwas the diplomatic missions for the

:hiavelli participated in during the

dhim to view the strife in the penin­ tive. He watched the cold, deliberate

:lXious to wield their influence upon

to the court of Cesare Borgia was

re

where his strong beliefs on

fortUnJl

and

virtu

fully developed.

Under Borgia, Machiavelli observed that illness, among other

things, is beyond the control of man; yet, these uncontrollables have

ruinous effects. But Machiavelli also witnessed how preparation canbe

made to prevent the winds of fortune from being without redemption.6

This is best exemplified in the passage in

The Prince

which equates

fortune toa river that can be tamed withhurnan ingenuity such as darns

and dykes. For Machiavelli, it was fortune that blew an ill wind upon

Florence. The series of conflicts, of weak leaders, and the continued

power of the Church had corrupted the people. These ills created a

citizenry which was only interested in self-aggrandizement. Only

under the hand of strong leadership (Lorenzo de Medici in this case)

could Florence be saved. The people were so corrupt that the

virtu

needed for the success of a republican form of government was not

present. Machiavelli's assumption proved to be accurate when liberty

was restored in Florence in 1527. The new regime only lasted for three years until the ousted Medici were able to resume power.

The austere measures in The Prince were necessary to achieve

Machiavelli's goal of restoring order and building a basic infrastructure

which would subsequently work to realize his ideal: a republican form

of government. This is a similar view to those ofJohn Langton and Max

Lerner. Langton, somewhat convincingly, extends his view to include

The Discourses

as a follow up to

The Prince.

Once Florence became

stabilized by follOWing directives delineated in

The Prince,

one could

then tum to The Discourses for guidance. He regards

The Discourses

as a

handbook for a return to republican rule. This book would, of course,

be used most effectively with the assistance of Machiavelli playing a

role as a consultant to the prince?

--60

Machiavelli's view of leadership in both texts pronounces the

need for ruthless, sometimes unjust measures. He first stresses the

ability to adapt to changing circumstances. This is consistent with his

views on

fortuna,

for it is

fortuna

that necessitates these characteristics.

Chance can bring good luck or bad luck. And, when chance knocks at

the door, the leader must be prepared to take action and adapt to

changing conditions. The ability to act with the cleverness a fox and to

speak with the force of a lion is also vital. To do otherwise, that is to be

neutral, to refuse to act or act quickly and with confidence, would be

cruel. It would put the state at risk to aggression or subject it to undue hazards of fortune.

Itis also the responsibility of the leader to establish institutions and laws that will outlive the leader. Machiavelli was counting on this

in both works. He implores Lorenzo to adopt new "laws and measures"

that will liberate Italy and immortalize Lorenzo as her savior.8_{Thus, for}

Machiavelli, a leader must possess flexibility, sagacity, physical strength

(especially in the form of an organized military), and foresight- all

qualities that seem to add up to Machiavelli's ideas on

virtu.

For if

virtu

truly means to do one's duty well, these assets are what it takes to

succeed in a principality or a republic. A leader who possesses these

qualities will be able to act as the situation requires yet he will still

maintain appearances that appease the people. This is highly important

in maintaining the civil peace and the unity of the people.

Those who criticize Machiavelli for extreme ruthlessness, evi­

dence of which can be found in both texts, mistakenly evaluate his

thoughts from a post-Lockeian framework. What people of today find

problematic is that the state which Machiavelli desires to build seems

to ignore that the construction of such a nation may ruin the things that

are beautiful within it. But, from a sixteenth century perspective, when

there was no conception 01

seems excessive. Ideas sud

processes, and beliefs of nol

not widely held nor evenin

to absolute rulers who coule

rulers governed only in om What

does seem

pal

deceit and trickery. A rulerI appear so; he need not bejust

can do what a situation det'l

concern for humanity. But,

sumption that running a

gal

what separates him from til

knowledge a separation of t:

This position regare

and Machiavelli himself, ne:

solely as a response to the UI

upon florence. Rather, Mad

ism, are viewed as the onlyE

the time. Dietz's arguments.

example, she harps on his

historical data contradictor

smart politician or realist,

evidence most appropriate t

as a complete historical acee

historian but a politician tUI

Discourses,

too, are filled wi

The former work, then, isno.

ignored or misconstrued. A

8

Undergraduate Review, Vol. 3, Iss. 1 [1989], Art. 8

ship in both texts pronounces the

1 measures. He first stresses the

tances. This is consistent with his necessitates these characteristics.

lick. And, when chance knocks at

il"ed to take action and adapt to

ct with the cleverness a fox and to

rita!. To do otherwise, that is to be yand with confidence, would be

)aggression or subject it to undue

the leader to establish institutions

Machiavelli was counting on this

o adopt new '1awsand measures"

roe Lorenzo as her savior.8_{Thus, for}

xibility, sagacity, physical strength

red military), and foresight- all riavelli's ideas on

virtu.

For if

virtu

these assets are what it takes to lic. Aleader who possesses these .ituation requires yet he will still

!le people. This is highly important

le unity of the people.

relli for extreme ruthlessness, evi­

th texts, mistakenly evaluate his ~work.What people of today find

lachiavelli desires to build seems

1a nation may ruin the things that

teenth century perspective, when

there was no conception of inalienable or natural rights, he hardly

seems excessive. Ideas such as freedom of speech, access to judicial

processes, and beliefs of non-interference from the government were

not widely held nor even in existence. People were commonly subject

to absolute rulers who could do as they pleased. Often these absolute

rulers governed only in order to advantage themselves.

What does seem particularly invidious, though, is his call for

deceit and trickery. A ruler must be a fox. He need not be religiOUS but

appear so; he need not be just but must appear to be just.Ifclever, a ruler can do what a situation demands while convincing the people of his

concern for humanity. But, to the reader, this demonstrates his pre­

sumption that running a government calls for means of its own. This is

what separates him from the classicists. Machiavelli is willing to ac­

knowledge a separation of the public and private domains.

This position regards The Prince, in relation to

The Discourses

and Machiavelli himself, neither as an aberration, nor as a set up, nor

solely as a response to the uncertainty and unrest that fortuna had laid

upon Florence. Rather, Machiavelli's realism, and notably his national­

ism, are viewed as the only effective means of governing the people of

the time. Dietz's arguments against this theory are unconvincing. For

example, she

harps

on his historical examples and his exclusion of historical data contradictory to his arguments. I assert that like any

smart politician or realist, Machiavelli simply selected supportive

evidence most appropriate to his purposes.

The Prince

was not intended

as a complete historical account. Furthermore, Machiavelli was not an

historian but a politician turned writer. As Leo Strauss points out, The

Discourses,

too, are filled with inconsistencies regarding past events.9

The former work, then, isnot the only evidence of material thathasbeen

ignored or misconstrued. Additionally, the fact that Machiavelli only

62

designed

The Prince

for the eyes of Lorenzo de Medici. support my

thesis. Again, one notes that history suggests Machiavelli, in every

other treatise he wrote, intended it to address a very specific set of

circumstances such as those we find in The

Prince.

And, lastly, the final

chapter of The

Prince

not only serves as a call to action for Lorenzo but

suggests that he truly believed that the action he calls for would be in

the best interests of all. Rule under

The Prince

would not be as brutal as

the prevailing circumstances. In the closing of

The Prince

he states, ''What Italian would withhold allegiance? This barbarous domination

stinks in the nostrils of every one/'IO

The differences between these two great works are best recon­

ciled by viewing the measures for ruling a state called for in

The Prince

as being consistent with measures described in ruling a republican

government modeled after the great republic of Rome. The underlying

practice of the two governments remains remarkably constant. But,

Machiavelli's effort to sustain Medici rule created a dichotomy which

can only be resolved through evaluating his visions of realpolitik and

a unified Italian state. These are the reflections of the practical politics that he was concerned with throughout his adult life. And, despite his

love of liberty he acknowledged his forceful rules as being more important than the establishment of a weak republican state. For such

a state would be incapable of maintaining order and of creating the new

strength that Italy needed in order to flourish. Italy could not be

extravagant. The Italians were not in a solely epistemological world,

but rather the empirical, practical world of feudal 16th century Euro­

pean politics.

IHale, J.R. Machiavelli and til. Ian Company, 1960), p.10.

2 Whitfield, J.H.

Discourses

W. Heffer & Sons Ltd., 196! 3 Machiavelli, Niccolo. The _ tion by Max Lerner (NewY

4 Jensen, De Lamar. Machit (Lexington, Massachusetts:

5 Machiavelli, Niccolo. The _ tion by Max Lerner (New'"

6Hale, J.R. Machiavelli and th

Ian Company, 1960), p. 25.

7 Langton, John and

Mary

I

Teaching the Prince,"Ame 1987), p. 1282.

8 Machiavelli, Niccolo. The

tion by Max Lerner (New")

9 Strauss, Leo.

Thoughts

071 Press, 1958), p. 36.

10Machiavelli, Niccolo.The tion by Max Lerner (New ~

Lorenzo de Medid support my

y suggests Machiavelli, in every

to address a very specific set of

in

The Prince.

And, lastly, the final as a call to action for Lorenzo but

he action he calls for would be in

Ie

Prince

would not be as brutal as

e

closing of

The Prince

he states,

~7nusbarbarousdonUnation

!Ie two great works are best recon­

ling

a state called for inThe Prince

described in ruling a republican

republic of Rome. The underlying

mains remarkably constant. But,

:i rule created a dichotomy which

lting his visions of realpolitik and reflections of the practical politics

out his adult life. And, despite his

Us forceful rules as being more

a weak

republican state. For such

ningorder and of creating the new

r to flourish. Italy could not be

n a

solely epistemological world,

orld of feudal 16th century

Euro-NOTES

1Hale, J.R.

Machiavelli and the RenaissanceItaly,

(New York: the MacnUl­

Ian Company, 1960), p.10.

2 Whitfield, J.H.

Discourses on Machiavelli,

(Cambridge, Great Britain:

W. Heffer & Sons Ltd., 1969), p. 23.

3Machiavelli, Niccolo.

The Prince and the Discourses,

with an introduc­ tion by Max Lerner (NewYork: Random House, 1950), p. 66.

'Jensen, De Lamar.

Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist?,

(Lexington, Massachusetts: J.e. Heath and Company, 1960), p. 10.

5Machiavelli, Niccolo.

The Prince and the Discourses,

with an introduc­ tion by Max Lerner (New York: Random House, 1950), p. 528.

6Hale, J.R.

Machiavelli and the Renaissance Italy,

(New York: The MacnUl­

Ian Company, 1960), p. 25.

7 Langton, John and Mary Dietz, "Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or

Teaching the Prince,"

American Political Science

Review (December , 1987), p. 1282.

8Machiavelli, Niccolo.

The Prince and the Discourses,

with an introduc­ tion by Max Lerner (New York: Random House, 1950), p. 96.

9 Strauss, Leo.

Thoughts on Machiavelli,

(Glencoe, illinois: The Free

Press, 1958), p. 36.

10Machiavelli, Niccolo.The

Prince and the Discourses,

with an introduc­ tion by Max Lerner (New York: Random House, 1950), p. 98.

64

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dietz, Mary. "Trapping the Prince: Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception."

American Political Science

Review (September, 1986): p. 777­ 797.

Gilbert, Felix.

Machiavelli and Guicciardini.

Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1%5.

Hale, J.R.

Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy.

New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960.

Jensen, De Lamar, ed.

Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot,

or

Political Scientist?

_{Howard Rc}

Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1960.

Langton, John and Mary Dietz. "Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or

Teaching the Prince."

American Science Political

Review (December 1987):

_Mary

p.1277-1288.

Machiavelli, Niccolo.

The Prince

and the

Discourses.

Introduction by Max Lerner. New York: Random House, Inc., 1950.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The

History ofFlorence.

Edited by Hugh R. Trevor­

Roper.

New York: Twayne Publishers, 1970.

Strauss, Leo.

Thoughts

on

Machiavelli.

Glencoe, nlinois: The Free Press, 1958.

Whitfield, J.H.

Discourses on Machiavelli.

Cambridge, Great Britain: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd., 1969.