Analysis of a Machiavelli's Perspective on Princedom in The Prince

For hundreds of years, European academics and theologians understood their world through the lens of Scholasticism. They employed dialectic discourse to abstractly evaluate inferences and to reconcile contradictions. However, this method of explaining reality was often burdened by indisputable religious dogma and other influential precedents which render the actual discovery of truth a speculative endeavor.

In the Early-Modern period, Niccolo Machiavelli pioneered a pragmatic, humanist method of explaining political realities in his treatise The Prince. Machiavelli’s use of historical examples captures an early-modern departure from medieval scholasticism and the rise of humanism in renaissance Europe. The treatise’s central argument is to prove that conventional ideals of virtuous leadership are rarely what creates and maintains power. A prince must act purely based on what it is that will benefit his position and the longevity of his time as ruler. A strong prince carefully analyzes the success and failures of those who ruled before his time. Today’s trials may be solved with yesterday’s decisions. For example, to Machiavelli, “Examples are provided by the Spartans and Romans.”

In The Prince, Machiavelli crafts an instructional manual for the aspiring ruler. His style of heuristic analysis, in which he employs historical facts and emphasizes practicality, differs substantially from scholasticism because the method to arrive at a conclusion is free from the shackles of tradition or religious dogma. Machiavelli’s humanist arguments focus on how people actually act rather than an ideal of how a person ought to act to be a good ruler. He shows a deliberate attempt to distinguish his methods from scholasticism when he writes “I have thought it proper to represent things as they are in a real truth, rather than as they are imagined. Many have dreamed up republics and principalities which have never in truth been known to exist.” Machiavelli cites historical evidence from the past as well as his own powerful contemporaries in order to justify his oftentimes amoral outlook on the politics, state building, and warfare. Machiavelli’s stances on politics and warfare come from his exemplary knowledge of ancient history. He shows his admiration for the ancients, writing “I put on regal and curial robes; and dressed in a more appropriate manner I enter into the ancient courts of ancient men and am welcomed by them kindly… and there I am not ashamed to speak to them, to ask them the reasons for their actions; and they, in their humanity, answer me.” Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli tends to favor the leaders of ancient empires. He is frequently impressed by the vast empire of the Romans and other rulers such as Cyrus and Alexander the Great. The Romans were capable rulers because they knew how to deal with their neighbors; befriend those who are close, but weaken those who are strong and create a colonial system in which the rulers will live.

When searching for princes to criticize, Machiavelli looks to his own contemporaries. Machiavelli makes an effective effort to portray King Louis as the antithesis of what made the Romans powerful. According to him Louis had, therefore, made these five mistakes: he had destroyed the weaker powers; increased the power of someone already powerful in Italy; brought into that country a very powerful foreigner; stayed away from Italy itself; failed to establish settlements there. Even these mistakes, if he had lived, need not have been fatal if there had not been a sixth: his dispossessing the Venetians of their state. If he had not made the Church strong, or brought Spain into Italy, it would have been reasonable and necessary to crush the Venetians.

Machiavelli finishes this calculated diatribe, confidently writing “King Louis lost Lombardy because he observed none of the rules observed by others who have seized countries and determined to hold on to them. There is nothing Fantastic about this.” Machiavelli is secure in his judgements because they are based off of observed history rather than ideals or conceptual ideas. Although this process of believing the realities and themes of history may seem simple to an educated 21st century citizen, it challenged moral and religious dogmas of the time. There is something every prince can learn from the legendary conquerors of history. Essayist Isaiah Berlin argues that Machiavelli believes that great leaders have always been the same type of men when he writes Machiavelli does not believe in the irreversibility of the historical process or the uniqueness of each of its phases. The glories of antiquity can be revived if only men vigorous and gifted and realistic enough can be mobilized for the purpose. In order to cure degenerate populations of their diseases, these founders of new states or churches may be compelled to have recourse to ruthless measures, force and fraud, guile, cruelty, treachery, the slaughter of the innocent, surgical measures that are needed to restore a decayed body to a condition of health.

This is to say that only the boldest, most cunning, most pragmatic of princes will see true long term success, firm control and lasting glory. Because to a rational humanist, these bold, cunning, pragmatic people are the only ones who become true princes. Men like this will always be the ones to hold power because Machiavelli believes that the weak will always be crushed by the strong and clever. Political analysis in The Prince portrays human history as a cyclical affair. To Machiavelli, humans have always been the same and there is much to be learned from their past successes and failures. Every society that sees growth and prosperity will one day falter into decline and disrepair. A declining state will reach its lowest point and begin to grow again. To any event happening in the early-modern period, there exists some type of ancient event which is similar. For this reason, Machiavelli rejects the idea of mankind’s upwards, progressive trajectory throughout history. In Machievelli’s world, there will always be states in decline just as there will always be states which grow in power through expansion and consolidation of power.

Machiavelli’s extensive citations of history (namely examples of conquest and revolution) describe a world with a fragile political order. Although the circumstances of a principality can change rather quickly, this is never arbitrary or random. As Machiavelli sees it, there is a direct causal relationship between what the prince has done or left undone, and the fate of his lands. It is in this historically based causal relationship that Machiavelli’s challenge to scholasticism is fully realized. The purpose of history in The Prince is to provide evidence for how people truly behave and act when in positions of power and what the end outcome is. Machiavelli’s understanding of recurring patterns in politics and his eagerness to write as a stern aphorist are what separate The Prince from the scholastic society around it at the time. Although he looks cynically towards the common citizen, writing “Men sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony,” Machiavelli believes that more often than not, there must be a great struggle for humanity to improve as a whole. While his writing highlights violence and deceit, It simultaneously focuses on the ingenuity, creativity, and ability of the human spirit.

Bibliography

1. Bambrick, Gail. “Machiavelli’s Humanism.” Tufts Now. January 06, 2014, Accessed February 01, 2018. http//now.tufts.edu/article/machiavellis-humanism.
2. Berlin, Isaiah, Roger Hausheer, and Mark Lilla. Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas. Edited by Hardy Henry. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2tt8pw
3. Bury, J.B. The idea of progress: and inquiry into its origin and growth. Medford, MA, Tufts Press, 2011.
4. Leclerq, Jean. The love of learning and the desire for God: a study of monastic culture. New York: Forham University Press, 2014. Machiavelli, Niccoló. The Prince. Translated by George Bull. London, England: Penguin Books, 2006. 18.
5. McGrade, Arthur Stephen, The Cambridge companion to medieval philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
6. Leclerq, Jean. The love of learning and the desire for God: a study of monastic culture. New York: Forham University Press, 2014. 155, 173, 231.
7. McGrade, Arthur Stephen, The Cambridge companion to medieval philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 32, 40-42.
8. Machiavelli, Niccoló. The Prince. Translated by George Bull. London, England: Penguin Books, 2006. 18.
9. Berlin, Isaiah, Roger Hausheer, and Mark Lilla. Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas. Edited by Hardy Henry. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2013. 44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2tt8pw
10. Bury, J.B. The idea of progress: and inquiry into its origin and growth. Medford, MA, Tufts Press, 2011. 31-32. [10] Machiavelli 55.
11. Bambrick, Gail. “Machiavelli’s Humanism.” Tufts Now. January 06, 2014, Accessed February 01, 2018. http//now.tufts.edu/article/machiavellis-humanism.