• Return to Course Content and List of Lectures

• Return to Blackboard Opening Page

Fortuna

One term that recurs throughout the Prince is Fortuna. Machiavelli for his talk and hope for effective political leadership and confidence in the competent leader to alter events for the better also allows for the fickle hand of fate. He offers multiple definitions of the term and compares it frequently to a women: "Fickle as a Women." "If we depend on Fortuna, to raise us up, we are liable to fall 'the more terribly' when she turns against us, as she is almost certain to do in the end." Machiavelli illustrated a shift in the meaning of fate and Fortuna from the Christian and Medieval view that Fortuna is not open to being influenced. Machiavelli is reflective of a larger societal change in which the elite, at least, was coming to believe that they could alter and control events. Shakespeare has Cassius say to Brutus: "if we fail in our efforts to attain greatness, the fault must lie not in our stars but in our selves." Humans are controlled by Fortuna and Fate but, "to suppose our fate to be entirely in her hands it to deny our free will." This shift in the meaning of Fortuna is reflective of a new confidence in the human's beings ability to bring about social and political change. The political process can make our lives better. We need not assume that life is just one damn thing after another. Life can be directed and controlled if we can find competent leadership.

Machiavelli as Job Applicant

In the opening to the Prince Machiavelli ..... The Prince I have said previously wrote the Prince at "white heat". It was clearly meant to advertise his skills in the hope of employment by Lorenzo.

Should Lorenzo employ Machiavelli? Suppose Lorenzo the Magnificent (Great Name!!), one of the member of the Medici family read the Prince, what would it tell him?

The Medici's came to power under conditions Machiavelli would have said were not good to longevity in power. They were the former rulers of Florence, but had been in exile for eighteen years. They were returned to power not because of their virtu or skill, but because of good fortune combined with armies supplied by King Ferdinand of Spain.

For Machiavelli those who achieve power easily also loss it just easily. "like all other natural things that are born and grow rapidly, states that grow quickly cannot sufficiently develop their roots, trunks, branches, and will be destroyed by the first chill winds of adversity." (Wooton, ed, Prince, p. 23)

The problems facing such a prince will be even graver if the former province was a Republic in which the people have a say in governance and now that is to be replaced by and authoritarian regime of a King. In a Republic, Machiavelli says " they do not forget, indeed cannot forget, their lost liberties." (Prince, p. 18)

The Medici further compounded their problems of rule, if we are to believe Machiavelli in that they were frequently absent from Florence. They spent little time in direct supervision of the cities affairs. They behaving in an imprudent fashion according to Machiavelli.

Machiavelli wants reemployment. He lives and dies in political activity. But even he flatters Lorenzo rather excessively at times he can deny the axioms that he believes govern politics. For the Medici, if they read the Prince they would probably not hire Machiavelli or be comforted by what he had said.

Stability, Force and Power

How can the Prince defend himself? How can he assure that he will remain in power?

Machiavelli argues that the mercenary soldier is not the appropriate basis on which to rest the military force of a state. Mercenary soldiers are paid for their services. They have little loyalty and pose a threat both in victory and defeat. Mercenary soldiers have little loyalty or desire to place their lives in danger. There self-interest results in a half hearted war effort and even where successful they can turn upon their employer and depose him from power.

Machiavelli calls for a standing army, a citizen's army in which loyalty to the state is expressed and developed by participating in defending the state. In the Discourses this participatory theme of the citizen soldier will receive even greater emphasis.

Machiavelli modernity and practicality is also clear is argument that sheer military force is indispensable to good government. But it is not enough for the prince to amass a large army, he must also be willing to lead the army into battle. The prince he says must devote himself to war, its methods, and its practices.

Morality in Machiavelli: The Problem of Dirty Hands

If there is any one theme or discussion that we associate with Machiavelli it is discussion of morality and politics. He tells us that Princes just like all of us desire to be good, but at times this is not possible.

How men live is so different from how they should live that a ruler who does not do what is generally done, but persists in doing what ought to be done, will undermine his power rather than maintain it.

A prince must be prepared to act immorally when it is necessary. For all of Machiavelli's previous reliance on the great works of the Roman and Greek scholars and warriors he is quite critical of prior discussion of political morality. In particular he directs particular criticism at the Roman writes Cicero and Seneca. Cicero criticizes miserliness and avarice and praises generosity. Seneca denounces cruelty as the vice of tyrants. Machiavelli will have none of this discussion. For Machiavelli necessity and rulership require that we violate such moral codes.

Morality: Fear and Love

In chapter XVII, "whether it is better to be feared than loved" Machiavelli specifically criticizes Cicero again. Cicero argues that the ruler should banish fear and hold fast to love in his relations with his subjects. For Machiavelli it is difficult to be both feared and loved and if you must chose, fear is better. Machiavelli also criticizes Cicero's belief that "our word is our bond." His pessimism about human nature is evident here. We must be prepared to disregard the conventional virtues and be capable of entering on the path of wrongdoing when it is necessary."

Machiavelli's axioms of politics have frequently been seen as manipulative, deceptive, and wicked or to put it more simply immoral. One of the most well know axioms expands on the above discussion of Cicero

Chapter XVII

Of Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether it is Better to be Loved or Feared

Proceeding to the other qualities before named, I say that every prince must desire to be considered merciful and not cruel. He must, however, take care not to misuse this mercifulness. Cesere Borgia was considered cruel, but his cruelty had brought order to the Romangna, united it, and reduced it to peace and fealty. If this is considered well, it will be seen that he was really much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid the name of cruelty, allowed Pistoia to be destroyed. A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and faithful; for, with a few examples, he will be more merciful that those who, from excess of tenderness, allow disorders to arise, from whence spring bloodshed and rapine; for these as a rule injure the whole community, while the executions carried out by the prince injure only individuals. And of all princes, it is impossible for a new prince to escape the reputation of cruelty, new states being always full of dangers.

From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared more than loved. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer, to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting. For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger, and covetous of gain; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours; they offer you their blood, their goods, their life, and their children, as I have before said, when the necessity is remote; but when it approaches, they revolt. And the prince who relied solely on their words, without making other preparations, is ruined; for the friendship which is gained by purchase and not through grandeur and nobility of spirit is bought but not secured, and at a pinch is not to be expended in your service. And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligations which men being is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Still, a prince should make himself feared in such a way that if he does not gain love, he at any rate avoids hatred; for fear and the absence of hatred may well go together, and will be always attained by one who abstains from interfering with the property of his citizens and subjects or with their women. And when he is obliged to take the life of any one, let him do so when there is proper justification and manifest reason for it; but above all he must abstain from taking the property of others, for men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.

Even to our age, century when millions have been slaughtered in Russia, Germany, Cambodia. How are we to interpret a line like "tale care not to misuse this mercifulness" or that "men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony [inheritance]." This seems cold and calculating, as if he is keeping moral issues at arm's length. Morality just as cruelty must be measured out in proper doses. Each of itself is neutral, just a tool.

Dual Standard of Morality

Machiavelli is arguing that the prince must adhere to a dual standard of morality, one code applies to the public or political sector and the other governs our personal relations. Whatever may be true morally at the private level when unquestioningly applied at the political level can be disastrous. The political ruler must be prepared to disregard all moral standards. If the situation requires it the ruler must thing of the state, the whole populace. The individual generally thinks of himself/herself or his or her family and friends. The relevant circle, moral community is quite small. The politician must weigh and balance a variety of alternatives and can apply an absolute code of right and wrong. The politician deciding on sending soldiers "into harm's way" knowing full well that some will die in battle if some larger cause is to be protected. Necessity must guide the prince. He must adjust his moral values in accord with the "force of circumstances" and adjust to conditions. The politician engages in a kind of utilitarian balancing between complex combinations of good and evil.

It is important to recognize that Machiavelli is not making a general defense of all acts of political immorality. He is not condoning the actions of Nero. He is saying rather that there are times when a ruler and his advisors must depart from the normal moral code. Necessity must at times guide the prince. One of the striking aspects about Machiavelli's discussion of morality, writing at time when the Catholic church is still the church in Europe let alone Italy that there is no reference to Christian morality or judgement day. Christianity is simply not relevant to Machiavelli's considerations.

Discussion Point: Is there, should there be a Dual Standard of Morality for the political and private sphere? Shouldn't we use the same standard of morality to judge our private lives and the politicians that we elect to office? It is clear that many Americans judge politicians by both more and less than a private moral code. President Clinton's private life has been subjected to a layer of scrutiny by the press, Kenneth Starr (Independent Counsel), talk show hosts, and private citizens that few us could withstand. We also allow politicians more leeway in terms of CIA covert actions, decisions made in times of war, or in campaign finance. How do we draw the lines on such issues? Without trying to offer any neat answer politicians often must engage in a kind of utilitarian balancing, the greatest good for the greatest number. Decisions to go to war can mean the loss of life, but I think most of us accept the wisdom of our participation in WWII. What we must ask of a politician is that they make those decision with the degree of gravity and consideration that they deserve.

Appearance and Reality: Machiavelli as a Public Relations Expert

In addition to arguments for a dual standard of morality Machiavelli also argues for the need to separate appearance from reality. Machiavelli sounds at times like a political consultant advising a candidate to dress a certain way, adopt a particular public stance -- fly to a disaster and display public concern. Machiavelli argues that politicians must frequently "appear" or "seem" as other than what they really are. Throughout Machiavelli's analysis there is a clear departure from prior Greek and Medieval theorists. For Plato or Aristotle politics is built upon rational discourse. It rests on the expectation that the political words and images reflect a true reality. To adopt a strategy of deception is wholly unacceptable. Plato and Aristotle are not so naive to think that deception is not often a common part of political discourse, what they would find so reprehensible about Machiavelli is effort to justify deception and dissembling as a necessary tool of the politician.

Machiavelli recognized that a public relations view of politics can involve lying an deception but he argues that these concerns are outweighed by the need to preserve the state. Better a little deception then the destruction of the political system. The politician should normally abide by society's moral rules, but there will always be occasion when he must break those moral codes and the decision when to violate the moral code is a practical or political issues not a question of morality.

Violence an Modern Political Theory

I have suggested a number of places where Machiavelli is consciously or implicitly breaking from the ancient political tradition -- politics as a science, dual standard of morality, appearance vs. reality, focus on realism vs. idealism. Perhaps the most dramatic break with the past is in Machiavelli's discussion of violence and the political process.

There had been few political theorists prior to Machiavelli who regarded power and violence as dominant attributes of the state. With Machiavelli power has come to the front stage in the concerns of the theorist. Politics could be controlled or directed without the application of force.

What Machiavelli tries to do is create a science of the controlled application of Violence (See Sheldon Colin, Politics and Vision for an extended discussion of this thesis.). It would be a science able to administer violence in precise and measured dosages. In a corrupt society, for instance, violence represents the only means of correcting decadence, a brief but severs shock treatment is necessary to restore civic consciousness. In other situations, violence might be unnecessary, the prince might only threaten its use or play on the fears of his constituents. Machiavelli is not suggesting that violence should be used indiscriminately. Violence must be regulated and apportioned. It would be foolish to use it where it was not needed.

Machiavelli's writings on violence represent a profound shift in Western's societies acceptance of violence as a one amongst many of the tools of the politician. Classical Greek thought abhorred any action that exceeded standards of morality or the mean. An act of violence was a break in the natural limits that a good person was duly bound to preserve. Aristotle, the tutor of Alexander the Great, thought long and hard about these questions. Masters, he said, must never be confused with statesmanship. There is something deeply wrong when a profession is so practical as to justify deliberate killing. The success of a conqueror like Alexander does not place his acts outside the limits set by; nature and morality.

The conviction that natural limits to violence existed and that violence was inherently wrong persisted into the sixteenth century. To what degree Machiavelli is responsible for the changing views about violence in the sixteenth century is hard to say. For a whole series of reasons, and Machiavelli was just one part, violence ceased to be regarded as an act of passion. It was possible think of the use of violence in a cool and calculating manner. Machiavelli instructed people in what might be called an economy of violence. Violence as a tool in the hands of the statesman, was not to be misused or overused, but now violence was an accepted part of the politicians tool bag.

The break of modern political theory from the past was well under way. Machiavelli is a figure that seems much more comfortable in our world of the late twentieth century. Aristotle would have a much harder time dealing with this political theorist from Florence. Return to the First Part of the Prince

• Return to Course Content and List of Lectures

• Return to Blackboard Opening Page

[Contents]	[Index]	[Comment]	[Home]