2003-11-20-9:47 a.m.
That's right, still no real entry just yet. For now, you must be satisfied with Machiavelli, the Pope, and hopefully a good slice of pizza if you can find it. I wrote this for a History class.

===================================

Machiavellism was the devil’s work, according to some church leaders in the 16th century. It also seemed to be a work associated with heretics against the Church. The Prince eventually made it on the Churches’ forbidden book Index. The book in its surface view was seen as supporting tyranny, cruelty, and deceitful corruption. In brief, it was not a popular book because it gave justification for destructive double-faced political behavior. With all this in mind, it seems to be labeled a “machiavellian” would imply supporting Satan and tyranny, although it should be well noted that his work much hinted at morality and humanistic rights. Many of his supports imply favor to the people and in fact that the prince only has power from the people even though this was not said openly. Then, to be a Machiavellian is to put deeper thought into the text. Its surface text seems to support the one leader but in reality shows its ineffectual system to the people under the rule of the prince; this view would promote the republic as a better system of rule.

The surface goal of Machiavelli in his written work was to show through experience how a prince should rule properly, “…which will enable you to grasp in short order everything I have learned over many years and come to understand through many trails and troubles (Adams, 3.)” Another way to view this though is that Machiavelli isn’t only addressing Duke Lorenzo Medici but mainly the general public. What a person will see is the many “trails and troubles” of princedom for such a political organization would work for the prince but how would the ordinary person feel about such a setup? It would seem that any person who reads The Prince would come out with a greater appreciation for the Republic. The political situation itself plays a role with the goal Machiavelli is trying to make. Before the text was written, Florentine was a republic and later ruled by the Medici family striping representive government’s power away. A weak militia and fighting between city-states made them prime targets for conquering. Machiavelli undoubtfully saw all the problems in his city and in other city-states or Italy. His work might have been a very good guide for a ruler but at the same time relents with nostalgia about Italy’s past failures and their inability to fix those errors. Machiavelli showed what went wrong and at the same time tells how to prevent injury in the first place.

When Machiavelli speaks about different types of troops one recruits into his army, he tells us the prince should man them with his own troops. “…Unless it has its own armies, no state is really secure (40.)” Me4rcenaries would flee at the first sign of danger and foreign troops would backstab when they have the upper hand. With one’s own troops though they are dependant upon the prince, so they are most reliable. This is the point a prince would get: one’s own armies brings security, but for the republic its different. For a strong city not easily taken by tyrants, one must rely on each other inside the city and not on outside influences. If the Italian city-states trained professional soldiers inside their own cities, outside influences like the French or Spanish wouldn’t have been such a threat. Cesare Borgia, Duke Valentino to others, is a popular example of building up a state properly. He was keen enough to see that one needs his own army is one is going to be successful in ruling. Again, if the republic would take note of these traits, tyrants would be wary to attack. As Machiavelli says about Cesare, “… to guard against enemies and win friends, to overcome by force or fraud, to make himself loved and feared by the people, followed and respected by his troops… (23.)” So learn from these traits, either to avoid them as to remember the importance of the republic over tyranny or embrace them as tools to building a better society. Remember his one mistake as well, that one should follow closely the situation at hand while making plans for the future. Cesare, in his power, chose the wrong man as pope causing his downfall.

Machiavelli talks about the topic of princes keeping their word and he uses two animals to prove his point: the fox and the lion. “As the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves, you have to be a fox in order to be wary of traps, and a lion to overawe the wolves (48.)” The general rule that Machiavelli says is that all people cannot be trusted and one would be foolish to keep his word if it would cause his downfall. To be the lion means one can out power his opponent but that means nothing if one can’t see his opponents’ future moves and respond to them. If one is honor bounded by his word, he will end up as a lion in a trap but if he plays the hypocrite then he will have the fox to maneuver around any traps waiting. If anything, this passage truly stresses that a prince cannot always be good, “a prince…cannot possibly exercise all those virtues for which men are called ‘good’ (49.)” He has to play dirty to survive. To the average person reading this it shows how immoral a prince has to be for the good of all. A government under representation through might have a better chance of avoiding unnecessary promises in the first place through debate and proper planning together.

Machiavelli claims that virtue and reputation should be something judged according to the times. “…You will see that something resembling virtue, if you follow it, may be your ruin, while something else resembling vice will lead, if you follow it, to your security and well-being (43.)” Virtue only matters if it will secure one’s state and reputation means little as long as the people don’t suffer too much or lose benefits. With the trains of fear vs. love, a prince should prefer fear, “love is a link of obligation which men, because they are rotten, will break any time they think doing so serves their advantage, but fear involves dread of punishment… (46.)” Love then makes a prince servants light in his presence and might turn them to backstabbing at any moment while fear keeps them in line and under obligation. Fear will work for the prince because it is not hate, “…if only the prince will keep his hand off property…and off their women (46.)” Fear involves respect while hate involves a personal attack. With all these traits concerning the end justifies the means, even though some seem cruel and immoral it will keep the state together and in the long run preserve one’s people.

In today’s time, we live in the expectation that presidents or rulers should be moralistic at all times. Some go so far as to express that war is inherently evil and should never be used. Politicians, one would imagine according to Machiavelli, follow the times we live in, “a prince will be fortunate who adjusts his behavior to the temper of the time (68.)” They could not wipe out an entire protest against the war in Iraq because that would bring international trouble but they could be hypocrites covering their tracks with a good excuse. In conclusion then, a politician might listen to Machiavelli to do evil to protect the state, but Machiavelli would frown upon political evil for self gain by the leader.

previous - next