NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Niccol Machiavelli, born in 1469, wrote The Prince during 1513 while living in political exile at his country house outside of Florence. He had served as head of the second chancery of the Florentine republic, but was dismissed after it fell in 1512. The Medici family was again ruling Florence, and a Medici also sat on the papal throne in Rome. Machiavelli tried unsuccessfully to use this treatise to gain an advisory appointment either to the papacy or the court of the Duke. The Prince was published in 1532, five years after Machiavelli died. The Prince aroused controversy from its first appearance, and in 1559, joined the works of Erasmus and other humanist scholars on the papal Index of Prohibited Books.
As a guide to princely behavior, the work falls into a genre common to the renaissance and to the classical periods. As a work of humanist scholarship, it shows a thorough grasp of classical writing style, and draws examples from a wide variety of classical and biblical texts. Yet to describe The Prince as belonging to either of these categories understates its power and originality. Critics have praised Machiavelli for his sophistication, clarity, realism, subtlety, irony. Some see his work as supporting a republican form of government by exposing the faults of princedoms, and praise his ability to separate political from moral issues. Other critics condemn him for being naive, promoting fraud, force, and immorality in politics, using beneficial ends to justify evil means, and betraying republican ideals.
Each group of critics draws on the chapters of The Prince that are reproduced here to support its conflicting appraisals. Important contemporary Machiavellian scholarship has emphasized the influence of humanist rhetoric on Machiavelli (Q. Skinner, 1981), and the relevance of Machiavelli's rhetoric to his political views (V. Kahn, 1994). P. Kain (1995) recently re-examined ethical ambiguities in The Prince and other works by Machiavelli.
The topics these authors discuss are closely related to an appraisal of The Prince as a masterpiece of critical thinking. Machiavelli expresses the highest respect for Latin classical authors such as Cicero and Seneca. Yet, The Prince takes a critical stance towards these sources while emulating them. For whereas Cicero and Seneca advise rulers to always tell the truth, be generous, and honor their promises, Machiavelli points out the negative consequences (for the state) when rulers adhere without exception to these moral standards. Machiavelli says that rulers should be truthful, keep promises, and the like when doing so will not harm the state, and that they should generally appear to have the traditional virtues. But since the goal of the ruler is to conquer and preserve the state, he should not shrink from wrongdoing when the preservation of the state requires this.
Thus, the classical concept of civic virtue, which is a moral code applicable to rulers and subjects alike, is critically transformed in Machiavelli's concept of virt, which pertains to rulers of states and can be at odds with moral virtue. Another departure from classical and humanist models occurs in Chapter XVIII when Machiavelli urges rulers to take on the characteristics of animals (the fox and the lion) by using cunning and force when the situation requires. Although Machiavelli refers to classical accounts of rulers being trained by centaurs, his suggestion that rulers be less than fully human critically challenges the humanist tradition which would never have humans behave as beasts. Machiavelli critically analyzes the crucial characteristics of successful rulers, distinguishing, for example, between standards of discipline appropriate for military campaigns and for rulers when they are not commanding armies.
Similarly, when Machiavelli discusses the concepts of cruelty and mercy, he presents examples to show that actions which might seem at first glance to be cruel are merciful in the circumstances, and vice versa. Following the classical authors he admires, Machiavelli employs the conditional patterns of argumentation developed by the Stoic logicians. He frequently uses the dilemma form since this is useful for presenting alternative courses of action along with their consequences. He skillfully avoids being caught in false dilemmas, however. For example, when considering whether it is better to be loved or feared, he first points out that it is desirable -- though not easy -- to be both loved and feared.
Although Machiavelli continually warns rulers to consider carefully the particular circumstances in which they find themselves, he does not shrink from generalizing about human behavior (e. g. , "armies are never kept united... unless their leader is thought to be harsh"). Although Machiavelli follows the classical model of presenting exemplars of the princely behavior he recommends, his generalizations are not drawn from single cases. Instead he draws on his own years of political experience along with his broad and intense study of history and politics. Unlike many of today's humanists, Machiavelli apparently would not reject social scientists' attempts to frame general principles of human behavior.
Indeed, he can be seen as following Mill's recommendation to begin to construct a science of human behavior by first studying history in order to develop a stock of generalizations that can be further tested and used to develop higher level principles and laws. Machiavelli's carefully chosen examples serve to make vivid and to bring down to earth his abstract generalizations. The advice in The Prince must be read critically and not as a collection of recipes for success. In the first place, rulers cannot employ classical exemplars in an uncritical fashion because their own circumstances will always differ to some degree from those of the models. In the second place, because of unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances, the practice of virt may not result in success. Cesare Borgia, for example, whom Machiavelli often cites as a model of virt, nevertheless lost his state.
Machiavelli attributes Cesare's failure not to the superior virt of his formidable opponent Pope Julius II, but to fortuna -- Cesare's father, who was Julius's predecessor on the papal throne and his bitter enemy, died before Cesare's own power was sufficiently consolidated to withstand this stroke of bad luck. Just as Machiavelli's concept of virt differs from the classical notion of virtue, his concept of fortuna departs from traditional uses of "fortune" or "fate. " In classical works, such as the tragedy of Oedipus, the hero's fate is predetermined and unavoidable. Machiavelli, however, believes that when rulers exercise virt, they encourage good luck and discourage bad. Nevertheless, since fortuna is to some degree unpredictable and uncontrollable, superior virt does not always triumph. The lessons then that Machiavelli offers to princes are lessons in critical thinking.
Rulers must learn how to make distinctions, how to consider alternative courses of action and evaluate their consequences, how to assess critically conflicting advice from various sources. If they are to preserve and maintain their states, they need to know how to apply general information about human nature to the particular circumstances that they face before taking any action. The things for which men, and especially rulers, are praised or blamed It remains now to consider in what ways a ruler should act with regard to his subjects and allies. And since I am well aware that many people have written about this subject, I fear that I may be thought presumptuous, for what I have to say differs from the precepts offered by others, especially on this matter. But because I want to write what will be useful to anyone who understands, it seems to me better to concentrate on what really happens rather than on theories or speculations. For many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist.
However, 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. If a ruler who wants always to act honorably is surrounded by many unscrupulous men, his downfall is inevitable. Therefore, a ruler who wishes to maintain his power must be prepared to act immorally when this becomes necessary. I shall set aside fantasies about rulers, then, and consider what happens in fact. I say that whenever men are discussed, and especially rulers (because they occupy more exalted positions) they are praised or blamed for possessing some of the following qualities.
Thus one man is considered generous, another miserly (I use this Tuscan term because award in our tongue also signifies someone who is rapacious, whereas we call cicero someone who is very reluctant to use his own possessions); one is considered a free giver, another rapacious; one cruel, another merciful; one treacherous, another loyal; one effeminate and weak, another indomitable and spirited; one affable, another haughty; one lascivious, another moderate; one upright, another cunning; one inflexible, another easy-going; one serious, another frivolous; one devout, another unbelieving, and so on. I know that everyone will acknowledge that it would be most praiseworthy for a ruler to have all the above-mentioned qualities that are held to be good. But because it is not possible to have all of them, and because circumstances do not permit living a completely virtuous life, one must be sufficiently prudent to know how to avoid becoming notorious for those vices that would destroy one's power and seek to avoid those vices that are not politically dangerous; but if one cannot bring oneself to do this, they can be indulged in with fewer misgivings. Yet one should not be troubled about becoming notorious for those vices without which it is difficult to preserve one's power, because if one considers everything carefully, doing some things that seem virtuous may result in one's ruin, whereas doing other things that seem vicious may strengthen one's position and cause one to flourish.
To begin, then, with the first of the above-mentioned qualities, I maintain that it would be desirable to be considered generous; nevertheless, if generosity is practiced in such a way that you will be considered generous, it will harm you. If it is practiced virtuously, and as it should be, it will not be known about, and you will not avoid acquiring a bad reputation for the opposite vice. Therefore, if one wants to keep up a reputation for being generous, one must spend lavishly and ostentatiously. The inevitable outcome of acting in such ways is that the ruler will consume all his resources in sumptuous display; and if he wants to continue to be thought generous, he will eventually be compelled to become rapacious, to tax the people very heavily, and raise money by all possible means. Thus he will begin to be hated by his subjects and, because he is impoverished, he will be held in little regard. Since this generosity of his has harmed many people and benefited few, he will feel the effects of any discontent, and the first real threat to his power will involve him in grave difficulties.
When he realizes this, and changes his ways, he will very soon acquire a bad reputation for being miserly. Therefore, since a ruler cannot both practice this virtue of generosity and be known to do so without harming himself, he would do well not to worry about being called miserly. For eventually he will come to be considered more generous, when it is realized that, because of his parsimony, his revenues are sufficient to defend himself against any enemies that attack him, and to undertake campaigns without imposing special taxes on the people. Thus he will be acting generously towards the vast majority, whose property he does not touch, and will be acting meanly towards the few to whom he gives nothing. Those rulers who have achieved great things in our own times have all been considered mean; all the others have failed. Although Pope Julius cultivated a reputation for generosity in order to become pope, he did not seek to maintain it afterwards because he wanted to be able to wage war.
The present King of France has fought many wars without imposing special taxes on his subjects because his parsimonious habits have always enabled him to meet the extra expenses. If the present King of Spain had a reputation for generosity, he would not have successfully undertaken so many campaigns. Therefore, a ruler should worry little about being thought miserly: he will not have to rob his subjects; he will be able to defend himself; he will avoid being poor and despised and will not be forced to become rapacious. For meanness is one of those vices that enable him to rule. It may be objected that Caesar obtained power through his op...
Free research essays on topics related to: pope julius, bad reputation, human behavior, critical thinking, courses of action
Research essay sample on Courses Of Action Pope Julius
