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
Absolutism has seldom had a reputation as a benevolent or model form of government. When the word? dictator is used to describe the ruler of a country, the very word itself connotes viciousness, corruption and terror. One might even use the term?
Machiavellian to describe the actions and policies of this absolute leader. However, this term is seldom understood for what it truly means. Few people who use it actually understand the man and the views that gave birth to this word. Few understand the underlying politics and principles upon which this description has built itself. Few understand Niccolo Machiavelli.
In his work, The Prince, Machiavelli offers a unique, yet far from perfect view of what it was to be an absolutist ruler in the early sixteenth century. Far from perfect according to Ernst Cassirer, a prominent philosopher in the early twentieth century, because what few people come to know is that Machiavelli wrote this work intending it to stay within the circle of the Italian political system. 1 Machiavelli looked at examples of men like Alexander the Great, Cicero, Nero, and the most notorious Cesare Borgia to gain support for his many theses. The fact alone that these men have all contributed in some way to the state of affairs in Italy in the 1500 s, not to mention the concept that each of these men was forced to deal with political issues in the same geographical area, should serve as a reminder that the point Machiavelli is trying to make about absolutism has a Romanesque flavour to it. In addition, Machiavelli's insight about the inner workings of absolutist governments may also be tainted with an abundance of spite. Being considered too dangerous to retain in government because of his vast intellect and experience, Machiavelli was dejected from the political stream in 1512. This may explain why it is that the politician turned into what is perceived as a radical analyst of the government.
However, despite the seemingly absurd stance Machiavelli takes, few are able to refute his arguments with any success. As will be discussed later in this paper, the idea that a prince should not reveal his true motives or influences sets up what is known in modern philosophy as a closed-belief trap. This essentially means that the moment a ruler starts to refute Machiavelli's claims, he is only trying to hide his true nature as it has been exposed in The Prince. Voltaire, an acclaimed French philosopher of the eighteenth century, spoke on this matter when he wrote: If Machiavelli had had a prince for disciple, the first thing he would recommend him to do would have been to write a book against Machiavellis. 2 However, the idea that Machiavelli wrote The Prince not to slander the government, not to raise awareness about how countries are run, but to show off his intellect and clerical ability, has been debated by men like Lawrence Arthur Burd, Max Lerner, and Joseph Kraft.
This indicates that rather than just issuing political propaganda, Machiavelli incorporated a great deal of accuracy into the text. It has even been noted by these aforementioned scholars that Machiavelli's observations are nothing new or revolutionary, yet are collections of arguments made by several scholars before him. These points seem to reinforce that Machiavelli incorporates truth in his writings. While the scope of The Prince may be limited in its application to the Italian rulers of the late 1400 s and early 1500 s, and while it may be inspired by a personal vendetta, the historical accuracy of the work is indeed true. Machiavelli offers an astute vision of absolutism born both of experience and knowledge of the past. Therefore, the material which will be presented in the remainder of this paper must be looked upon as a summary of a greater truth.
In the twenty-six chapters of The Prince, each of which contains an individual thesis, Machiavelli makes several comments about what is required of a ruler if he is to maintain and flourish in his role as prince. These theses are then able to be grouped into three general and related areas of influence: the nature of the prince with respect to his person, the interpersonal ethics of the state and thus its ruler, and perhaps most importantly, for it ties his work together, the role of morality within society. By examining these three aspects of a Machiavelli's views on absolutism, he is able to paint a disturbing portrait of government, where emotion falls away and logic rules supreme. To begin, Machiavelli starts to describe absolutism by first defining what internal qualities he feels a ruler must possess. He claims that a prince must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. 3 This description offers two aspects of a prince, the lion and the fox. The lion is traditionally a symbol of the majestic and traditional royalty.
Machiavelli portrays the traditional image of an absolutist monarch as strong, brave, and fearless, but also implies that an inner weakness or flaw exists within this demeanor. He hints at the idea that the traditional, and perhaps more admirable concept of a prince, is vulnerable to the attempts of an external force to overthrow the throne. Therefore, he posits the fox as the true nature of a leader. The fox, in contrast to the lion, is not as highly respected an animal.
Known for their guile more than their majesty, the fox darts in and out of tricky situations using any means possible. When combined together Machiavelli implies that because of the deceitful potential the fox possesses, the trait must remain hidden behind an image of royalty, of the lion, lest the subjects of the prince lose faith or respect for him. In other words, Machiavelli's absolutism is based upon the idea that the ruler must make others believe him to be strong to deter enemies, yet employ the constant use of hidden agendas and trickery to stay one step ahead of any opposition. Complimenting Machiavelli's interpretations of absolutism from the perspective of its leaders, is the factor that interpersonal ethics plays in government. Essentially this part of Machiavelli's philosophy involves two concepts, the relationships that exist between different states, and the relationships between the prince and his subjects.
At the base of his ideas lay this thought: 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. 4 With this in mind, Machiavelli described absolutism as a sort of war machine, a juggernaut, which would be ready and waiting for the opportunity to strike an opponent with military force and conquer their territory. In stating this one must not forget that he does recognize the larger picture in which allies would have to be made, but the necessity for fear over politics is emphasized when Machiavelli says: And the prince who [relies] solely on their words, without making other preparations, is ruined. 5 Therefore, war must always be an avenue of relations that a prince must be prepared for. With regards to the relations between the prince and his subjects, Machiavelli stated that whenever one does not attack the property or honour of the generality of men, they will live contented. 6 He encouraged the idea that an absolutist government must manipulate the masses so that they will subject to being ruled. He adds that by giving them just enough freedom and benefit that they will not be forced to nor will they have the want to riot. At the same time, retribution against any individual or group acting against the state must be dealt out swiftly and consistently in order to deter future uprisings. In short, in order for a ruler to succeed abroad and at home, strict and intimidating principles must be applied.
Finally, underlying both the character and the state, lies the question of morality; the question of whether or not an absolutist government must conform to a standard of right. Machiavelli answers this question with a resounding? no when he quite bluntly states: and in the actions of man, especially of princes, from which there is no appeal, the end justifies the means. 7 Following his logic, morality does not always have to be a characteristic of a government because morality is a perception of the masses. Since Machiavelli makes the masses out to be a seemingly uneducated group who lack a higher perspective of knowledge, and since a prince is viewed as a representative of a divine authority, it is only logical to assume that the actions he takes cannot be fully understood by the masses. A ruler can justify his actions by simply claiming that God will not do everything, in order not to deprive us of freewill and the portion of glory that falls to our lot. 8 Ergo, anything a prince does is inspired and allowed by God, and is thus a righteous act. It is the entire idea, however, that these acts should be centered on both personal gain and expansion of ones own empire, that Machiavelli's The Prince is best known, and most feared.
In his absolutism, it is implied there is no limit to the atrocities that can be committed by a careful and skillful leader seeing that no moral fibre need exist. It seems that there is no other goal than to obliterate and subjugate opponents of the prince, in Machiavelli's eyes. A corrupted picture of absolutism is finally completed. In conclusion, Machiavelli offers a unique view of the fundamentals of absolutism, the prince, the state, and moral beliefs, as is inspired by his experience as a politician and a diplomat, and in truth, Machiavelli's vision of an absolutist government is not unlike the images of the lion and the fox; crude, primordial, bestial. However when one gets down to the roots and origins of mankind, does one not see the same features? Deception, domination, debauchery are these not the same traits modern society attributes to modern day dictators?
Thus, one cannot say that Machiavelli's truths are far off the mark when it comes to the reality of absolutism.
Free research essays on topics related to: ruler, absolutism, machiavelli, true nature, machiavelli's
Research essay sample on Machiavelli Offers A Unique Prince And His Subjects Absolutism
