Machiavelli on Cesare Borgia

Machiavelli, in The Prince, considers Cesare Borgia to be a compelling example for princes to follow if they wish to know how to strengthen their principalities. Borgia, for Machiavelli, is a prince who lost what he had because of adverse fortune just as he gained his principalities through the good fortune attending on his father, Pope Alexander VI.

Cesare Borgia, known to his people as Duke Valentino, managed to conquer the Romagna using the armies of the Orsini and the French king Louis XII while defeating the Colonna family. Borgia however did not wish to rely on these forces as they did not seem loyal. He managed to weaken the Orsini and Colonna factions in Rome by winning over noblemen loyal to them by bestowing favours and titles on them. He then destroyed the Orsini family by setting a trap for them. He strengthened his hold on the Romagna by appointing Ramiro de Lorqua to bring peace and unity to the region, which had previously been troubled by the weak princes ruling it. However, Borgia had de Lorqua executed in a brutal, public spectacle to appease the citizens who might have felt de Lorqua to be too harsh.

Borgia also attempted to strengthen his foundations in Rome to prevent any attacks by a future Pope. He extinguished the bloodlines of all those noblemen whom he had dispossessed. He won over noblemen in Rome to keep the Pope in check. He tried to gain as much influence over the College of Cardinals as he could and he tried to have as great an empire as possible before Pope Alexander's death. However his father's early death and his own near-fatal illness led to him losing a significant part of his dominion and prevented him from dictating the selection of a new Pope.

Machiavelli considers Borgia's downfall to have been the result of malign fortune. He did, according to Machiavelli, everything he could to lay a solid foundation for his realm. He contrasts Borgia with Francesco Sforza, who rose from being a private citizen to become Duke of Milan. Sforza overcame grave difficulties while establishing his principality but once it had been established he had to do very little to hold on to it. Borgia, having acquired his principality, through the arms and fortune of others had to take very decisive and powerful measures to ensure his hold over his region. Machiavelli considers this praiseworthy and says that it is essential that this be done if the principality is to be retained.

I would argue that Machiavelli considers Borgia to be an important example not just of efficacious statecraft but also of the power of fortune. Machiavelli's views on the use of violence, deception and cruelty are shaped by his pragmatic view of statecraft. Instead of presenting an ideal way of governance, Machiavelli presents a way of governance which deals with things as they are. He condones violence when he feels it is necessary to maintain the state. It is the state which is the most important entity for Machiavelli, not its people and the person of the prince is the representation of the state. Thus, if the prince has to resort to deception, violence or intrigue to maintain his position he must do it.

Machiavelli does not mention Borgia when he considers principalities acquired through evil. He considers Borgia, I would opine, to be an adept statesman and a prudent man. Borgia was not content to rest once he had acquired the Romagna but set about strengthening it, a move that Machiavelli approves of. Having acquired his principality through the fortune of his father and the help of the Orsini and Louis, it was imperative that he lay a solid foundation.

Machiavelli frequently advocates tactics similar to the ones Borgia used. These include weakening strong powers, extinguishing the bloodlines of those the prince has dispossessed, getting the populace behind him and encouraging noblemen to switch loyalties. Borgia also did not rely overlong on the armies of the Orsini and Louis, which Machiavelli approves of, having made his views of the use of auxilliary armies and mercenaries clear.

Machiavelli's advocacy of Borgia as an example should be seen as an extension of his pragmatism about the means required to fortify the state. The strengthening of the state, and by extension the prince, is paramount and Borgia's calculated steps towards this aim were quite Machiavellian. Machiavelli finds only one reason to reproach Borgia and that is with regard to his choice of a new Pope. Borgia allowed the cardinal of San Piero ad Vincula to become Pope Julius II. This, according to Machiavelli, was a mistake since Borgia had harmed San Piero ad Vincula and should never have agreed to the election of a Pope who had reason to hate him. His ideal choice for Pope should have been either a spaniard or Rouen. This mistake on Borgia's part was responsible for his ultimate downfall, according to Machiavelli.

Thus Machiavelli uses the example of Cesare Borgia to illustrate the need for unpleasant measures when consolidating one's principality. However, these measures should not alienate the people and when they do so, counter-measures (like Borgia's execution of de Lorqua) must be adopted. One must also be careful of powerful enemies and weaken their standing while being careful to prepare for future problems. However, even if one does adopt prudent, necessary measures the vagaries of fortune might still deprive the prince of his principality and this seems to be the most important lesson to learn from the example of Cesare Borgia.

Fashioning a Prince

In Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare, Stephen Greenblatt refers to a dinner party at Cardinal Wolsey’s, at which Sir Thomas More was present. We are told that a “performance” of sorts was being played out in which the guests were trying to outdo each other in praising the Cardinal. Both parties took part in this game of satisfaction of self-love knowing fully well that it is all an elaborate pretence. What this represents for More is the power of the Cardinal: “power, whose quintessential sign is the ability to impose one’s fictions upon the world: the more outrageous the fiction, the more impressive the manifestation of power.” Greenblatt distinguishes this from the kind of pretence Machiavelli deals with in The Prince, for whom he says “the prince engages in deceptions for one very clear reason: to survive.”

For Machiavelli all actions of aspiring and newly established princes should be directed towards survival as the Prince. The goal is to make himself acceptable, in the very least, to his people, for “the best fortress that exists is to avoid being hated by the people”. In chapter IX Machiavelli says that it is safe to build power on the people if the Prince is one who can “command and is a man of courage, who does not despair in adversity, who does not fail to take precautions, and who wins general allegiance by his personal qualities and the institutions he establishes.” Yet this can be achieved neither by paying too much heed to popular opinion, nor by appearing as one is. In many cases this involves the use of deception and dissimulation: fashioning of the prince in a particular manner.

Let us begin by looking at the reputation of the Prince, as discussed in chapters XV to XIX. Machiavelli begins by saying that while it is good for a Prince to be virtuous he may not be able to observe these virtues completely because of conditions in the world. For Machiavelli it is better to ensure one’s security by resorting to vices than to fall attempting to be virtuous. Likewise, it is better to have a reputation for parsimony than to be renowned for generosity, for good and sincere generosity goes unnoticed, and to sustain a reputation for generosity one has to be “ostentatiously lavish”. It is better to be reputed for cruelty than for compassion, to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both at the same time. “A prince…must watch that he does not come to be afraid of his own shadow.” An interesting distinction appears here. While the Prince is not “to be afraid of his own shadow”, there exist situations in which it is possible for him to create his own ‘shadow’. Indeed, one might go so far as to say that this ‘shadow’-making is one of the most important tools in the hands of the Prince. He solidifies his position when he is a new prince by creating a ‘shadow’ for himself, and as an established prince, maintains his position using it.

In chapter XVII where Machiavelli speaks of Cruelty and Compassion, he remarks that the bond of love is an insecure one, for men, “wretched creatures that they are, break it when it is to their advantage to do so.” Fear, on the other hand, is prompted by the dread of punishment. It appears that Machiavelli relies more on a response that can be aroused and regulated by the agency of the prince, i.e. fear, rather than on one which is relatively harder to control, i.e. love. He speaks of Hannibal’s huge army, where “there was never any dissension” because of Hannibal’s inhuman cruelty. However he says that “without such a reputation (for cruelty), no army was ever kept united and disciplined.” (Italics are mine.) Does this, then, imply that it suffices to have a reputation, by whatever means, for cruelty even if the Prince is not in fact cruel? He gives the example of Cesare Borgia earlier in the chapter, who was accounted cruel, when according to Machiavelli, was more compassionate than the Florentines who “allowed Pistoia to be devastated”. He says that “by making an example or two he will prove more compassionate than those who, being to compassionate, allow disorders which lead to murder or rapine.” While Machiavelli appreciates Borgia’s ‘compassion’, Borgia is “accounted cruel” by the people, and yet he succeeds in keeping his principality united. However, it is interesting to note that even Borgia tries to fashion himself as anti-violence and to mold his subjects when he has Remirro killed brutally. Having achieved unity he kills Remirro, attempting not only to distance himself from cruelty, but also to establish himself as a man who has put an end to cruelty. “The brutality of the spectacle kept the people of the Romagna at once appeased and stupefied”: the effect of wonder, which Machiavelli speaks of with respect Ferdinand of Aragon, in chapter XXI, is achieved .

The importance of controlling one’s appearance is demonstrated further through the example of Alexander VI. Machiavelli writes, “Alexander VI never did anything, or thought of anything, other than deceiving men; and he always found victims for his deceptions. There was never a man capable of such convincing asseverations, or so ready to swear to the truth of something, who would honour his word less.” Even earlier, he praises Julius II for having forged a reputation for being generous in order to win over the papacy. Machiavelli considers Alexander VI and his methods worthy of respect, as evident from chapter VII. He claims in chapter XVIII that while it is important for a Prince to appear as a man of “compassion, a man of good faith, a man of integrity, a kind and religious man”, it is essential, above all, that he appear religious. “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.”

Machiavelli’s ideas about religion deserve at least a separate essay. Yet, since religion, or a Prince’s appearance of being religious play an important part in his statecraft, it cannot be ignored. Religion can be used ruthlessly to control the populace. In The Discourses Machiavelli asserts that “the religion introduced by Numa was among the primary causes of Rome’s success” (1.11). Superstitions were also used to by the authorities, as in the case of the siege of the city of Veii. We are told of the year “the Alban lake had risen in an extraordinary way”, and the troops who were tired of the long siege were desirous of returning to Rome. It was then that the authorities discovered that certain oracles had prophesied that “Veii would be taken in the year in which Lake Alba overflowed” (1.13) The soldiers captured the town. Machiavelli says that even his contemporary Florentines were vulnerable to such myths, as illustrated in the case of Savonarola, who claimed that he had converse with God. In chapter XXI of The Prince Machiavelli tells us of Ferdinand of Aragon who used Church funding to sustain his armies, and gradually lay good foundations for his standing army. He undertook even greater campaigns, “still making use of religion”, “chased out the Moriscos”, and “under the same cloak of religion he assaulted Africa”. Machiavelli says later in that same chapter that “at suitable times of the year he (the Prince) should entertain the people with shows and festivities”: the shows of power Greenblatt speaks of in his chapter on More.

It becomes evident that Machiavelli does not so much place a great deal of importance on a virtuous prince. He warns time and again that it is good for a Prince to be virtuous, but he must also prepare himself for carrying out vices. “A prince, therefore, need not necessarily have all the good qualities I mentioned above, but he should certainly appear to have them.” Again, in chapter XIX, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of appearance. A reputation of being “fickle, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, irresolute” is to be avoided like the plague He must “strive to demonstrate in his actions grandeur, courage, sobriety, strength.” The Prince who has newly acquired a principality, must imitate great and outstanding men. “If his prowess fails to compare with theirs, at least it has an air of greatness about it.” The appearance of a Prince becomes, then, one of the most important aspects of the aspiring Prince. Much of the aspirant’s chances of coming to power,and holding on to it, depend on his ability to fashion himself in a certain way.

It will perhaps be fitting to close the essay by considering whether Machiavelli himself, in his attempt to win favour with “Lorenzo de Medici”, tries to re-fashion his own image. It appears that he was working simultaneously on The Discourses, and although in terms of methodology the two works do not contradict each other greatly, they are very different in their perspectives. Machiavelli closes his work by himself attempting to create a larger-than-life image of his own patron, placing him in the rich lineage of Moses, Cyrus and Theseus: deliverers of their peoples.

Defence of Cruelty: Violence in Machiavelli’s The Prince

Machiavelli bases his advice about violence in The Prince primarily on his understanding of human weakness. He states that the way to effectively dominate a population without being threatened by them is to intimidate them. The prince can rule with a firm hand and mete out justice when necessary, but Machiavelli also advocates the application of moderated violence as a tool to ensure subservience.

In chapter XVII of The Prince, titled ‘Cruelty and compassion; and whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse’ Machiavelli addresses the question of whether it is better for the prince to be loved or feared by his people. He offers the advice that the prince should ensure that if he cannot be loved, he manages to avoid being hated, since it is admittedly difficult for a ruler to induce both love and fear in his subjects. He makes a clear distinction between the forms of cruelty a prince can inflict. While he endorses a single exemplary act, or a series of acts necessary for the assuming power or the strengthening of political position, any underhanded, self-serving act of violence is labelled ‘crime’. Machiavelli does not advocate amorality on the part of the prince. He repeatedly states that it is not acceptable for the prince to commit random acts of violence, “to kill fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, irreligious.” (Chap. VIII: ‘Those who come to power by crime’)

However, Machiavelli observes that vice and virtue are defined by conventions. In chapter XV of The Prince titled ‘The things for which men, and especially princes are praised or blamed’, he observes “he (the prince) will find that some of the things that appear to be virtues, will, if he practices them, ruin him, and some of the things that appear to be vices will bring him security and prosperity.” At the same time, it is important for the prince to keep up appearances. He must therefore appear virtuous, whether or not he is so in practice. That there is an element of deception involved here, does not seem to be a concern, since like everything else he prescribes, this too has the very a specific aim, that of improving the status of the prince by arousing public goodwill.

The duality of appearance and reality is very important in Machiavelli. Though he agrees that it is conventionally admirable for the prince to possess all the qualities human society holds to be good, he also understands that what is ‘good’ is not always beneficial. What he advocates is pragmatism over normative virtue. If the generosity or leniency of a prince does not strengthen his political position, or result in any direct benefits to him, then it is quite unnecessary, and unwise. His emphasis is on statecraft rather than a humane approach. It is in this same note that he argues in favour of violence as a powerful tool.
Machiavelli makes a distinction between cruelty used well and cruelty used badly. In the translation of The Prince by George Bull, the words ‘cruelty’ and ‘violence’ are used interchangeably, but both are qualified as good or bad according to the method of use. Like virtue, cruelty can be used in favour of the prince, or can bring about his downfall.

Walter Benjamin in his essay ‘Critique of Violence’ refers to law-making and law-preserving violence, implying that human society is dominated by the dynamics of power relations that are asserted by violence, either latent or manifest. Machiavelli’s definition of violence, although more specific, seems to be referring to this form of law-making violence used when the prince establishes a new order, or enforces an old one, with the aid of violence. It is not ruthlessness that Machiavelli advocates, but a very well calculated, moderated, and carefully meted out violence. The debate about whether the end justifies otherwise unacceptable means that occurs in Benjamin’s essay, largely applies to Machiavelli’s argument. To him the end does justify seemingly unethical means. Machiavelli redefines the ethics of statecraft in a radical way. His statements in this respect are dramatic and grandiose, sometimes overtly so. He appears to be trying to invest greatness in otherwise despicable human actions, on the basis of their efficacy.

What Machiavelli seems to be proposing is an impersonal, premeditated brand of violence that does not have anything to do with human conscience or compassion. It has an orchestrated, almost synthetic quality about it which lacks the passion that is associated with violence in human psychology. This dispassionate form of violence is not triggered by any personal vendetta or sense of righteousness, or even a taste for brutality, but is initiated for the simple and practical purpose of effective statecraft.

There is a certain economy in the violence Machiavelli suggests; the actions are precise and carefully aimed. This course of action might actually serve to reduce the amount of violence at work in the social dynamics of a principality. It can become a means to prevent rebellion, regicide and delinquencies. Violence here is a disciplining tool, as it is in the case of institutions of law enforcement. The cruelty of the monarch is merely an extension of the monopoly over legitimate violence the state exercises as a political body and social instrument.

There is an element of exhibition in the form of violence advocated in this discourse. There is an obvious distancing of the act of violence and the ruler by having agents carry it out, as if to demonstrate that though he has the power to command a massacre if he so willed, the prince prefers to maintain peace and harmony in his kingdom, only resorting to violence when absolutely essential. Perhaps this is an effort to make the persona of the prince larger than life and very admirable to his people, ensuring that it isn’t only fear, but also awe that makes them loyal subjects.

Machiavelli’s unorthodox views on the use of violence have gathered criticism and infamy over the centuries, and have come to be viewed in an extremely negative light. However, in context, his advice can be considered not only practical but also a radical way of conceptualising violence and its constructive capacity.

Nilanjana Chakraborty
PG II

Internal contradiction regarding Flattery in Machiavelli's The Prince

In Chapter XXIII of The Prince titled “How to Avoid Flatterers”, Machiavelli discusses how flatterers must be shunned by the prince to avoid being misled. He accepts the fact that it is natural for powerful men to become self-absorbed. Flatterers prove to be a hurdle in the way of their wisdom and rational thought because their flattery could cause him to avoid wise counsel in favor of rash action. He says that the best way to defend oneself against such people is to convince them that he is not offended by the truth and encourage them to put forward their honest opinions without fear of causing personal offense to the prince. However, truth, as we know, is never ultimate. It is always objective and changes with perspective. So, if everyone is enabled to criticize or oppose the decision of the prince or present differing opinions to that of the prince without any fear, then the prince will eventually lose respect.

Machiavelli’s proposed solution to this was that the prince should allow only wise advisers to speak with him, and only when he specifically requests their advice. This way, the prince will be able to demonstrate his willingness to listen to men who do not flatter him, and at the same time be in no danger of losing the respect of the rest of his people. A prince should not listen to anyone else and should be firm in his decisions. Vacillation in terms of sticking to decisions will again lead to a loss of respect. Machiavelli gives a negative example in Emperor Maximilian I, who was secretive, never consulted others, but once he ordered his plans and met dissent, he immediately changed them.

However, according to Machiavelli, avoiding all advice, flattery or otherwise, was equally bad. A prince must seek advice on a frequent basis. But he must seek it only when he wants it, not when others thrust it upon him. A prince must also be skeptical about the advice he receives, constantly questioning and probing into the logic behind each decision. If he ever discovers that someone is concealing the truth from him, he must punish that person severely. In the end, no matter how intelligent a prince’s advisers might be, a prince is doomed if he lacks intelligence of his own. He should have enough foresight and wisdom to discern good advice from bad. Wise princes should be honored for good actions proceeding from good advice.

Having discussed the specified chapter, it is very interesting to note how Machiavelli contradicts himself regarding flattery in his dedication of The Prince. Machiavelli’s dedication of The Prince, with the heading “Niccolò Machiavelli to the Magnificent Lorenzo de’ Medici”, is a letter to Lorenzo de’ Medici, who became duke of Urbino in1516. Machiavelli offers his book with customary humility, commenting that it is stylistically simple and unworthy of his audience. Machiavelli describes his book as a summary of his “understanding of the deeds of great men,” intended to help Lorenzo de’ Medici achieve eminence as a prince. He reminds the young prince that greatness awaits him because he is endowed with both fortune and admirable qualities. He declares that courtiers who wish to earn a prince’s favor do so by presenting the prince with valuables like gold, jewels, horses, etc. Machiavelli tells Lorenzo that, after racking his brain for an appropriately valuable gift, he decided that what he felt was most precious was his knowledge of great men, knowledge gained from history books, as well as from current events. Machiavelli claims to worry a bit about whether Lorenzo will be pleased with such a gift, but then reminds himself that any prince would be glad to receive, in short handbook form, knowledge which the author has taken years to acquire. Machiavelli promises that his will be a “small volume,” written in the language of common men which was the Italian vernacular (popularized by Dante’s Divine Comedy), as opposed to the pretentious academic style of writing in Latin. He then excuses himself for having presumed to write about princes at all, since he is simply an ordinary man. However, Machiavelli actually suggests that being a commoner is actually an advantage to one who wishes to write about princes, since the distance of rank gives the commoner a perspective that princes themselves lack. Machiavelli, then, is an outsider looking in. He is offering deliberately common-sense explanations for how particular men are able to become and remain great.

Though The Prince was clearly intended as a gift to earn Lorenzo’s favor, this preface concludes with a specific, pointed request. Machiavelli gently suggests that if his noble recipient likes the gift of this book then he might show his appreciation by helping the author return to court from his current position of exile and disgrace. Rather than considering this simply a work of political theory written for its own sake, it should be realized that Machiavelli had some very practical reasons for writing this book and dedicating it to Lorenzo in a very flattering way. It is known from his personal correspondence that it was written during 1513, the year after the Medici took control of Florence, and a few months after Machiavelli's arrest, torture, and banishment by the in-coming Medici regime. It is also interesting to note that the book was originally intended to be dedicated to Lorenzo’s uncle Giuliano di Lorenzo de' Medici, young Lorenzo's uncle, who however died in 1516 before the book was finished.

Machiavelli clearly contradicts himself in two major ways.

First, as mentioned in Chapter XXIII, a prince should only listen to a selected group of advisers. Machiavelli was definitely not among the chosen group of Lorenzo’s advisers that he should consider following or benefitting from any of the instructions and advices given by Machiavelli in The Prince. Furthermore, according to Machiavelli, a prince should also seek advice only when he requires it, and there have been no documented proof about Lorenzo seeking Machiavelli’s advice regarding running a principality.

Second, and most importantly, in Chapter III, Machiavelli talks about decimating any opposing resident threat after acquiring a new principality. Now, between 1503 and 1506, Machiavelli was responsible for the Florentine militia, including the city’s defense. He preferred a politically invested citizen-militia, a philosophy that bore fruit and which also made him a potential threat to any invader, even after defeat, as he had the local populace in his favour. His command of Florentine citizen-soldiers defeated Pisa in 1509. But in 1512, the Medicis, helped by Pope Julius II, used Spanish troops to defeat the Florentines. The Florentine city-state and the Republic were dissolved. Machiavelli was deprived of office in 1512 by the Medicis, arrested and imprisoned. According to Machiavelli’s philosophy, the Medicis should ideally decimate Machiavelli and his family to ensure that he never leads a rebellion later on by gaining back the support of the local populace. Hence a clear contradiction can be noted here.

This argument is strengthened by the fact that many authors, including Rousseau, have argued that the book was first and foremost, a satire ridiculing the very notion of tyrannical rule. Johnston, for example, says that the “satire” had a firm moral purpose of exposing tyranny and promoting a republican government. In his The Social Contract, the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau says that the choice of the detestable Caesar Borgia as one of the exemplary figures clearly shows Machiavelli’s hidden intentions. He also points out the contradictions between the teaching of The Prince and that of The Discourses on Livy and The History of Florence and states that the text hence had so far been only interpreted superficially. The Prince can be read as deliberately emphasizing the benefits of free republics as opposed to monarchies by the depersonalized way it is written. Differences of opinion amongst critics revolve around whether this sub-text was intended to be understood, let alone understood as deliberately satirical or comic but inspite of that, it is clear that Machiavelli contradicts his idea of shunning flattery by writing a very flattering dedication to a prince about whom he had practically very meager knowledge of as an administrator. It goes on to show how Machiavelli puts his manipulative and objective rhetoric power to practice. Machiavelli himself states that “The wish to acquire is in truth very natural and common, and men always do so when they can, and for this they will be praised not blamed; but when they cannot do so, yet wish to do so by any means, then there is folly and blame.” The fact that The Prince in reality did not succeed in receiving Lorenzo’s patronage makes this contradiction regarding his views on flattery in the treatise a folly and hence subject to blame.

The Concept of Virtue in Machiavelli's The Prince

In The Prince, Machiavelli's concept of virtue departs from the conventional meaning associated with the word, indicative of moral excellence. Machiavelli uses the Italian word virtù, which does not have an exact English equivalent. It seems to be closer in meaning to the Latin word virtus or manliness. Translators have difficulty in rendering virtù, often using several words referring to amoral qualities that skirt the question of evil, such as ingenuity or boldness. Virtù, simply put, is the ability of a ruler to do whatever must be done in order to achieve success.

In Chapter VI, Machiavelli praises leaders like Cyrus, Romulus and Theseus and illustrates how these men rose to be princes without being dependent on fortune. Such men may face initial difficulties establishing their governance but once they do, they attain security with ease. However, Machiavelli is quick to state that fortune brought these men the opportunity to make use of their 'powers of mind'. Romulus would not have become the King of Rome if he had not remained in Alba and been abandoned at birth. It was necessary for Cyrus to find the Persian people discontented with the government of the Medes. Theseys too, could not have shown his skill had he not found the Athenians dispersed. Thus, virtù without opportunity to use it is wasted, while opportunity is wasted without virtù.

In Chapter VII, Machiavelli considers how certain 'private citizens' become princes through good fortune, by luck or by the aid of others. Such rulers may acquire principalities with ease, but they encounter problems in maintaining their position. It is important that those who acquire states unexpectedly by fortune, are also men of great ability such as Fransesco Sforza, in order to lay a solid foundation. Cesare Borgia became a prince greatly dependent on the influence of his powerful father, Pope Alexander VI. He used force in the strategic conquest of foreign lands, established a loyal military force and developed cautious yet friendly relationships with neighbouring states. A man of great courage, Borgia radiates virtù but it is not enough to save him from an unfortunate end. The sudden death of his father and his own unexpected illness left him incapable of fully consolidating his power. It is worth noting that Machiavelli is approving of Borgia's tactics of deception and cruelty which led to a brief period of success.

From Chapter XV, Machiavelli begins a discussion of the qualities that an ideal prince should possess. In contrast to the idea of leaders upholding the highest moral standards in their daily lives, he believes that a ruler should have knowledge of what is wrong and look to necessity for its use. Vice must not be reproached if it will benefit the state as a whole and virtue must be sacrificed if it will be harmful to the prince and his state. All recommendations of virtuous action are tempered by the argument of their efficacy. They are good only if they have certain definite and desired ends. Chapter XVI focuses on the virtue of liberality or generosity and how much it is beneficial for the prince. Machiavelli warns rulers against squandering away their wealth through unnecessary lavish displays as this will adversely affect the citizens of their states. Citing the King of Spain and Pope Julius the Second as examples, he observes how new princes must appear liberal while they are securing a firm base but once they have acquired power, they should curtail their spending. The prince must get the people to expect the worst; then, virtue will appear as bringing relief in contrast. In Chapter XVII, Machiavelli tackles whether it is better for a prince to be 'loved than feared or feared than loved'. He says that a prince should inspire fear among his people in such a manner that even if he does not win love, he avoids hatred. Mercy is useless when it will bring about a situation of disorder in the state. If those who commit wrong are spared their punishment, the innocent remain at risk from the future actions of such a criminal. The way Cesar Borgia subdued the lawless Romagna region is considered praise-worthy. A pessimistic view of mankind is brought to the fore when Machiavelli states that men are 'ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely'. Although he does not advocate cruelty for cruelty's sake, Machiavelli feels that it is justified in certain cases.Taking Hannibal as an example, he observes how a combination of inhuman cruelty and bravery inspired respect and awe among his soldiers. On the other hand, too much forbearance in the case of Scipio resulted in his army rebelling against him at Spain. Chapter XVIII concludes the discussion of virtues that must be displayed by a prince. The most successful outcomes are a result of actions which may seem unscrupulous- "How praiseworthy it is for a prince to keep his word and live with integrity rather than by craftiness, everyone understands; yet we see from recent experience that those princes have accomplished most who paid little heed to keeping their promises, but who knew how to manipulate the minds of men craftily". Sebastian de Grazia in Machiavelli in Hell, refers to Machiavelli's justification of deceit as the 'Un-Golden Rule', whereby one may do unto others as he can expect they will do unto him.

The classical concept of 'civic virtue' put forward by philosophers like Aristotle as a moral code applicable to rulers and subjects alike, is critically transformed in Machiavelli's concept of virtù, which pertains to rulers of states and can be at odds with moral virtue. According to Harvey Clafin Mansfield in his book titled Machiavelli's Virtue, the phrase verita effettuale in The Prince, when applied to virtue says that virtue is what it gets one. But virtue may get "ruin rather than preservation" unless one learns "how to be able not to be good". Machiavelli's notion of virtue, which welcomes the vices, must continue to coexist with the old notion, which is repelled by them. To create the contrast between virtue and vice, the prince must practice both; this being what it means to use virtue.

- Tanuka Mukherjee

   PG II

   Roll Number: 73

Nicolo Machiavelli: Aspects of the new prince

Machiavelli's treatise on government was rejected with horror by almost all early readers, but it accurately describes the means which rulers have always used to remain in power. As a pioneering study of practical politics it has often been compared with Kautilya's Arthasastra and the doctrines of the Chinese legalists, such as Han Fei Tzu. But what makes The Prince both more revolutionary and more controversial than either of these is the delight Machiavelli seems to take in scorning conventional morality. Indeed so cynical are such passages as the following that some readers have imagined that he must have been satirizing rather than advocating these ideas. In his work The Prince, he brings out the aspects of a new prince.
According to Machiavelli there are four main attributes that a prince should possess: intelligence, strength, determination, and tenaciousness. A prince must have the smarts to determine right from wrong. In times of trouble, he must know which path to take next. Strength ; a prince must be physically, and emotionally strong to face whatever comes at him. A prince's determination is very crucial in times of hardship. A prince must be willing to push on through the most difficult of times. He also must encourage his people and believe for himself that the struggle will soon be over.
A prince should understood that there are two types of fighting: one with laws and the other with force. The first is most suitable for men, the second is most suitable for beasts, but it often happens that the first is not enough, which requires that we have recourse to the second. Therefore, it is necessary for a prince to know how to act both as a man and as a beast. This was signified allegorically to princes by the ancient writers: they wrote that Achilles and many other ancient princes were given to be raised and tutored by the centaur Chiron, who took custody of them and disciplined them. This can only mean, this trainer who was half beast and half man, that a prince needs to know how to use either one or the other nature, and the one without the other will never last.
Since it is necessary for the prince to use the ways of beasts, he should imitate the fox and the lion, because the lion cannot defend himself from snares and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. Therefore, it is important to be a fox in order to understand the snares and a lion in order to terrify the wolves. Those who choose only to be a lion do not really understand. Therefore, a prudent leader will not and should not observe his promises, when such observance will work against him and when the reasons for making the promise are no longer valid. If all men were good, this precept would not be good; but since men are evil and will not keep their word with you, you shouldn't keep yours to them. Never has a prince lacked legitimate reasons to break faith. This can be shown by an infinite number of examples from modern times, numerous peace treaties and promises that have been broken and made completely empty by the faithlessness of princes: these knew well how to use the ways of the fox, and they are the ones who succeed. But it is necessary to know how to hide this nature and to simulate a good character and to dissimulate: for the majority of men are simple and will only follow the needs of the present, so that the deceiver can always find someone he can deceive. Alexander VI (1) never did or thought about anything else except deceiving people and always found some reason or other to do it. There was never a man who was better at making assurances, or more eager to offer solemn promises, or who kept them less; yet he always succeeded in his deceptions beyond his wildest dreams, because he played his role in the world so well.
Therefore, a prince doesn't need to have all the qualities mentioned earlier, but it is necessary that he appear to have them.
Also having good qualities and always practicing them is harmful, while appearing to practice them is useful. It's good to appear to be pious, faithful, humane, honest, and religious, and it's good to be all those things; but as long as one keeps in mind that when the need arises you can and will change into the opposite. It needs to be understood that a prince, and especially a prince recently installed, cannot observe all those qualities which make men good, and it is often necessary in order to preserve the state to act contrary to faity, contrary to mercy, contrary to humaneness, and contrary to religion. And therefore he needs a spririt disposed to follow wherever the winds of fortune and the variability of affairs leads him. A prince must take great care never to let anything come from his mouth that is not full of the above-mentioned five qualities, and he must appear to all who see and hear him to be completely pious, completely faithful, completely honest, completely humane, and completely religious. And nothing is more important than to appear to have that last quality. Men judge more by their eyes than by their hands, because everyone can see but few can feel. Everyone can see how you appear, few can feel what you are, and these few will not dare to oppose the opinion of the multitude when it is defended by the majesty of the state. In actions of all men, especially princes, where there is no recourse to justice, the end is all that counts. A prince should only be concerned with conquering or maintaining a state, for the means will always be judged to be honorable and praiseworthy by each and every person, because the masses always follow appearances and the outcomes of affairs, and the world is nothing other than the masses. The few do not find a place wherever the masses are supported.
Machiavelli clearly states that, "a Prince's profession should be that of war". He also says that, "a Prince must devote his time to military exercises." A Prince can attain this in two ways, through action and through study. Machiavelli says that one can study by keeping his troops well disciplined and fit. He can act by learning the topography of the land. It is also important to carry on continual deliberation. When a price studies, he can learn from history and he can examine the causes of victories and defeats of other princes.
While Machiavelli says that a Prince's focus should be mostly of war, he also focuses on his relationship with the people and the nobles. A Prince must keep his people content with the way in which he rules. If he does not do this, the people of the state may try to overthrowthe prince. Machiavelli states, "I will conclude by saying that the good will of the people is vital to a prince; otherwise he will be helpless in times of adversity".
Machiavelli soon thereafter begins to elaborate on how his model princes should go about his strategies. War and armies, which is a common topic throughout Machiavelli's book, addresses strategies for a prince to take concerning his soldiers. Niccolo Machiavelli warns that a prince should avoid two certain types of soldiers when it comes to war.
First, Machiavelli advises about mercenary soldiers. Mercenary soldiers are paid to fight battles for whomever they are employed. Machiavelli calls them, "lazy and unreliable". He says this because they are paid, and therefore they would not have any loyalty to a certain state. They are considered "unreliable" because mercenaries could just as easily be paid by a different country or state to betray you and thus destroy your princedom.

The second type of soldier Machiavelli warns his readers about is an Auxiliary soldier. Auxiliary soldiers are "borrowed" from another country to fight for or with you. Machiavelli says that auxiliary soldiers are even more dangerous than mercenary soldiers because since their loyalty is to another country, they in turn, could defeat your princedom. You would then be under their control, and you would lose your throne.
Machiavelli wraps up this discussion by saying that it is better to lose a battle with your own army, than to win with auxiliary or mercenary armies. Quickly gaining respect is another strategy for a prince, which Machiavelli highlights. A prince can accomplish this by inflicting injuries upon himself. Machiavelli says that he must do all of these things (the injuries) at once and to do them early in his career. He is also convinced that another way to gain respect is through keeping his word. If a Prince is loyal to his word, the people will esteem him. They will not try to contradict what he has to say.
Mercy and cruelty pair up as behavior traits for a prince while ruling from his throne. Machiavelli states that a prince is to be wisely merciful. He says that if a prince is too merciful there will be a huge outbreak of chaos within the state. However, a prince should also be wisely cruel. Once again, if a prince is too cruel, there will be violence and lawlessness in the state. "A prince, therefore, must be indifferent to the charge of cruelty if he is to keep his subjects loyal and united. Having set an example once or twice, he may thereafter act far more mercifully than the princes who, through excessive kindness, allow disorders to arise from which murder and rapine ensue" .Machiavelli's point is that a prince should be wise about how much cruelty and mercy he shows toward his people.


Soumita Adhikary
Pg2