In his opening letter to Lorenzo The Magnificent, Machiavelli describes the substance of The Prince as "that knowledge of the deeds of great men which I have acquired through a long experience of modern events and a constant study of the past."1 What follows, then, are observations, rather than ideal situations, as Plato or Aristotle might discuss. Machiavelli introduces a focus by noting the goal of a prince, namely, to "hold rule over men."2 He is then free to look only to very specific situations, and need not concern himself with the virtues and vices of peasants in the field or of magistrates or barons. Machiavelli confines his discussion primarily to what is appropriate for a prince to do to maintain his rule. He discusses the relation between what is necessary and what is virtuous, and he describes the role that fortune has in framing a prince's works.
First, it makes sense to decide what
is implied by the terms which Machiavelli uses. A thing is necessary
if without it, a goal would not be reached. In general, virtue is
necessity applied to the goal of pleasing God. That is, those things
whose purpose is to do God's will are named virtuous because they are
necessary for such a goal. As this work is limited to a discussion of
rule, Machiavelli uses necessity specifically to mean that which is
necessary to the maintenance of the state, while virtue will retain
its common definition: that which is necessary to the maintenance of
the soul.
The tendency towards
virtue is a projection of the humanity of a ruler. A completely
efficient ruler would be amoral, possessing no human hindrances.
Necessity is the projection of the goal which Machiavelli addresses,
that of maintaining a state. This goal is specific to leaders, or
princes, and as such, is the overriding factor in all of his
decision-making.
In the figure, I have shown visually
the relations between necessity and virtue. Any act to be considered
by the prince can be located on this map, its position indicating its
aptness. First, a prince must determine if an act is necessary to the
maintenance of the state. If he finds, ideally through well advised
contemplation, that it is necessary, then all other considerations
become irrelevant. Conversely, if it proves detrimental, or
necessarily not beneficial, then he need be similarly resolute not to
do such a thing. In the third case, where there is no quality of
necessity, the prince must act based on its effect on his reputation.
Acts which are damaging to the opinion held by the people and the
soldiers are to be avoided if otherwise non-essential.
Machiavelli has observed that only after these two criteria are explored, does the prince's own humanity have any influence on his decision making. His desire to be virtuous, which all men have to some degree, and his desire for pleasure, are weighed to make a final decision.
"I know that every one will admit that it would be highly praiseworthy in a prince to possess all the above-named qualities that are reputed good, but as they cannot all be possessed or observed, human conditions not permitting of it, it is necessary that he should be prudent enough to avoid the scandal of those vices which would lose him the state, and guard himself if possible against those which will not lose it him, but if not able to, he can indulge them with less scruple. And yet he must not mind incurring the scandal of those vices, without which it would be difficult to save the state. For if one considers well, it will be found that some things which seem virtues would, if followed, lead to one's ruin, and some others which appear vices result in one's greater security and wellbeing."3
This selection orders the steps in the decision-making algorithm.
It gives significance to being virtuous by suggesting that one
"guard...against" even non-consequential vice, while maintaining that
the desire to indulge supercedes the dedication to virtue. Quoting
further, "but if not able to" could arguably be taken as describing
necessity, such that it is not the desire that supercedes, but the
simple fact that there was no choice, the prince was not able to do
otherwise. It seems that all appropriate choices can be related to
their necessity. Indeed, this is what it means for necessity to
supercede all other criteria. He advises against worrying excessively
about scandal, if without some vice "it would be difficult to save the
state." This asserts that a bad reputation is only unfavorable as it
causes the decline of the state.
Clearly, there are some acts which can go through the whole algorithm
without reaching a clear decision. These acts are neither necessary
nor inadmissible for the maintenance of the state, neither
advantageous nor disadvantageous for the prince's reputation, neither
virtuous nor vicious, neither desirable nor detestable. For example,
a prince may be faced one day, with the decision whether to cross the
right leg over or the left leg. As clever as he may be, he will
hardly be able to find recommendation through any of these
analyses.
Surely those things which are virtuous or vicious maintain these qualities regardless of other circumstances. They are contingent on the will of God, or more simply, on the laws which God has laid down for mankind, and these laws do not change with the winds of time. However, the necessity of an action is clearly related to the circumstances in which the prince is acting. Similarly, the effect an act will have on his reputation is dependent on the mood of his constituency. Fortune dictates which qualities are attained by various possible acts. These qualities can be displayed by a drawing like the one in Figure 1, which shows the intersection of the options laid before the prince. However, Figure 1 shows the general case, wherein there are necessary acts which are detrimental, those that are beneficial, etc. Obviously, this does not always occur. Some circumstances tend to necessitate acts which are unpopular with the people. This is the result of fortune, or fate, defining a situation. When a prince is establishing himself in a new rule, it is wise for him to proceed with whatever atrocities will help him obtain the state. During this time, fortune provides a different map, as in Figure 2. Necessity and viciousness will overlap almost completely, and virtue will fall in line with detrimental acts. Once a prince has established and solidified his rule, Machiavelli notes that his reputation plays a larger role in the good of the state. To avoid hatred from the people, it becomes necessary to please them whenever possible, and to avoid cruelty.
I agree with the thoughts of
Machiavelli as I do with almost every great thinker; with great
reservations. Like Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau,
Machiavelli presents very strong arguments which depend on one or more
initial assumptions. I tend not to agree with these assumptions. In
my opinion, political leadership itself is a deviation from the ideal.
Man cannot serve two masters, and with an eye towards an everlasting
afterlife, it would be more prudent to serve the one whose reign is
forever, rather than his whose rule, although more visible, is only
temporary. This focus would reorder the algorithm so that the virtue
of an act would be the ultimate criterion. Lacking a decisive answer
from that initial test, the necessity of the act for the goal of
maintenance of the state, or some similar goal, would follow. Lastly,
an act's effect on the leader's reputation would be indirectly
important.
However, beginning where
Machiavelli does, having already established the need for a state, it
is clear that his analysis is comprehensible, concise, and useful.
His examples, clear explanations, and candor leave little to be
questioned, in opposition with the dialogues of Plato, which encourage
endless questioning and critique. His effort to be thorough yet
brief, and his ever-present realism keep him from giving very specific
advice. This could only make him more favored with the recipient of
his work, as Machiavelli would be further needed to provide more
specific counsel.