During the Renaissance, there was a strive to modernize the world into human outlook which focused on the ability of humans to act and not blindly follow a religious plan. Humanists believed God had given humanity options and potential, and humanist thinkers had to act to succeed and make the most of this: it was a duty to be the best. Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian Humanist, wrote The Prince as a guide for his own prince, Lorenzo De Medici, to promote himself into the political arena of Italy. He analyzed power and the way Italy could become its own state and keep control. His extensive explanations were driven by his own fascination with power and his desire for an independent Italy. The Prince expresses the effectual truth of things and the idea that a prince must not be just and fair when coming into power, but follow their own virtue and intelligence to guide his people. Machiavelli developed impressionistic views that allowed him to discover order in politics and analyze how power can be acquired and maintained. Machiavelli abandoned a moralistic approach to human behavior in order to express his values of what develops a good leader.
In Machiavelli’s, The Prince, he identifies five aspects of strong virtue that a powerful leader should withhold. To begin, Machiavelli believes a leader should be feared rather than loved. In medieval times, the idea of fear was implemented in order to keep citizens from revolting against the prince (Machiavelli, 65), however, the difference between fear and hatred in Machiavelli’s eye states that to lead your citizens into hatred leads to their unfaithfulness,
“…it is much safer to be feared than loved because…love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails” (Machiavelli, 43).
The second value of leadership is that a powerful leader should have the support of the people, action cannot be taken without their support. Without the access of the people’s will, military action is impossible since they, do not support the prince’s cause nor find it satisfying to their needs. Due to the unsatisfaction of the cause, the people will not join in battle and rebel against their leader. The third value of leadership is to hold good virtues (Machiavelli, 62). Through strong virtue a leader is able to gain the people’s support, but acting virtuous can often be detrimental. A prince should not avoid virtues of cruelty and dishonestly if he is applying them to the state. Machiavelli simply states that cruelty and other vices should not be pursued for ones own sake, but only for the sake of the state. The fourth value that Machiavelli states is that a leader should never turn to auxiliary or mercenary units but rely on their own arms. The use of their own people shows how supportive they are of the cause, that they are willing to die for their leader. On the other hand, the use of auxiliary units will weaken the leader’s territory since they do not provide support nor fight for their leader’s cause because auxiliary units follow their own rule. The fifth and final virtue is intelligence. The use of intelligence allows for a leader to find balance between all the virtues in order to gain the support of their own people. A leader with intelligence is a leader with great confidence and pride in his own decisions. A leader who display’s confidence in their decisions gains the support of their people because they can rely on this individual to refine their society in a way to become stronger and more stable. Furthermore, throughout the five virtues, Machiavelli is expressing that true leaders strive to shatter false pretenses, which is leading towards a humanistic view since these five aspects are embodying the virtues controlled by human nature rather than virtue expressed through the church, which cannot be controlled.
In contrast to Machiavelli’s views on good leadership, he expresses how too much power can lead to poor leadership. Leadership is all about power and influence. Leaders use their power to get things done but, Machiavelli opens up an idea that powerful leaders often mistake their forms of power. To begin, there are two forms of power: socialized power, which benefits others, and personalized power, which is power used for personal gain. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli encourages the use of cruelty and unjust punishment, but only as a source to get a leaders cause supported. This opens up the idea that humanist theories before Machiavelli recognized men as good, meaning they are controlled by good, but Machiavelli points out that men do not live in a world that only good exists.
“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how to not be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.”(Machiavelli, 7)
Machiavelli is expressing that actions that are not viewed as good are seen as preservation of power in society. Machiavelli discusses the necessity of cruel actions, in order to maintain power in the state.
“A prince must have no other objective, no other thought, nor take up any profession but that of war, its methods and its discipline, for that is the only art expected of a ruler. And it is of such great value that it not only keeps hereditary princes in power, but often raises men of lowly condition to that rank.” (Machiavelli, 56).
Machiavelli is implementing that deceit is justified in order to pursue and maintain political power. This implies that where-ever power is concentrated, the end justifies the means. This is essentially the core of Machiavelianism, the priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means.
In Machiavelli’s own words: “In the actions of men… when there is no court of appeal one judges by the result.” (Machiavelli 86). This shows that Machiavelli’s ways of acquiring power was not paralleled to the ways of the Bible. Machiavelli was not interested in following the Bible, but rather following the nature of a man’s own decision. He believed in keeping power of a real and sinful society true; not the way the church would view society. This idea strives towards a humanistic ideal since Machiavelli is essentially striving away from the reforms of the church simply by placing an emphasis on humanistic values by revealing the truth of man through logic rather than following the practices and values of the church.
In conclusion, The Prince expresses the effectual truth of things and the idea that a prince must not be just and fair when coming into power, but follow their own virtue and intelligence to guide his people. Machiavelli strives towards a humanistic reform by expressing rational thought and ultimately revealing the truth through logic, is an idea that strides away from the church since church practices were being questioned.
...(download the rest of the essay above)