However this may be true in a number of cases such as the one mentioned but it would be appropriate to also take a critical view on the theory of Virtu and Fortune presented by Machiavelli. The first thing to ponder is the definition or the meaning of the word Virtu. This is because it has no clear definition and does not concisely describe the actions a prince should take to remain in control but only presents certain ideologies to do so. There can also be examples of cases which provide criticism for the theory of Virtu, where demonstrating the attributes of manliness may cause failed governance. This can be seen in a number of dictators of modern history. Dictators such as Hitler and Stalin both used violence and demonstrated strength. However it could be argued that especially in the case of Adolf Hitler by illustrating Virtu this does not necessarily give the desired effects and in this particular case the fall of the Nazi party as a result of over using Virtu characteristics.
Machiavelli also places great interest on the way a prince must act in order to remain in control of his principality. One key area in which he refers to is the generosity and parsimony a prince should reveal. Machiavelli indicated that by illustrating generosity “you will come to grief”[3]. He argues that by demonstrating generosity it may become unnoticed and therefore “it will not save you from being approached for its opposite”[4] here Machiavelli suggests that by showing forms of generosity this may damage the reputation of the prince and also his rule.
He argues however that many princes have reached power by showing generosity. An example in which Machiavelli uses is that of Caesar. “Caesar came to power by virtue of his generosity”[5]. However Machiavelli explains that to combat this point once Caesar had remained generous and not moderated his expenditure and becoming parsimony “he would have fallen from power”[6]. Therefore he summarises by ultimately concluding that is better to “incur the reputation of miser” and behold the reputation which invites ignominy than to seek a reputation of generosity which Machiavelli argues brings both hatred and ignominy.
Although some points can be concurred with, there are also points in which can be critically assessed. Machiavelli believes that overall a prince should not demonstrate or aspire to show generosity and instead a reputation of misery is preferred. However this especially in modern history may be seen as a viewpoint that is outdated. In politics today many see generosity as a trait that is admired and of benefit to a leader. An example of this can be the giving of aid in the African Marshall Plan Project [7]. Lead by Tony Blair this can cause voters to become empathetic and in today’s society many voters may decide in which leader to vote for partly down to their generosity which is now seen as an admirable quality.
“It is best to be both feared and loved, however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved.”[8] Machiavelli is suggesting here that as a prince it is preferable to be feared rather than to be loved. As if one is loved this may not mean that one is respected. As a result by creating fear whilst not utilising unnecessary cruelty this is preferable for a prince to gain control of his principality. Therefore Machiavelli sees little worth in the value of love and loyalty on its people. Instead he seems it vital that people should be aware of the ultimate power of the prince. In a more general sense, when Machiavelli states, “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is his own control and not that of others; he must endeavour to avoid hatred”[9] he is saying that a ruler must be firm but cannot bring upon himself the hatred of his people otherwise his power will not be secure.
Machiavelli mentions that “men worry less about harming those who are loved than to one who makes himself feared” saying that men will break the bond of love in order to gain an advantage, but fear is strengthened by the dread of punishment. However the prince should try to ensure that even if he is feared he should not be hated. In order to do so he should sub-stain from citizen’s property and their women.
If the prince is hated this can lead to the people becoming hostile to the prince. This is when Machiavelli believes the prince should become weary of conspirators. On the other hand if a Prince is not hated but instead “has the goodwill of the people, he should not worry about conspiracies”[10] an example of this is the Canneschi attack on the Bentivolgi family in Florence. Due to the respect and goodwill of the people towards the Bentivolgi, the people rose up and killed the Canneschi. This can also be the case in modern politics, for example in the UK if the Prime Minister (PM) has the goodwill and the same beliefs as the people the PM is most certainly liked. However in the occasion when the PM is hated the party will be forced out of power along with the leader. This can be seen in recent years with the leader of the Labour party in the UK where Gordon Brown has become disliked due to a number of factors and has lost the goodwill of many of previous Labour voters.
Machiavelli also supports the use of violence and wrongdoings in order for a prince to maintain his principality “The Prince will often be uncharitable, inhumane and irreligious”[10]. Machiavelli argues that cruelty can have its advantages and if controlled can be accepted to occur. The example which he uses is that of Cesare Borgia. In 1501 Borgia became duke of Romanaga a region which suffered heavily from high crime levels. In order to combat this issue Borgia employed D’Orca, a cruel but efficient man. As expected D’Orca was able to reduce crime levels within the province, however this came at a cost as many of the people began to dislike the cruelty and hard line approach that D’Orca imposed. This came to the mind of Borgia who believed as a result of this the people may become hateful and disaffection towards him. Therefore as a result Borgia consented the killing of D’Orca and laid him in the town square in two pieces as a sign of strength to the people. This act left the people happy and dumbfounded and ultimately made the people thankful of Borgia.
Here Machiavelli uses this example to show how the use of controlled violence can benefit the prince as if this action had not been taken it would have been likely that Borgia would have the ill will of the people and loose his position of power. Therefore this could be argued that Machiavelli presents a case that controlled violence can be used. Nevertheless this would not be acceptable in modern society and would ultimately produce the opposite effect in most cases. However it could be argued that this still exists in modern day society in countries such as China and America with the death penalty. Here the state or ruling government applies cruelty in order to safeguard the state and will of its people.
Army and the use of arms Machiavelli believes is a crucial part in order to able and control a principality and derive good laws. Machiavelli splits the basis of an army into mercenary, auxiliary or composite. It is argued that “mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous”[11]. This is presented as Machiavelli believes that “mercenaries are disunited, thirsty for power, undisciplined and disloyal”[12]. He argues that due to the fact they have no loyalty or compassion for the state in which they are fighting for and are fighting merely for the money they are paid. This Machiavelli believes would not be enough for a man to sacrifice his life. Machiavelli then uses the example that in Italy in the 15th century. Italy used a number of mercenary armies in order for its defence and proved well against other mercenary armies. However when France invaded the mercenary army was defeated by loyal French soldiers.
This may be argued to be correct, however there are cases especially in World War II where Britain called upon mercenary forces to help fight alongside them in the war. Such as the ANZAC forces that performed well and provided a significant contribution to the war effort.[13]
Machiavelli also illustrates the importance that the Prince must be skilled in war and battle quoting, “a Prince therefore, should have no other object or thought, nor acquire skill in anything, except war, its organisation, and its discipline”[14]. This view, although seeming radical may be said by Machiavelli as he despises weak leadership and rule which could have been seen in areas of Italy in which he lived. A fine example of how this argument may be seen to have weaknesses is the example of Richard I of England in the late 12th century. Richard I had a vast knowledge and understanding of battle and a wealth of military experience. This paved a way for his great successes on a constant crusade against the Muslims in Palestine. However by failing to govern his own principality in the homeland he was soon over thrown by his brother John.
To conclude, Machiavelli’s Prince can be said to echo many modern day events and political thinking, especially those of dictators such as Stalin and Hitler. These political thoughts from Machiavelli have come as a result of the political anarchy in which he witnessed during his lifetime in Florence and Italy. The need for a strong and skilled leader was highly desired and by writing the prince Machiavelli believed a Prince should follow the guidelines in which he sets to remain in power.
References
]
[2]
Machiavelli The Prince, Penguin Classics, 1961, pg,45[3]
Machiavelli The Prince, Penguin Classics, 1961, pg,46[4]
Machiavelli The Prince, Penguin Classics, 1961, pg,51[5]
Machiavelli The Prince, Penguin Classics, 1961, pg,51[6]
[7]
]
]
Machiavelli The Prince, Penguin Classics, 1961, pg,69[10]
Machiavelli The Prince, Penguin Classics, 1961, pg,77[11]
Machiavelli The Prince, Penguin Classics, 1961, pg,77[12]
[13]
Pocock J.G.A., The Machiavellian Moment, Princeton University Press (1975), p.38 [14]