NICOLO MACHIAVELLI

Machiavelli
Machiavelli
Florence
Florence
Cesar Borgia
Cesar Borgia

Sixteenth century Europe was passing through a critical phase, where the old medieval order was crumbling and the new was in its infancy. . The power of the nobility was declining and in many countries monarchies came into existence. The medieval order in Italy however did not witness the kind of sweeping changes that were taking place elsewhere in Europe. The city state was the prevailing political unit and the important ones were Milan, Venice, Florence, Naples and Papal state.

HIS LIFE AND TIMES

Nicolo Machiavelli was born in Florence in the year 1469 when Lorenzo de Medici was the chief magistrate. Soon however the hold of the Medici family on Florence was lost and a demagogic friar named Savonarola imposed his idea of a theocratic state. But by 1498, he lost popular support and was burnt at the stake.

Machiavelli who was a keen observer of the political scenario realized the folly that Savonarola committed. With the demise of Savonarola, Florence once again became a republic and Machiavelli was elected to the post of secretary to the foreign office of Florence. In this capacity, he served the republic for 14 years and he was sent on many political and military missions all over Europe. A keen observer of human weaknesses and foibles, he was able to observe closely one of the most infamous persons of those times … Cesar Borgia, who was the illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VII. Cesar was a ruthless and cunning leader who subdued the rebellious aristocracy in Italy and consolidated his power over them. With the restoration of the Medici’s, Machiavelli went into exile and during this period devoted his time to writing books. The most famous of which was THE PRINCE and THE DISCOURSES ON THE FIRST TEN BOOKS OF LIVIUS.

HIS POLITICAL THOUGHTS

On the basis of his observations and study particularly of ancient Rome, he believed in the cyclical nature of history, which no leader however able can control or avert. Machiavelli termed the ability of a leader to impose his will on events as VIRTU, which means prowess. However resourceful a leader can be he can succeed only partly, because the other half is dominated by FORTUNA or chance. VIRTU does not enable him to either anticipate or overcome this.

THE PRINCE was written with two objectives, one was to explain how this VIRTU or prowess, can be marshaled and put to use, and the other to impress Lorenzo de Medici, so that Machiavelli might regain his political office. Though the second objective was never achieved, the first one it did. This little handbook discusses plainly and without any moral inhibitions, how rulers acquire and maintain power. What had shocked generations of readers was the acceptance of all means available to acquire power which was so repugnant to an individual’s concept of moral behavior. For centuries, Machiavelli was looked upon as devil incarnate and the word Machiavellian was coined to depict someone who was unscrupulous, scheming and power hungry. The problem was that, people did not understand the underlying assumptions of Machiavelli’s work.

THE PRINCE is based on two basic assumptions. The first one was that the state was the highest form of human association needed for the welfare of all. Without state and political order neither culture nor conventional virtues can exist. The interest of the state far outweighs everything, and it was the duty of the Prince to ensure its stability. The second important assumption was that, man is motivated man by self-interest and the VIRTU or prowess of the Prince is determined by it. Machiavelli’s view was that efficient states were best governed by non-virtuous men. This he arrived at by examining the political realities rather than by political ideals of his time. This implied that a Prince, who wanted to either acquire or retain power, should not be burdened by virtues and ethical considerations, because failing which the Prince cannot fulfill in his principal duty, which was to maintain order and stability. The prince cannot like an ordinary citizen hold on to conventional moral principles and must be governed by expediency. The Prince therefore would have to be cruel rather than compassionate, dishonest rather than honest, all being contrary to ethical principles instilled in man. Machiavelli was implying that a Prince binding himself by the constraints of Christian virtues was paving the way for destruction of the state and it inhabitants. Due to its anti-clerical and un-Christian sentiment, THE PRINCE was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1557.

THE PRINCE

The reason why THE PRINCE is called as a handbook for tyrants can be understood from the following exhortations.

· The family that ruled prior to him (Prince) must be wiped out

· He should not impose any change in the existing laws or customs

· He should set up dwelling in the conquered territory, so that he can discover rebellion at the start and nip it in the bud, because rebellion like most maladies is hard to detect at first and difficult to cure later.

· He should keep a watchful eye on the neighboring princes.

· When a prince conquers a place, he should appoint personnel from the conquered people only, so that his job becomes easy and strong.

· He must be both stern and magnanimous in order to make himself be loved and feared by his people

· Good laws and good army is the firm foundation of every government….the princes army should not consist of mercenaries.

· The prince must be good; he must also know how to be wicked.

· A man will sooner forget the loss of his father than of his property, so he should not confiscate the property of his subjects.

· The prince who depends on good fortune is ruined when it turns against him. Fortune is like a women - it loves the young and daring.

Machiavelli delinked politics from other impinging influences. Like the physical sciences, it was no longer studied with reference to either authority or religious scriptures. It was concerned with human conflict and social forces only. Morality and religion are only it indirect concerns. Machiavelli like his book PRINCE would always be a topic of controversy and debate.

More by this Author

  • A BRIEF HISTORY OF INDIAN ART
    3

    A Brief History of Indian Art Indian art is a blend of the sensuous and spiritual and has its origin nearly five thousand years ago during the heyday of Indus Valley civilization. Often referred as the...

  • INDIAN ADMINISTRATION IN VEDIC PERIOD
    0

    INDIAN ADMINISTRATION IN VEDIC PERIOD Aryan tribes were patriarchal in nature with the tribal chief as the leader. Owing to the constant need for protection, tribes elected the most capable as their chief....

  • EVOLUTION OF INDIAN HINDU TEMPLE ARCHITECTURE
    16

    EVOLUTION OF INDIAN TEMPLE ARCHITECTURE Indian temples have been a source of attraction, not only as a place of worship for the devout, but also as an architectural marvel for the curious tourist. Indian temples with...


Comments 13 comments

ram_m profile image

ram_m 4 years ago from India Author

yes, i agree.... and it is perfectly understandable :)


teresapelka profile image

teresapelka 4 years ago from Dublin, Ireland

I'm definitely more interested in having freedom - that of the mind especially - for the standard not to be tested in circumstances as extreme as shackles or incarceration :)


ram_m profile image

ram_m 4 years ago from India Author

What I meant was that even imprisonment cannot break the spirit of a free person , provided of course he or she has strong convictions. The person may succumb to torture, and the body subjugated, but the free mind cannot be enslaved. Of course only one in hundred may have this tenacity, but it is these people despots are always worried of. There are plenty of examples in history, but right now, what comes to my mind is the book 'Imitation of Christ' by Thomas a Kempis . His religious belief kept his spirit soaring. Closer to our century, Nelson Mandela is another example who despite decades of incarceration, his desire for freedom continued to glow.


teresapelka profile image

teresapelka 4 years ago from Dublin, Ireland

Sounds a bit unrealistic - even a powerful state can't put shackles on a free mind, you say. Do you believe in a mind really free in a shackled body?


ram_m profile image

ram_m 4 years ago from India Author

Yes Eric , Machiavelli dared to think critically at a time when conformity was the order of the day. Thank you for the comment.


ram_m profile image

ram_m 4 years ago from India Author

teresa I do not dispute that fact that freedom is our ideal, but unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world :) --- But then no state however powerful, can put shackles on a free mind. Thanks for sharing your views, and hope you continue to do.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Very nice hub. I have always treasured "Prince" as gateway toward critical thought.


teresapelka profile image

teresapelka 4 years ago from Dublin, Ireland

@ram

No, it's not the primacy of the state to have always been. Human freedom has existed for an indispensable need. There would not be democracy but this need. :)


ram_m profile image

ram_m 4 years ago from India Author

Thank you for your nice comment William. I' really glad you like it.


ram_m profile image

ram_m 4 years ago from India Author

Thank you teresapelka for raising a very intersting point. It's true that individual freedom is important. But that concept has evolved only during our times. For centuries the primacy of the state always existed. Even in twentieth century, there were many countries where the individual was subservient to the interest of the state. But the sad fact is that even in open societies, the fear of terrorism is forcing (?) the states to pass draconian laws, that are detrimental to individual freedom. So I think individual freedom cannot be taken for granted. we have to keep fighting for it.


William Young profile image

William Young 4 years ago from Eaglle Grove, Iowa

That was a fascinating piece! You are obviously a very well read writer


teresapelka profile image

teresapelka 4 years ago from Dublin, Ireland

I mean, the state loses its rationale without individual freedom and rights. I don't believe anyone would see any sense keeping a country, should he or she be persecuted and abused.


teresapelka profile image

teresapelka 4 years ago from Dublin, Ireland

Someone to say the state is most important, obviously seeks power. Someone to say that calumny is as hurtful as the power to accuse useful - seeks power. In both cases, Machiavelli, not my favorite.

Let me think about Ann L Wagner, the 2004 convention, reported praising a 19-year old cancer sufferer to have had the campaign for more important than therapy (source: Wikipedia).

There was Lenin. There was Stalin. There is Wagner. Love the party...

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working