Machiavelli’s The Prince has always been a handbook on power. Political leaders, military personnel, students, and businessmen alike find the rules and advice to be engaging, insightful, and sometimes harrowing. His book is considerably different than others on the use and control of power, for it offers no regard on ethical and moral dilemmas. It states that the greatest moral good is a stable country, and any actions leading to the outcome are justified. Machiavelli’s work was available to the educated of society, and although there is no definitive proof that William Shakespeare read The Prince there is no doubt that he was a learned man. Shakespeare had access to a wide arrangement of classical works and a strong argument may be made that he had contact with this manual of gaining, controlling, and keeping power. In Machiavelli’s world all rulers would be devoid of the qualities that make men human and the traits that make good people great. Shakespeare’s Henry V is a prime example of what a realistic Machiavellian leader should exemplify, one with an understanding of both Machiavelli’s rules of power, but also a level of humanity required for effective sovereignty.

One strong example of Shakespeare following the basics of Machiavelli is the concept of acquiring land. From the opening moments of Henry V, to the final marriage and “taking” of Princess Katherine, the play is founded on Henry’s desire of ruling France and expanding his hereditary lands. Machiavelli asserts that for one to desire lands is a natural and ordinary experience, but if a ruler attempts to conquer lands, and does not do so, he will be solely to blame (12). The ruler must proceed with a sense of caution and not attempt to act rashly – the consequence being a loss of the peoples trust and admiration. King Henry, having an understanding of this concept, requires approval from the Bishop of Canterbury. He does not wish to proceed without at least the appearance of unanimous support from the Church and by default, from God. He warns the Bishop to proceed with caution, “For God doth know how many now in health/Shall drop their blood in approbation/Of what your reverence shall incite us to” (19; I.2.21-23). The reader is lead to believe that the decision for war had already been made – It is King Henry’s command alone, and the “approval” of the Church is merely cover for the action, which the Bishop gives: “O, let their bodies follow, my dear liege / With blood and sword and fire to win your right” (27; I.2.136-137). It is within that cover that blame can be placed, subverting and deftly maneuvering within Machiavelli’s warning of loss and blame while attempting to conquer lands.

Another of the many rules presented in The Prince is the advice on how to not be hated by ones subjects. In an effort to change Henry’s wild past – one of a prince that is reckless and interested in only the primal urges of youth, drink, war, and women – Shakespeare presents a ruler that is cold, calculating, and thoroughly in control. Machiavelli points out that a ruler must “keep himself from his citizens’ and his subjects’ possessions… because men sooner forget the death of a father than they do the loss of patrimony” (53). In a striking example of Henry following this lesson we see him punish and hang one of his old tavern friends, Bardolph, “for he hath stolen a pax and hanged must he be” (111; III.6.40). A pax was a metal tablet that bore the image of a crucifixion, while Machiavelli’s use of the word “patrimony” could be taken as both “an estate inherited from one's father” or “property of the Church” (“patrimony”). Both definitions of the word fit perfectly into the metaphor of what should not be done to France's citizens if Henry is to rule effectively. Henry is now faced with the decision of honoring his friend of the past or honoring his rule of the future:

We would have all such offenders so cut
off; and we give express charge that in our marches
through the country there be nothing compelled …
nothing taken but paid for (115; III.6.109-112)
for when lenity and cruelty play
for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest
winner. (115; III.6.114-116)

Machiavelli warns that a ruler, one that is not hereditary, has a harder time of being accepted by the common people (6). King Henry has an acute understanding that an army of pillagers and thieves will not endear his new subjects to his cause. He wants the people of France to fear, respect, or love him – not to hate him, especially for cruelty and transgressions.

Virtue has no place in the minds of rulers, and evil is an acceptable policy if the means are justified by the end result, if a ruler is to follow the precepts of The Prince. Machiavelli preached that one who found “something that appears of virtue, if followed, would be his ruin” and that following vice would result “in his security and well-being” (48). It is this advice that separates The Prince from most other texts on war and power – it attempts to choke out any altruism and produce a King that is merely a cold and calculating sovereign. Shakespeare, with wisdom of reality, does not allow King Henry to simply be this unbalanced figure. Although Henry is proven to be dualistic in nature, and highly capable of rhetoric and linguistic manipulation, he is also presented as a man with common, personal fears:

Upon the King! Let us our lives, our souls, our
debts, our careful wives, our children, and our sins,
lay on the King!
We must bear all. O hard condition, (151; IV.1.238-241)

After talking with his soldiers on the eve of battle, while in disguise, he reveals in a prayer to God his misgivings of being King, his fears of losing what makes most men manlike, and the frustration contained within the ceremony of being king.

Another example of the complex nature contained by Henry is the siege and surrender of Harfleur, where he shows both a potential for absolute cruelty and a need for quiet mercy. The town of Harfleur has attempted to withstand Henry's army, but to no avail. Henry, while speaking to the Governor of the town, promises horrors beyond the imagination:

The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Desire the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters,
Your fathers taken by their silver beards
And their most reverend heads dashed to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes (99; III.3.34-38)

The King is demanding the town yield or he will loose his men to ravish the town, pillage and plunder, with no thought of morality or goodness. Machiavelli makes it absolutely clear that cruelty is needed to keep subjects in line and that “it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both” (52). After listening to the horrible delivery of violence that Henry would order, the Governor of Harfleur surrendered, keeping his citizens safe from the onslaught. It is precisely the threat of inhuman cruelty that led the Governor to his decision. Little did he know that the King may have not followed through on his promise, for it is in this moment we recognize Henry to be more complicated than a typical Machiavellian ruler. Immediately after the surrender, Henry turns to the Duke of Exeter and asks that he “use mercy to them all for us, dear uncle” (99; III.3.55), displaying the kind of compassion that Machiavelli would have frowned upon, but is obviously necessary in Shakespeare's vision of a realistic ruler of men.

As with all things in the world, especially the nature of man, complexities and shading are what make us human. Although Machiavelli’s The Prince is engaging, and a perfect study for political philosophy students, it misses the mark when it comes to a realistic and slightly optimistic style of leadership. Its popularity among “Captains of Industry” alone should illustrate its potential guilt for speaking more to the evil within than the potential for goodness. William Shakespeare’s character of Henry V is not his most layered, or tragic, but it is a perfect portrayal of a leader who can be trusted to rule with compassion, empathy, and equanimity, while also containing the foundational advice of Machiavelli’s The Prince.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. George Bull. New York: Penguin Classics, 1995.

"patrimony." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 11 Mar. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patrimony>.

Shakespeare, William. Henry V. Ed. Barbara A. Mowat et al. New York. Washington Square Press, 1995.