In what way was Machiavelli a man of his time?
...e of action for a Prince in the immediate aftermath of gaining control of a dominion. He cites Cesare Borgia in this, lauding his ‘putting to death (of) all relatives of those lords that he had dispossessed’. This view goes against many beliefs including those of Christianity and those of some classical scholars. However, as Machiavelli states, his search is for the ‘effectual truth’ rather than the ‘imagined’. He is concerned with the ways things are, not the way one might wish them to be. Based on this premise his argument regarding the murder of possible rivals can be seen as a valid one. Throughout his writings in ‘The Prince’, Machiavelli portrays man as being inherently bad and weak. This bleak portrayal of man is epitomised towards the end of his treatise with the words ‘men always turn out badly for you, unless some necessity makes them good’. Machiavelli was not alone in his poor opinion of humanity. Rice and Grafton suggest that Sir Tomas More is of the same opinion as Machiavelli regarding the inherent untrustworthiness of man. However those authors argue that Machiavelli's and More's recommendations for dealing with this are widely variant. This is possibly due to More’s strong religious beliefs. Rice and Grafton end their argument with a thought that has been echoed by other academics - namely that the writings of Machiavelli and More mark the beginning of a modern tradition of political thought. Peter Bondanella, in his introduction to ‘The Prince’ refers to Machiavelli as the ‘first modern thinker to have exposed the nature of political tyranny’, while Maurizio Viroli refers to Machiavelli as the founder of modern republicanism. Based on these views could it be argued that Machiavelli was more than just a man of his time? Could he be considered to be a man of all times in relation to his analysis of politics? A ‘new’ Prince (a Prince who has recently gained a new dominion) will remain in that dominion successfully if he follows two rules – do not change laws and do not change taxes. This is argued in the early stages of ‘The Prince’ and is reiterated later on. The late 1400s and early 1500s were times where war was commonplace in Europe and the aims of Princes were to retain control over their own empires, while trying to expand them, if possible. Machiavelli evidenced this at first hand through his diplomatic trips around Europe. These trips would have helped to define his arguments regarding laws and taxes. In this, Machiavelli suggests colonisation as the best tactic, being of the view that the nearer a Prince is to his dominion, the easier it is to rule. He cites the example of the Turks occupation in Greece as an example of this. With colonisation Machiavelli suggests that those who are dispossessed of their land are poor, and thus they are in no position to be a threat to the Prince. This is another aspect on which Machiavelli can be seen to be justifying acts that some may consider wrong or evil. However, one can readily see the persuasiveness of Machiavelli’s argument here. Viroli emphasises one area of ‘The Prince’ that is perhaps under-emphasised by other authors. He speaks of the importance of a Prince being a master of words, as well as being a master of war. Spin doctoring is a relative modern phrase, but it can be argued that Machiavelli knew the importance of this concept back in the 16th century. In different areas of ‘The Prince’ he emphasises the importance of this. Towards the end of the book, he notes that Princes must appear to be of greater intelligence; elsewhere he suggests that sometimes a Prince should create some hostility, so that he can be seen in a positive light as the one who stamped this hostility out. Elsewhere again he suggests that ‘Princes must delegate distasteful tasks to others, pleasant ones they should keep for themselves’. If this was valuable advice for leaders in the sixteenth century, it is equally valuable now, some six hundred years later. ‘A prince…must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline’. This is a very bold statement by Machiavelli’s, but the time in which he lived must be taken into account when examining this. Machiavelli had seen the Italy that he was passionate about constantly at war –with external forces and within the country itself. This gave him the logical reasoning that war is all-important. He suggests that war cannot be avoided and to do so will only prove advantageous to others. If a Prince is at all times concerned with war, in times of peace as well as times of actual war, he will be at an advantage. In times of peace Machiavelli recommends that the Prince be in training, both physically and mentally. He puts forth the example of Philopomen, Prince of the Achaens who constantly thought of war in times of peace and due to this no unforeseen incident could arise that he had not already thought through. Equally as important as physical readiness is mental readiness and Machiavelli suggests that Princes must read history and take from it examples of past great leaders. If a Prince follows this advice, it will ensure, in Machiavelli’s opinion, that the Prince will become, and remain, great. One conception of Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ is that it is a ‘handbook of evil’. One can see how this view came about, even if this view is perhaps a simplistic one. Throughout ‘The Prince’, Machiavelli seems to be doing the following: encouraging the murder of possible rivals; encouraging Princes to lie to their own people and encouraging miserliness over generosity. He feels that evils committed are acceptable and just if they are committed out of necessity to protect oneself. While Machiavelli may seem to be casting a positive or acceptable light on evil, points he makes elsewhere in ‘The Prince’ balance this perception. He states that evil acts committed without justification are not right and that achieving power in such a manner does not result in honour and glory. This seems to refute the view of Machiavelli being evil and immoral, as virtú (which Bondanella translates as having traits such as skill, ability and ingenuity) is very different from naked power. ‘The end justifies the means’ is an oft-quoted mistranslation of Machiavelli’s, but even if he had said that, this definition of virtú clearly indicates that extreme power is only justified in the pursuit of a small number of aims. Machiavelli frequently cites the example of Cesare Borgia in describing...