Undergraduate Review
Volume 3 | Issue 1
Article 8
1989
The IS and OUGHT of Niccolo Machiavelli
Krista Stearns '89
Illinois Wesleyan University
Recommended Citation
Stearns '89, Krista (1989) "The IS and OUGHT of Niccolo Machiavelli," Undergraduate Review: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 8.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol3/iss1/8
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Ames Library, the Andrew W. Mellon Center for Curricular and Faculty
Development, the Office of the Provost and the Office of the President. It has been accepted for inclusion in Digital Commons @ IWU by
the faculty at Illinois Wesleyan University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
©Copyright is owned by the author of this document.
Stearns '89: The IS and OUGHT of Niccolo Machiavelli
!X8J\der Lumber closing." The Daily
re close to boiling." The Sunday
!Shed again in Crain's." The Daily
>per battle, Kankakee loses its own
,farch 1988, 77-78.
wnty Assessment. Chicago: The Fan-
lr. Chicago Tribune, 9 April 1988, 10.
The IS and OUGHT of
Niccolo Machiavelli
1(ristaSteams
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1989
53
1
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 3, Iss. 1 [1989], Art. 8
Niccolo Machiavell
Notorious for his treatise .
human historyasa ruthless I
power and oppression. Ho
the republican government
greatest work, The Discour5t
rule by the people in order tc
style of republican govemn
paradox? Only through can
history of renaissance Italy i
twentieth century audience
The politics of 15th j
general, were tumultous. ~
witnessing a crumbling rep
figure Savonarola.
View of Florence.
Photo by Susanna Woodard.
F1orenc~
nornical problems, the resc
regaining Pisa. Pisa was a 1
French occupation. The Fre­
to Florentine liberty. Vario
other cities in the northerr
seemed determined to spli
kept in mind that Europe ..
were just beginning to gair
confusion, Machiavelli, a f1
vation of Florence and It
instrumental in establishin
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol3/iss1/8
2
Stearns '89: The IS and OUGHT of Niccolo Machiavelli
Niccolo Machiavelli has long been termed the teacher of evil.
Notorious for his treatise The Prince, he has earned a reputation in
human history asa ruthless individual consumed with the intricacies of
power and oppression. However, most overlook his contributions to
the republican government in Florence, as well as, what is perhaps his
greatest work, The Discourses. In The Discourses he extolled the value of
rule by the people in order to attain liberty. He also revered the Roman­
style of republican government. How does one reconcile the apparent
paradox? Only through careful evaluation of the nationalistic political
history of renaissance Italy is one able to expose the true Machiavelli to
twentieth century audiences.
The politics of 15th and 16thcentury Florence, and of Europe in
general, were tumultous. While only in his twenties Machiavelli was
witnessing a crumbling republic under the leadership of the religiOUS
View of Florence.
Photo by Susanna Woodard.
figure Savonarola. Florence was facing other grave political and eco­
nomical problems, the resolution of which depended upon Florence
regaining Pisa. Pisa was a valued trading post, as well as a target for
French occupation. The French and other powers were seen as a threat
to Florentine liberty. Various European powers had already captured
other cities in the northern part of the peninsula and all the powers
seemed determined to split Italy among themselves. Here, it must be
kept in mind that Europe was still in a feudal state of affairs. Nations
were just beginning to gain a sense of nationality. In the midst of such
confusion, Machiavelli, a Florentine nationalist interested in the preser­
vation of Florence and Italy, became active. For example, he was
instrumental in establishing the rural citizen militia. This militia was a
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1989
55
3
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 3, Iss. 1 [1989], Art. 8
key factor in the eventual regaining of Pisa in 1509 after thirteen years
successfully. He reserves an:
of warfare.1
Discourses. But, despite the i
The political upheaval that the people of renaissance Italy
republican forms of govenu
witnessed helps to explain the fascination with war and power for
to the empirical remains. In
which Machiavelli is so well known. He, in fact, became particularly
strong military, stresses the
interested in the practical aspect of winning wars and wrote books such
controlling the people, reil
as the Arle della Guerra on the subject. This demonstrates two things:
Periclean leader, and, finall,
one, that Machiavelli's infatuation with war was a natural reaction to
consent for the longevity II
his world as disarmament is to the people of today, and two, that he was
commonalities will be exp8J
particularly interested in the practical world. J. H. Whitfield in his book
realism and nationalism in I
Discourses em Machiavelli, in support, states that "before the time of The
Nationalism,altholl
Prince.. Machiavelli had never written a treatise without some practical
that helps to reconcile the
purpose, and some special contexl."2 The Prince is no exception. In
examination. Not only was
writing this treatise it isclear that Machiavelli had in mind the establish­
Italian nation, but, his belief
ment of a strong leadership in Florence. This leadership would now
tionary for his time. In lac:
hold Florence together, but, eventually, the leadership would gain
religiOUS, for he places it as
considerable strength so as to unify Italy in order for her to reassert her
in The Prince as we see M
greatness. Furthermore, The Discourses are a natural progression from
preferences which are so pr
The Prince. In both works he professes many of the same techniques of
was also practiced in Machi
rule and retains his observations on human nature. He regards these
government in Florence and
observations as underlying constants that must be considered in any
despite the form ofgovemn:
regime, autocratic or republican.
The Discourses when he stat;
The practical side of Machiavelli may be best explained by
any means.
today's term realpolitik. This concept is demonstrated in Machiavelli's
For where
upon then
justice or iJ
ofshame,!
allothercc
should be,
of the cour
famous phrase from The Prince, "the end justifies the means."3 As Max
Lerner states, Machiavelli distinguishes between what is and what
ought to be.'
Machiavelli primarilyconcernshimself with empirical realm, view­
ing accurate appraisal of existing conditions as the only way to rule
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol3/iss1/8
56
.,·,,,iiotr
4
Stearns '89: The IS and OUGHT of Niccolo Machiavelli
g of Pisa in 1509 after thirteen years
successfully. He reserves any normative discussion for the theme of The
Discourses. But, despite the idealized theme applauding the virtues of
at the people of renaissance Italy
republican forms of government, the importance he fonnerly attached
scination with war and power for
to the empirical remains. In The Discourses he retains an emphasis of a
m. He, in fact, became particularly
strong military, stresses the role of religion as a means of unifying and
winningwars and wrotebooks such
controlling the people, reiterates the necessity of a strong, almost
ject This demonstrates two things:
Periclean leader, and, finally, Machiavelli emphasizes the need of mass
with war was a natural reaction to
consent for the longevity and security of any regime. Many of these
IOOpleof today, and two, that he was
commonalities will be expanded upon more as I discuss Machiavelli's
cal world. J. H. Whitfield in his book
realism and nationalism in specifics.
1, states that "before the time of The
Nationalism, although referred to earlier, is an important ideal
en a treatise without some practical
that helps to reconcile the two texts, and requires a more detailed
d." 2 The Prince is no exception. In
examination. Not only was Machiavelli a proponent of a sovereign
achiavellihadinmind the establish­
Italian nation, but, his belief in the importance of the state was revolu­
lrenee. This leadership would now
tionary for his time. In fact his conception of the state was almost
,tually, the leadership would gain
religious, for he places it as the highest good. This is blatantly the case
'Italy in order for her to reassert her
in The Prince as we see Machiavelli wavering from his democratic
trses are a natural progression from
preferences which are so prevalent in The Discourses. This nationalism
ses many of the same techniques of
was also practiced in Machiavelli's own life by serving the republican
In human nature. He regards these
governmentin florence and by resolving to partidpate in public service
nts that must be considered in any
despite the fonnof government. Machiavelli best delineates his view in
The Discourses when he states that the country should be preserved by
IUavelli may be best explained by
pt is demonstrated in Machiavelli's
e end justifies the means."3 As Max
:J.ishes between what is and what
himself with empirical realm, view­
:onditions as the only way to rule
any means.
For where the very safety of the country depends
upon the resolution to be taken, no considerations of
justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, nor glory or
of shame, should be allowed to prevail. But putting
all other considerations aside, the only question
should be, What course will save the life and liberty
of the country75
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1989
57
5
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 3, Iss. 1 [1989], Art. 8
and virtu fully developed.
Here, as in The Prince, Machiavelli is willing to forego morality
and his convictions of the superiority of republican rule in order to
Under Borgia, Mad
assure the higher good of the preservation of the state. Government is
things, is beyond the conm
not about preserving individual liberties, but rather preserving the
ruinous effects. ButMachia'
existence of the state.
made to prevent the winds (
Additionally, it is reasonable to conjecture that these national­
This is best exemplified in
istic ideals were an offspring of his realism. In Machiavelli's world
fortune to a river that can be
European powers were consolidating, particularly France and Spain
and dykes. For Machiavelli,
which were at their zenith at this time. In the interests of protecting
Florence. The series of conJ
Florence, its citizenry, Italian culture, and the liberty of the future,
power of the Church had (
Machiavelli saw an Italian nation as the onlymeans of recourse. But this
citizenry which was only
would call for order, and an order that could only be realized through
under the hand of strong Ie
the leadership of a prince. A prince was needed for the people were
could Florence be saved. 1
weak. The new, unified nations emergingin Europe were the force with
needed for the success of a
which to be reckoned. To survive, the Italians, too, must unify and
present. Machiavelli's assUI
practice the ruthless, superficial politics that the rest had already
was restored in Florence in .
adopted. Machiavelli was not the progenitor of the practice, he just
years until the ousted Medi
The austere measul
happened to be among the first to put it in writing.
An analysis ofMachiavelli's reallsmbestexplains why Machia­
Machiavelli'sgoal of restom
velli wrote his little treatise illuminating the immorality of effective,
which would subsequently
princely rule. Aside from the bellicose nature of government that
of government. This isa sim
Machiavellicontinuouslywitnessed, perhaps the one thing that had the
Lerner. Langton, somewha­
most profound influence upon him was the diplomatic missions for the
The Discourses as a follow
republican government that Machiavelli participated in during the
stabilized by following dir
early 1500s. These missions helped him to view the strife in the penin­
then tum to The Discourses I
sula from an international perspective. He watched the cold, deliberate
handbook for a return to re
machinations of foreign leaders anxious to wield their influence upon
be used most effectively w
the weak Italian states. His visit to the court of Cesare Borgia was
role as a consultant to the I
especially enlightening. It was there where his strong beliefs on fortuna
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol3/iss1/8
58
6
Stearns '89: The IS and OUGHT of Niccolo Machiavelli
·chiavelli is willing to forego morality
and virtu fully developed.
iority of republican rule in order to
Under Borgia, Machiavelli observed that illness, among other
!lel'Vation of the state. Government is
things, is beyond the control of man; yet, these uncontrollables have
liberties, but rather preserving the
ruinous effects. But Machiavelli also witnessed how preparation canbe
made to prevent the winds of fortune from being without redemption.6
Ible to conjecture that these national­
This is best exemplified in the passage in The Prince which equates
his realism. In Machiavelli's world
fortune toa river that can be tamed withhurnan ingenuity suchas darns
lting, particularly France and Spain
and dykes. For Machiavelli, it was fortune that blew an ill wind upon
time. In the interests of protecting
Florence. The series of conflicts, of weak leaders, and the continued
lture, and the liberty of the future,
power of the Church had corrupted the people. These ills created a
IS the onlymeans of recourse. Butthis
citizenry which was only interested in self-aggrandizement. Only
rthat could only be realized through
under the hand of strong leadership (Lorenzo de Medici in this case)
was needed for the people were
could Florence be saved. The people were so corrupt that the virtu
terginginEurope were the force with
needed for the success of a republican form of government was not
>e, the Italians, too, must unify and
present. Machiavelli's assumption proved to be accurate when liberty
. politics that the rest had already
was restored in Florence in 1527. The new regime only lasted for three
e progenitor of the practice, he just
years until the ousted Medici were able to resume power.
5
lCe
) put it in writing.
The austere measures in The Prince were necessary to achieve
i'srealismbestexplains why Machia­
Machiavelli'sgoal of restoring orderand buildinga basic infrastructure
linating the immorality of effective,
which would subsequently work to realize his ideal: a republican form
ellicose nature of government that
ofgovernment. This is a similar view to those ofJohn Langton and Max
ed, perhapsthe one thing that had the
Lerner. Langton, somewhat convincingly, extends his view to include
nwas the diplomatic missions for the
The Discourses as a follow up to The Prince. Once Florence became
:hiavelli participated in during the
stabilized by follOWing directives delineated in The Prince, one could
d him to view the strife in the penin­
then tum to The Discourses for guidance. He regards The Discourses as a
tive. He watched the cold, deliberate
handbook for a return to republican rule. This book would, of course,
:lXious to wield their influence upon
be used most effectively with the assistance of Machiavelli playing a
to the court of Cesare Borgia was
role as a consultant to the prince?
re where his strong beliefs on fortUnJl
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1989
59 7
--
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 3, Iss. 1 [1989], Art. 8
Machiavelli's view of leadership in both texts pronounces the
there was no conception 01
need for ruthless, sometimes unjust measures. He first stresses the
seems excessive. Ideas sud
ability to adapt to changing circumstances. This is consistent with his
processes, and beliefs of nol
views on fortuna, for it is fortuna that necessitates these characteristics.
not widely held nor even in
Chance can bring good luck or bad luck. And, when chance knocks at
to absolute rulers who coule
the door, the leader must be prepared to take action and adapt to
rulers governed only in om
changing conditions. The ability to act with the cleverness a fox and to
What does seem pal
speak with the force of a lion is also vital. To do otherwise, that is to be
deceit and trickery. A ruler I
neutral, to refuse to act or act quickly and with confidence, would be
appear so; he need not be just
cruel. It would put the state at risk to aggression or subject it to undue
can do what a situation det'l
hazards of fortune.
concern for humanity. But,
It is also the responsibility of the leader to establish institutions
sumption that running a gal
and laws that will outlive the leader. Machiavelli was counting on this
what separates him from til
in both works. He implores Lorenzo to adopt new "laws and measures"
knowledge a separation of t:
that will liberate Italy and immortalize Lorenzo as her savior.8 Thus, for
This position regare
Machiavelli, a leader must possessflexibility, sagacity, physical strength
and Machiavelli himself, ne:
(especially in the form of an organized military), and foresight- all
solely as a response to the UI
qualities that seem to add up to Machiavelli's ideas on virtu. For if virtu
upon florence. Rather, Mad
truly means to do one's duty well, these assets are what it takes to
ism, are viewed as the only E
succeed in a principality or a republic. A leader who possesses these
the time. Dietz's arguments.
qualities will be able to act as the situation requires yet he will still
example, she harps on his
maintain appearances that appease the people. This is highly important
historical data contradictor
in maintaining the civil peace and the unity of the people.
smart politician or realist,
Those who criticize Machiavelli for extreme ruthlessness, evi­
evidence most appropriate t
dence of which can be found in both texts, mistakenly evaluate his
as a complete historical acee
thoughts from a post-Lockeian framework. What people of today find
historian but a politician tUI
problematic is that the state which Machiavelli desires to build seems
Discourses, too, are filled wi
to ignore that the construction of such a nation may ruin the things that
Theformer work, then, isno.
are beautiful within it. But, from a sixteenth century perspective, when
ignored or misconstrued. A
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol3/iss1/8
60
8
Stearns '89: The IS and OUGHT of Niccolo Machiavelli
ship in both texts pronounces the
there was no conception of inalienable or natural rights, he hardly
1 measures. He first stresses the
seems excessive. Ideas such as freedom of speech, access to judicial
tances. This is consistent with his
processes, and beliefs of non-interference from the government were
necessitates these characteristics.
not widely held nor even in existence. People were commonly subject
lick. And, when chance knocks at
to absolute rulers who could do as they pleased. Often these absolute
il"ed to take action and adapt to
rulers governed only in order to advantage themselves.
ct with the cleverness a fox and to
What does seem particularly invidious, though, is his call for
rita!. To do otherwise, that is to be
deceit and trickery. A ruler must be a fox. He need not be religiOUS but
yand with confidence, would be
appear so; he need not be justbut must appear to be just. If clever, a ruler
)aggression or subject it to undue
can do what a situation demands while convincing the people of his
concern for humanity. But, to the reader, this demonstrates his pre­
the leader to establish institutions
sumption that running a government calls for means of its own. This is
Machiavelli was counting on this
what separates him from the classicists. Machiavelli is willing to ac­
o adopt new '1awsand measures"
knowledge a separation of the public and private domains.
roe Lorenzo as her savior.8 Thus, for
This position regards The Prince, in relation to The Discourses
xibility, sagacity, physical strength
and Machiavelli himself, neither as an aberration, nor as a set up, nor
red military), and foresight- all
solely as a response to the uncertainty and unrest that fortuna had laid
riavelli's ideason virtu. For if virtu
upon Florence. Rather, Machiavelli's realism, and notably his national­
these assets are what it takes to
ism, are viewed as the only effective means of governing the people of
lic. A leader who possesses these
the time. Dietz's arguments against this theory are unconvincing. For
.ituation requires yet he will still
example, she harps on his historical examples and his exclusion of
!le people. This is highly important
historical data contradictory to his arguments. I assert that like any
le
unity of the people.
smart politician or realist, Machiavelli simply selected supportive
relli for extreme ruthlessness, evi­
evidence most appropriate to his purposes. The Prince was not intended
th texts, mistakenly evaluate his
as a complete historical account. Furthermore, Machiavelli was not an
~work. What people of today find
historian but a politician turned writer. As Leo Strauss points out, The
lachiavelli desires to build seems
Discourses, too, are filled with inconsistencies regarding past events.9
1 a nation may ruin the things that
The former work, then, isnot the onlyevidenceof material thathasbeen
teenth century perspective, when
ignored or misconstrued. Additionally, the fact that Machiavelli only
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1989
61
9
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 3, Iss. 1 [1989], Art. 8
designed The Prince for the eyes of Lorenzo de Medici. support my
thesis. Again, one notes that history suggests Machiavelli, in every
other treatise he wrote, intended it to address a very specific set of
circumstances such as those we find in The Prince. And, lastly, the final
chapter of The Prince not only serves as a call to action for Lorenzo but
IHale, J.R. Machiavelli and til.
Ian Company, 1960), p.10.
suggests that he truly believed that the action he calls for would be in
2
Whitfield, J.H. Discourses
W. Heffer & Sons Ltd., 196!
the best interests of all. Rule under The Prince would not be as brutal as
Niccolo. The _
tion by Max Lerner (NewY
3 Machiavelli,
the prevailing circumstances. In the closing of The Prince he states,
''What Italian would withhold allegiance? This barbarous domination
De Lamar. Machit
(Lexington, Massachusetts:
4 Jensen,
stinks in the nostrils of every one/'IO
The differences between these two great works are best recon­
Niccolo. The _
tion by Max Lerner (New'"
5 Machiavelli,
ciled by viewing the measures for ruling a state called for in The Prince
as being consistent with measures described in ruling a republican
Hale, J.R. Machiavelli and th
Ian Company, 1960), p. 25.
6
government modeled after the great republic of Rome. The underlying
practice of the two governments remains remarkably constant. But,
7 Langton, John and Mary I
Teaching the Prince,"Ame
1987), p. 1282.
Machiavelli's effort to sustain Medici rule created a dichotomy which
can only be resolved through evaluating his visions of realpolitik and
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The
tion by Max Lerner (New")
8
a unified Italian state. These are the reflections of the practical politics
that he was concerned with throughout his adult life. And, despite his
love of liberty he acknowledged his forceful rules as being more
Strauss, Leo. Thoughts
Press, 1958), p. 36.
important than the establishment of a weak republican state. For such
10 Machiavelli,
9
Niccolo.The
tion by Max Lerner (New ~
a state would be incapableof maintaining order and ofcreating the new
strength that Italy needed in order to flourish. Italy could not be
extravagant. The Italians were not in a solely epistemological world,
but rather the empirical, practical world of feudal 16th century Euro­
pean politics.
62
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol3/iss1/8
071
10
Stearns '89: The IS and OUGHT of Niccolo Machiavelli
Lorenzo de Medid support my
y suggests Machiavelli, in every
to address a very specific set of
in The Prince. And, lastly, the final
as a call to action for Lorenzo but
he action he calls for would be in
Ie Prince would not be as brutal as
e closing of The Prince he states,
~7nusbarbarousdonUnation
NOTES
1 Hale, J.R. Machiavelli and the RenaissanceItaly, (New York: the MacnUl­
Ian Company, 1960), p.10.
2 Whitfield, J.H. Discourses on Machiavelli, (Cambridge, Great Britain:
W. Heffer & Sons Ltd., 1969), p. 23.
Niccolo. The Prince and the Discourses, with an introduc­
tion by Max Lerner (NewYork: Random House, 1950), p. 66.
3 Machiavelli,
'Jensen, De Lamar. Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist?,
(Lexington, Massachusetts: J.e. Heath and Company, 1960), p. 10.
!Ie two great works are best recon­
Niccolo. The Prince and the Discourses, with an introduc­
tion by Max Lerner (New York: Random House, 1950), p. 528.
5 Machiavelli,
ling a state called for in The Prince
described in ruling a republican
republic of Rome. The underlying
6 Hale, J.R. Machiavelli and the RenaissanceItaly, (New York: The MacnUl­
Ian Company, 1960), p. 25.
mains remarkably constant. But,
7
:i rule created a dichotomy which
Langton, John and Mary Dietz, "Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or
Teaching the Prince," American Political Science Review (December ,
1987), p. 1282.
lting his visions of realpolitik and
Niccolo. The Prince and the Discourses, with an introduc­
tion by Max Lerner (New York: Random House, 1950), p. 96.
8 Machiavelli,
reflections of the practical politics
out his adult life. And, despite his
Us forceful rules as being more
Strauss, Leo. Thoughts on Machiavelli, (Glencoe, illinois:
Press, 1958), p. 36.
a weak republican state. For such
10 Machiavelli,
ningorder and ofcreating the new
9
The Free
Niccolo.The Prince and the Discourses, with an introduc­
tion by Max Lerner (New York: Random House, 1950), p. 98.
r to flourish. Italy could not be
n a solely epistemological world,
orld of feudal 16th century Euro-
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1989
63
11
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 3, Iss. 1 [1989], Art. 8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dietz, Mary. "Trapping the Prince: Machiavelli and the Politics of
Deception." American Political Science Review (September, 1986): p. 777­
797.
Gilbert, Felix. Machiavelli and Guicciardini. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1%5.
Hale, J.R. Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1960.
Howard Rc
Jensen, De Lamar, ed. Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist?
Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1960.
Langton, John and Mary Dietz. "Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or
Teaching the Prince." American Science Political Review (December 1987):
p.1277-1288.
Mary
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince and the Discourses. Introduction by Max
Lerner. New York: Random House, Inc., 1950.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The History ofFlorence. Edited by Hugh R. Trevor­ Roper. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1970.
Strauss, Leo. Thoughts on Machiavelli. Glencoe, nlinois: The Free Press,
1958.
Whitfield, J.H. Discourses on Machiavelli. Cambridge, Great Britain:
W. Heffer & Sons Ltd., 1969.
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol3/iss1/8
64
12