Niccolo Machiavelli helped to begin a revolution in political philosophy. His ideas were not necessarily original but still considered extremely radical at the time he published his book, The Prince, which was in essence, a resume sent to Lorzeno de’ Medici. Machiavelli was a firm believer in relative morality; the separation of politics from theology. Chapters six and twenty-six of The Prince demonstrate many of the same ideas and interrelate with each other. Machiavelli conveys his main principles such as the importance of fortune and virtue and relative morality, using methods such as biblical comparisons and metaphors of art in these two chapters.
Machiavelli can be looked at in several different manners. He can be viewed as completely immoral, because he is willing to put the state over his soul and do whatever is necessary to maintain order. This can also be referred to as pagan morality; the morality of success. More realistically though, Machiavelli was not completely immoral. Rather, he separated his politics which was his public life, from his morals which were to be private. This is referred to as relative morality; meaning that you should try to be moral when possible but if it is necessary to act otherwise then you must. Machiavelli feels that, “Unarmed prophets come to grief,” while, “Armed prophets have conquered,” (21). Success does not come with kindness alone; a prince must instill a sense of fear in the people he rules or wishes to rule.
In chapters six and twenty-six, he compares Moses to other leaders such as Cyrus, Romulus and Theseus, all of whom violently conquered to expand and maintain their power. It is not to be forgotten that Moses ordered the execution of hundreds of people whom worshiped the golden idol. Machiavelli here shows that even Moses, perhaps the most revered and supposedly moral and renown man in history, and the prophet of God himself, was indeed relatively moral. He did what was necessary to succeed in his missions. He refers to Moses as a, “Forceful leader,” rather than the wise prophet many view him to be (82).
Machiavelli views God and the Church as two completely separate entities. When Machiavelli wrote this book, the Medici’s were in control of both Florence and The Church. This was the perfect opportunity in Machiavelli’s eyes to unite the entirety of Italy. He says that, “God was no more their friend than he is yours,” referring to leaders such as Moses who received great fortune from God (83). Just as many great leaders did, Moses used the power of religion to control men. The Church was in this time a political power, and did not represent the literal voice of God. God is a provider of fortune and opportunity, but it is up to the man himself to use his virtue to take advantage of the situation. Machiavelli is saying that Medici has an equally awesome opportunity as Moses had; fortune is in his favor completely.
God and religion is nothing more than a provider of fortune and a tool to be wielded for one’s own success. Moses had the fortune of things such as the parting of the Red Sea, and Machiavelli sees that Medici’s fortune is to be in control of two of the states of Italy at the same time. This is an opportunity that cannot be passed up in his eyes. He says that although the tasks of Moses and other great men seem extraordinary, “They were men none the less,” (83). Meaning that all of these men simply seized the day and took advantage of what they were given by using their virtue and prowess. There was nothing particularly special about these legendary men, they were merely men who used their prowess and the opportunities provided for them. This is a major theme of The Prince, the relationship between fortune and virtue. Machiavelli says that fortune is, “The arbiter of half the things we do,” (79).
Although he believes this to be true he also says in chapter six that, “The less a man has relied on fortune the stronger he has made his position,” (20). He continues in chapter twenty-six stating that, “God does not want to do everything…and take away from us our free will,” (83). Fortune will place you in a good position, will show you the path to follow and possibly even provide the means for which to do it. However, it will only take you that far. It is up to the man and his virtue to achieve his goals. Machiavelli is one of the first men to view a virtuous man to be not excellent in morals but rather excellent in skill and functionality; in prowess, intelligence, foresight, judgement, etc.
In Latin the word virtu is from the root vir, which is masculine while the word fortuna is feminine. In Machiavelli’s time men had complete power and superiority and he does not take the fact that vir is masculine and fortuna is feminine to be a coincidence. Machiavelli refers to this in metaphorical terms saying that, “Fortune is a woman… it is necessary to beat and coerce her,” (81). He is not literally speaking of beating women but rather, he means that fortune can be outmatched by virtue, it can be overpowered. Fortune is a powerful tool; it can destroy you or raise you to glory, however, it can be steered and guided through virtue and prowess. The virtuous man must be able to control and even change misfortune. The analogy of fortune as a woman is one of the many analogies that Machiavelli uses throughout The Prince to illustrate his principles.
Machiavelli views politics just as any other form of art in the age of the Renaissance. In chapter six he says that fortune, “Provided the matter but they gave it its form,” (20). Here he compares a political state to a piece of clay, waiting to be molded and shaped. In the same chapter he compares politicians and powerful leaders to skillful archers who, “Aim a good deal higher than their objective… so that by aiming high they can reach their target,” (19). Machiavelli is stating that politics are an artful skill, and often times one must shoot for higher goals rather than merely trying to accomplish the standard.
In the Renaissance, particularly in Italy, all forms of art were stressed as being of greatest importance. While Italy was the world’s leader in beautiful and masterful art and innovation, it lacked any form of powerful government or united front. However, Machiavelli shows how forming a powerful government is just another form of art, that takes the skill and precision of a virtuous man. There is no reason why Italy should not be powerfully united, with this great fortune and the guidance of virtue- the state can be molded, contorted and modeled just as any piece of art.
In The Prince, Machiavelli uses political rhetoric, the rhetoric used to convince somebody to adopt a view point or plan. He thoroughly details what he believes a prince must do in order to be successful and powerful. While doing this though, he also displays his own intelligence of the subject by referencing and describing many examples of other leaders that he has studied. Machiavelli slyly uses many of the same rhetorical strategies as Socrates. Both warn against the powers of rhetoric however, at the same time, use it wisely to their own advantage. Although he may share rhetorical strategies with philosophists such as Socrates and Plato, he argues a point completely different from theirs. They believed that the soul comes before all else, that a virtuous man is a morally wise man. Machiavelli will sell his soul the first chance he gets at political success. He believes the virtuous man is the successful and powerful leader.
In another rhetorical ploy, Machiavelli warns against flattery. However, in chapter twenty six he refers to Medici’s rule as his, “illustrious house,” (82-85). He knows that to succeed with his personal goal, to be hired by Medici, he must in fact flatter him and stroke his ego. He also warns against the evils of men in chapter six, calling them, “Incredulous, never really trusting new things,” and continues, saying that the general populous is, “By nature fickle,” (21). Yet Machiavelli is pouring his plan to Medici hoping that he does, in fact, trust new people and new things.
He makes more biblical comparisons by saying Italy must be led to, “Salvation,” (82) and calls Medici, “Its Savior,” (84). By constantly comparing Medici and Italy to Moses and the situation he was in with the Israelites, he puts thoughts of success and illusions of grandeur into the eyes of Medici. He compares the exodus of the Jews from Egypt to the liberation of Italy into one, powerful state led by Medici. He wants to make Medici feel that he is just as great as these men who used, “Exceptional prowess [that] enabled to seize their opportunities,” (20). Machiavelli’s argument is very hermeneutic, he constantly pushes the same ideas at Medici while also reinforcing them. In chapter six he begins to speak of great leaders, Moses in particular. He says that a, “Prudent man must always follow in the footsteps of a great men,” (19). At this point in the book it may seem as if Machiavelli is simply giving an example of Moses as a great man and leader.
However, in chapter twenty-six, the end to Machiavelli’s plea, he relates and expands all of the same ideas. He says that if, “The Israelites had to be enslaved in Egypt for Moses to emerge,” than also, “Italy had to be brought to her present extremity,” (82). Moses used God and the opportunity provided to him to succeed in leading his people. Now, Medici also has the political tool of God- the power of The Church, in his control. He must use this to his advantage. One does not need to be morally virtuous, however one can only help himself by using God as a political tool and advantage. He compares Medici and his situation of power in Italy, to every aspect of Moses and his successes.
He talks of the, “Mighty teacher,” Moses had that helped him to accomplish his goals, (20). The mighty teacher of course being God; however he is showing Medici that he can be Medici’s mighty teacher. Together they can turn around the fortune of Italy by using their combined virtue and prowess. He ends The Prince saying, “Let your illustrious House undertake this task…so that…our country may be ennobled,” (85).
Not only is Machiavelli continuing to flatter Medici here, but he makes the reference that although it may be his job to unite Italy, he needs Machiavelli to help him, and it would be in the best interests of everyone involved. Using the principles of hermeneutics, Machiavelli brings all of his ideas together, to form one larger picture. At the same time, had he not brought up every single one of the ideas he talks of in chapters six and twenty-six, the larger picture would not have been the same. All of his thoughts and ideas intertwine together to shed light on Machiavelli’s larger purpose. The idea as a whole is to unite Italy by using Machiavelli’s design and tactics- sheds light on the meaning of his individual points and objectives.
Just as Machiavelli views politics as an art, he views his own writing as an art. He masterfully ties in everything he is trying to say, while using rhetorical strategies and the complete control of his thoughts and his timing to convey his purposes and ideas. He has several main themes in The Prince, that are best seen and compared when viewing chapters six and twenty-six, which although at opposite ends of his book are completely interconnected.
Machiavelli stresses the importance of a relative morality, and shows that even Moses, the acting arm of God, did whatever was necessary to succeed. God and religion are a tool that political leaders should use to their advantage and advancement whenever possible. He also stresses the ever changing and important relationship between virtue and fortune. Fortune will provide an opportunity to succeed, however only the virtuous man will be able to take advantage. At the same time, misfortune can be overpowered by the prowess of the virtuous man, who take precautions even in quiet times. Perhaps most importantly, Machiavelli shows Medici that all of this greatness and power he talks of can be achieved- as long as he has the help and guidance of Machiavelli himself; Medici’s own “mighty teacher”.
