Ryan 1 Kathryn Ryan Dr.

Atkins Writing Assignment II

Machiavelli and the Shift Toward Modernity I will argue in favor of Niccol Machiavellis view that political power does not reside in virtue but, rather, in ones own capacity to maintain control and power over a state. First, I will explain, using his own arguments in The Prince, Machiavellis belief that one must sometimes act in ways inconsistent with moralistic virtue in order to maintain and gain power. Thereafter, I will address a possible objection to said viewpoint and respond to it, ultimately arguing in favor of Machiavellis assertion. The Prince is a series of advisements that illustrate the modern shift toward modernity and away from complete moral virtue. First, Machiavelli notes that conquering rulers must inevitably injure those they conquer: This in turn will be the result of another common and natural necessity, for by the presence of his soldiers and by those other innumerable offenses that follow upon conquest, a new ruler must inevitably distress those over whom he establishes his rule (18).

He then advises conquerors to destroy previous ruling families, asserting that such must be done if a ruler wishes to both conquer as well as hold his territory (19). Furthermore, Machiavelli states that men must be either pampered or annihilated (20). In the event that one must harm others, as a ruler wishing to maintain power, one must harm them so severely that the harmed are unable to take revenge. He presents The Prince as a guide on how to gain and maintain power. Machiavelli advises the prince to act humanely only when doing so has an evident benefit, not because doing so is ethical.

Ryan 2 It is quite possible that one may object to Machiavellis advisements, on the basis of a more antiquated view that virtue is the core of good government. Such a view is illustrated in Zhu Xis Reflections on Things at Hand: If the ruler is humane, all will be humane. If the ruler is righteous, all will be righteous. Whether the world is peaceful or chaotic depends on whether the ruler is humane or not. If he departs from humanity and becomes wrong, whatever comes from his mind will be harmful to the government (Ch. 8, P. 215).

Therefore, one that supports the belief that virtuous leadership makes for virtuous subjects and, ultimately, a secure rule, may disagree with Machiavellis advice in The Prince. While a reference to Zhu Xis teachings on virtuous rule is valid, I believe that Machiavelli is amply justified in his assertions. This is due, in large part, to human nature. That a virtuous ruler will in turn produce virtuous subjects is inaccurate, for human nature leads one to seek self-preservation over virtue. According to said nature, one will act for the benefit of oneself, and therefore power cannot be maintained on the basis of virtue alone. Machiavelli upholds the notion of self-preservation, noting, it is truly a natural and ordinary thing to desire gain (23). He furthers this by examining three types of soldiers: mercenaries, auxiliaries, and citizens. Mercenaries are paid soldiers, which poses a problem: They have no tie of devotion, no motive for taking the field except their meager pay, and this is not enough to make them willing to die for him (52). Soldiers that are unwilling to die for the good of the state could easily be the source of a princes downfall. The unwillingness of the mercenaries to die for the state supports the modern notion of self-preservation. Furthermore, Machiavelli mentions that mercenary captains are either good soldiers, or

Ryan 3 not. If they are not, they will fail at every task they are given. However, if they are competent, they still cannot be trusted, for they will always seek to gain power for themselves either by oppressing you, their master, or oppressing other against your wishes (52). This flaw in the mercenaries is yet another affirmation of human selfpreservation, as the captain looks to gain power in order to satisfy his own selfish ends. Auxiliaries are allied soldiers. If they lose, it is only ones own state that suffers. But if they win, the prince and his state will become indebted to them (56). Such soldiers will attempt to take the spoils of victory for themselves, yet again affirming the belief that humans act in accordance with what is to their benefit. Machiavelli concludes that a state is secure only if it possesses an army composed of its own subjects, citizens, or dependents (58). For, in contrast to mercenaries and auxiliaries, citizens of the state have motive for protecting their land. The idea of selfpreservation is further substantiated here, as it shows that only those that have true ties to the land can be trusted to protect it. As protecting their homeland is to their own benefit and the benefit of their loved ones, the citizens will courageously defend their state.

Moreover, Machiavellis view that one must sometimes stray from moralistic virtue in order to gain and maintain power is justified in his explanations of the immoral actions he advises. One such action is the murder of the previous ruling family upon coming into power. While extinguishing the ruling family may be considered inhumane, it will aid in securing the loyalty of the people, for it will destroy the opportunity to remain loyal to the old rule. By destroying the family, there is less chance of revolt, for there will not be an attempt to restore the previous rule (19).

Ryan 4 Similarly, the statement that men be either pampered or annihilated makes sense in regard to seizing and holding power over a people. For, if a ruler were to leave room for his subjects to avenge their losses, he is more likely to lose power than if he were to follow Machiavellis advice, that necessary harm be done so severely that the harmed cannot take revenge (20). Machiavelli examines the best way to hold a state that was previously free, concluding that they surest way to hold power in such a state is by complete political and civil destruction (28). In republics there is greater vigor, greater hatred, greater desire for revenge, and the memory of earlier freedom that will not rest (29). If the prince does not devastate the state, there will always be the threat of rebellions in the spirit of the former liberty, regardless of whether or not the prince is ruling well. Therefore, it is advisable to simply destroy the state. Furthermore, when suppressing a revolt, a leader can punish rebels as an example to others considering rebellion. Today, public executions are considered inhumane, but Machiavelli asserts that public punishment of those that revolt will discourage subsequent attempts at revolt and, therefore, strengthens ones power and stabilizes ones rule (18). Because man will seek self-preservation and act for ones own benefit as opposed to in accordance with virtue, a ruler may only maintain power if they allow themselves to be unconcerned with the ideal conditions of manner and behavior. Machiavelli's advice to the prince is always grounded in the best way to acquire and increase power, rather than in considerations of right or wrong. Word Count: 1180

Ryan 5 Sources: Machiavelli, Niccol, and Daniel John Donno. The Prince. New York: Bantam, 2003. Print. Zhu, Xi. "On the Principles of Governing the State and Bringing Peace to the World."Reflections on Things at Hand; the Neo-Confucian Anthology. New York: Columbia UP, 1967. 215. Print.