Mirror of Princes

As I have read through the various essays and literature provided by the humanists such as Plato and Machiavelli, I find myself turning back to Machiavelli.  It is not that the others did not make sense to me; in truth, each had a logical reasoning to their points of view of which they wished to express, and yet Machiavelli, himself was practical in how he approached the topic of government and rulers. 

The translator, W.K. Marriot states, Machiavelli was careful and precise with the placement of his words.  If one did not pay close attention to how the words married with one another, one in truth may miss the underlying implied meaning that Machiavelli intended, rather than the more common place companionship of terms.  This is put forth in perfect harmony for the reader to understand the complexity of Machiavelli and how he understood how to bring comprehension where none was before. 

This is put forth in perfect harmony for the reader to understand the complexity of Machiavelli and how he understood how to bring comprehension where none was before.  Machiavelli states in his dedication how he will not adore or embellish what he wishes to present to his patron, Lorenzo Di Piero De' Medici, and yet what I found ironic was his very words belied his statement.  He showed mocking deference to Medici, flattering the man and yet makes it clear of the two of them, he, Machiavelli, is the more wise and intelligent.  

“And although I may consider this work unworthy of your countenance, nevertheless I trust much to your benignity that it may be acceptable, seeing that it is not possible for me to make a better gift than to offer you the opportunity of understanding in the shortest time all that I have learnt in so many years, and with so many troubles and dangers; which work I have not embellished with swelling or magnificent words, nor stuffed with rounded periods, nor with any extrinsic allurements or adornments whatever, with which so many are accustomed to embellish their works; for I have wished either that no honour should be given it, or else that the truth of the matter and the weightiness of the theme shall make it acceptable.” (Machiavelli, The Prince)

As we delve further into the chapters of Machiavelli’s little book, we are not only given a glimpse of what he has observed and the information he has gathered through his years of service, but we are also able to garner a time table of Italy and its states, through the shifting periods and changing political faces.  Machiavelli does not just delve within what is needed if one wishes to rule with distinction, but he uses examples from history and antiquity such as the Romans to give credence to his logic.  One of his prime statement comes with the concept that if a conqueror wishes to be a Prince / Ruler of a people that respect and love him, then he needs to settle within that country.  A ruler who does not settle within his conquered state will be unable to hold his new found power. 

Another lesson in the holding of power comes from understanding that one must weaken those who would be stronger and powerful than he.  As Machiavelli notes in Chapter III how the Romans were able to use these lessons in order to deal with the Greeks before they were able to grow in strength.  The Romans were invited into Italy by the Aetolians, allowing them a foothold in a country they previously had none.  Greece, not properly managing the Italian states soon loses those states to the Romans, due to the roman strength and greater mechanics. 

Machiavelli goes on to compare the Romans & Greeks predicament to that of King Louis XII.  Machiavelli denotes how Louis would have made an excellent king of Italy, except he failed to understand what the Romans, they did.  He was not a machine who comprehended the mechanics of strength, overall.  Instead he failed to keep the power within his own hands, where it should of resides, thereby separating church and state.  When Louis took Milan he made a fatal error: “he did the contrary by assisting Pope Alexander to occupy the Romagna. It never occurred to him that by this action he was weakening himself, depriving himself of friends and of those who had thrown themselves into his lap, whilst he aggrandized the Church by adding much temporal power to the spiritual, thus giving it greater authority. And having committed this prime error, he was obliged to follow it up, so much so that, to put an end to the ambition of Alexander, and to prevent his becoming the master of Tuscany, he was himself forced to come into Italy.” (Machiavelli, The Prince)

When I compared Machiavelli’s original production with that of Felix Gilbert’s Thesis “The Humanist Concept of the Prince and the Prince in Machiavelli,” I came away with two very different looks at the same topic.  Where Machiavelli was intent upon giving us structure and a basis for future establishments of authorities and ruling bodies, Gilbert, on the other hand, gave us more the moral and decorum of what a Prince should behave as.  Machiavelli tended to stay focused upon the ideas and concepts of what government needed in order to be successful for its people and state.  Gilbert brought into focus, through the works of Egido and how Egido states “The prince, he says, must set an example to his subjects, both in the conduct of his private life and the ordering of his court and household. Thus, when Egidio describes the ordering of the prince's household, he merely draws a picture of how a model household ought to be managed according to the precepts of religion. He deduces the prince's political duties from those principles of natural jus- tice by which the prince himself was bound and which it was his duty to see applied.”(Felix Gilbert, The Humanist Concept)

As I look at present day situations and politics I find that Machiavelli’s logic and lessons can and often are still applied.  We, as a people seek to separate church and state from government, unfortunately, this is never as easy a factor as one might perceive.  Whether we are looking to interfere with politics in other countries or dealing with issues here within our own boarders we find ourselves coming up against the very issues Machiavelli warned against, such as over-extending ones power by placing the expansive colonist/military without taking into consideration how this will cause upheaval and rebellion if we take too much from the poor and civilians of the countries we are seeking to conquer.  Plato, through poetic verse managed to express the idealistic view point of what one could only hope we would eventually obtain as a culture:

“And are not those who are verily and indeed wanting in the knowledge of the true being of each thing, and who have in their souls no clear pattern, and are unable as with a painter's eye to look at the absolute truth and to that original to repair, and having perfect vision of the other world to order the laws about beauty, goodness, justice in this, if not already ordered, and to guard and preserve the order of them --are not such persons, I ask, simply blind?

In the first place, as we began by observing, the nature of the philosopher has to be ascertained. We must come to an understanding about him, and, when we have done so, then, if I am not mistaken, we shall also acknowledge that such an union of qualities is possible, and that those in whom they are united, and those only, should be rulers in the State.” (Plato, The Republic VI)

References:

1.      Plato. "The Internet Classics Archive | The Republic by Plato." The Internet Classics Archive | The Republic by Plato. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. .

2.      Machiavelli, Nicolo. "The Prince." Medieval Sourcebook: Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527): The Prince, 1513. Internet History Sourcebooks Project. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. .

3.      Gilbert, Felix. "The Humanist Concept of the Prince and the Prince of Machiavelli." The Journal of Modern History 11.4 (1939): 449-83. Web.