Pope Alexander VI died in 1503, and his successor Pope Julius II was another strong and successful man who impressed Machiavelli with both his military ability and his cunning. But tension between France and the papacy led to Florence fighting with the French against the pope and his allies, the Spanish. The French lost, and Florence with them. In 1512 the Spanish dissolved the city-state’s government, the Medicis returned, and what was in effect a tyranny under Cardinal de’ Medici was installed. Machiavelli was fired from his political office and exiled to his farm in Florence. His political career might have revived under the rule of the Medicis, but in February 1513 he was falsely implicated in a plot against the family, and he was tortured, fined, and imprisoned.
Machiavelli was released from prison within a month, but his chances of re-employment were slim, and his attempts to find a new political position came to nothing. He decided to present the head of the de’ Medici family in Florence, Giuliano, with a book. By the time it was ready Giuliano had died, so Machiavelli changed the dedication to Giuliano’s successor, Lorenzo. The book was of a type popular at the time: advice to a prince.
Lorenzo the Magnificent (1449–1492) effectively ruled Florence from the death of his father in 1469 until his death. Though he ruled as a despot, the republic flourished under his guidance.
The Prince
Machiavelli’s book The Prince was witty and cynical, and showed a great understanding of Italy in general and Florence in particular. In it, Machiavelli sets out his argument that the goals of a ruler justify the means used to obtain them. The Prince differed markedly from other books of its type in its resolute setting aside of Christian morality. Machiavelli wanted to give ruthlessly practical advice to a prince and, as his experience with extremely successful popes and cardinals had shown him, Christian values should be cast aside if they got in the way.
Machiavelli’s approach centers on the notion of virtù, but this is not the modern notion of moral virtue. It shares more similarities with the medieval notion of virtues as the powers or functions of things, such as the healing powers of plants or minerals. Machiavelli is writing about the virtues of princes, and these were the powers and functions that concerned rule. The Latin root of virtù also relates it to manliness (as in “virile”), and this feeds into what Machiavelli has to say in its application both to the prince himself and to the state—where sometimes virtù is used to mean “success”, and describes a state that is to be admired and imitated.
Part of Machiavelli’s point is that a ruler cannot be bound by morality, but must do what it takes to secure his own glory and the success of the state over which he rules—an approach that became known as realism. But Machiavelli does not argue that the end justifies the means in all cases. There are certain means that a wise prince must avoid, for though they might achieve the desired ends, they lay him open to future dangers.
The main means to be avoided consist of those that would make the people hate their prince. They may love him, they may fear him—preferably both, Machiavelli says, though it is more important for a prince to be feared than to be loved. But the people must not hate him, for this is likely to lead to rebellion. Also, a prince who mistreats his people unnecessarily will be despised—a prince should have a reputation for compassion, not for cruelty. This might involve harsh punishment of a few in order to achieve general social order, which benefits more people in the long run.
In cases where Machiavelli does think that the end justifies the means, this rule applies only to princes. The proper conduct of citizens of the state is not at all the same as that of the prince. But even for ordinary citizens, Machiavelli generally disdains conventional Christian morality as being weak and unsuitable for a strong city.
"How difficult it is for a people accustomed to live under a prince to preserve their liberty!"
Niccolò Machiavelli
A ruler needs to know how to act like a beast, Machiavelli says in The Prince, and must imitate the qualities of the fox as well as the lion.
Prince or republic
There are reasons to suspect that The Prince does not represent Machiavelli’s own views. Perhaps the most important is the disparity between the ideas it contains and those expressed in his other main work, Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy. In the Discourses Machiavelli argues that a republic is the ideal regime, and that it should be instituted whenever a reasonable degree of equality exists or can be established. A princedom is only suitable when equality does not exist in a state, and cannot be introduced. However, it can be argued that The Prince represents Machiavelli’s genuine ideas about how the ruler should rule in such cases; if princedoms are sometimes a necessary evil, it is best that they be ruled as well as possible. Moreover, Machiavelli did believe that Florence was in such political turmoil that it needed a strong ruler to get it into shape.
"It must be understood that a prince cannot observe all those things which are considered good in men."
Niccolò Machiavelli
Pleasing the readers
The fact that The Prince was written by Machiavelli in order to ingratiate himself with the Medicis is another reason to treat its contents with caution. However, he also dedicated the Discourses to members of Florence’s republican government. Machiavelli, it could be argued, would have written what the dedicatee wanted to read.
The Prince, however, contains much that Machiavelli is thought to have genuinely believed, such as the need for a citizens’ militia rather than reliance on mercenaries. The problem lies in discerning which parts are his actual beliefs and which are not. It is tempting to divide them according to how well they fit with the intended reader’s own beliefs, but that is unlikely to give an accurate result.
It has also been suggested that Machiavelli was attempting satire, and his real intended audience was the republicans, not the ruling elite. This idea is supported by the fact that Machiavelli did not write it in Latin, the language of the elite, but in Italian, the language of the people. Certainly, The Prince at times reads satirically, as though the audience is expected to conclude: “if that is how a good prince should behave, we should at all costs avoid being ruled by one!” If Machiavelli was also satirizing the idea that “the end justifies the means”, then the purpose of this small, deceptively simple book is far more intriguing than one might originally assume.
"The world has become more like that of Machiavelli."
Bertrand Russell
Ruthlessness has been a virtue of leadership throughout history. In the 20th century, the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini used a mixture of fear and love to hold on to power in Italy.
NICCOLÒ MACHIAVELLI
Machiavelli was born in Florence in 1469. Little is known of the first 28 years of his life; apart from a few inconclusive mentions in his father’s diary, the first direct evidence is a business letter written in 1497. From his writings, though, it is clear that he received a good education, perhaps at the University of Florence.
By 1498, Machiavelli had become a politician and diplomat of the Florentine Republic. After his enforced retirement on the return of the Medicis to Florence in 1512, he devoted himself to various literary activities, as well as persistent attempts to return to the political arena. Eventually he regained the trust of the Medicis, and Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici commissioned him to write a history of Florence. The book was finished in 1525, after the cardinal had become Pope Clement VII. Machiavelli died in 1527, without achieving his ambition to return to public life.
Key works
15
13 The Prince
1517 Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy
See also: Plato • Francis Bacon • Jean-Jacques Rousseau • Karl Marx
IN CONTEXT
BRANCH
Epistemology
APPROACH
Epistemology
BEFORE
4th century BCE Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, argues that to be virtuous, a person must be sociable and form close relationships with others; only a bestial man or a god can flourish alone.
AFTER
Late 18th century Anglican evangelical clergyman Richard Cecil states, “Solitude shows us what we should be; society shows us what we are.”
Late 19th century Friedrich Nietzsche describes solitude as necessary to the task of self-examination, which he claims can alone free humans from the temptation just to thoughtlessly follow the mob.
In his essay “On Solitude” (from the first volume of his Essays), Montaigne takes up a theme that has been popular since ancient times: the intellectual and moral dangers of living among others, and the value of solitude. Montaigne is not stressing the importance of physical solitude, but rather of developing the ability to resist the temptation to mindlessly fall in with the opinion and actions of the mob. He compares our desire for the approval of our fellow humans to being overly attached to material wealth and possessions. Both passions diminish us, Montaigne claims, but he does not conclude that we should relinquish either, only that we should cultivate a detachment from them. By doing so, we may enjoy them—and even benefit from them—but we will not become emotionally enslaved to them, or devastated if we lose them.
“On Solitude” then considers how our desire for mass approval is linked to the pursuit of glory, or fame. Contrary to thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli, who see glory as a worthy goal, Montaigne believes that constant striving for fame is the greatest barrier to peace of mind, or tranquility. He says of those who present glory as a desirable goal that they “only have their arms and legs out of the crowd; their souls, their wills, are more engaged with it than ever.”
Montaigne is not concerned with whether or not we achieve glory. His point is that we should shake off the desire for glory in the eyes of other people—that we should not always think of other people’s approval and admiration as being valuable. He goes on to recommend that instead of looking for the approbation of those around us, we should imagine that some truly great and noble being is constantly with us, able to observe our most private thoughts, a being in whose presence even the mad would hide their failings. By doing this, we will learn to think clearly and objectively and behave in a more thoughtful and rational manner. Montaigne claims that caring too much about the opinion of those around us will corrupt us, either because we end up imitating those who are evil, or become so consumed by hatred for them that we lose our reason.
Montaigne experienced the results of mindless mob violence during the French Wars of Religion (1562–98), including the atrocities of the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre of 1572.
Glory’s pitfalls
Montaigne returns to his attack on the pursuit of glory in his later writings, pointing out that the acquisition of glory is often so much a matter of mere chance that it makes little sense to hold it in such reverence. “Many times I’ve seen [fortune] stepping out ahead of merit, and often a long way ahead,” he writes. He also points out that encouraging statesmen and political leaders to value glory above all things, as Machiavelli does, merely teaches them never to attempt any endeavor unless an approving audience is on hand, ready and eager to bear witness to the remarkable nature of their powers and achievements.
"Contagion is very dangerous in crowds. You must either imitate the vicious or hate them."
Michel de Montaigne
MICHEL DE MONTAIGNE
Michel Eyquem de Montaigne was born and brought up in his wealthy family’s chateau near Bordeaux. However, he was sent to live with a poor peasant family until the age of three, so that he would be familiar with the life led by the ordinary workers. He received all his education at home, and was allowed to speak only Latin until the age of six. French was effectively his second language.
From 1557, Montaigne spent 13 years as a member of his local parliament, but resigned in 1571, on inheriting the family estates.
Montaigne published his first volume of Essays in 1580, going on to write two more volumes before his death in 1592. In 1580, he also set out on an extensive tour of Europe, partly to seek a cure for kidney stones. He returned to politics in 1581, when he was elected Mayor of Bordeaux, an office he held until 1585.
Key works
1569 In Defence of Raymond Sebond
1580–1581 Travel Journal
1580, 1588, 1595 Essays (3 volumes)
See also: Aristotle • Niccolò Machiavelli • Friedrich Nietzsche
IN CONTEXT
BRANCH
Epistemology
APPROACH
Epistemology
BEFORE
4th century BCE Aristotle sets observation and inductive reasoning at the center of scientific thinking.
13th century English scholars Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon add experimentation to Aristotle’s inductive approach to scientific knowledge.
AFTER
1739 David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature argues against the rationality of inductive thinking.
1843 John Stuart Mill’s System of Logic outlines the five inductive principles that together regulate the sciences.
1934 Karl Popper states that falsification, not induction, defines the scientific method.
Bacon is often credited with being the first in a tradition of thought known as British empiricism, which is characterized by the view that all knowledge must come ultimately from sensory experience. He was born at a time when there was a shift from the Renaissance preoccupation with the rediscovered achievements of the ancient world toward a more scientific approach to knowledge. There had already been some innovative work by Renaissance scientists such as the astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus and the anatomist Andreas Vesalius, but this new period—sometimes called the Scientific Revolution—produced an astonishing number of scientific thinkers, including Galileo Galilei, William Harvey, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, and Isaac Newton.
Although the Church had been broadly welcoming to science for much of the medieval period, this was halted by the rise of opposition to the Vatican’s authority during the Renaissance. Several religious reformers, such as Martin Luther, had complained that the Church had been too lax in countering scientific challenges to accounts of the world based on the Bible. In response, the Catholic Church, which had already lost adherents to Luther’s new form of Christianity, changed its stance and turned against scientific endeavor. This opposition, from both sides of the religious divide, hampered the development of the sciences.
Bacon claims to accept the teachings of the Christian Church. But he also argues that science must be separated from religion, in order to make the acquisition of knowledge quicker and easier, so that it can be used to improve the quality of people’s lives. Bacon stresses this transforming role for science. One of his complaints is that science’s ability to enhance human existence had previously been ignored, in favor of a focus on academic and personal glory.
Bacon presents a list of the psychological barriers to pursuing scientific knowledge in terms that he calls collectively the “idols of the mind.” These are the “idols of the tribe”, the tendency of human beings as a species (or “tribe”) to generalize; the “idols of the cave”, the human tendency to impose preconceptions on nature rather than to see what is rea
lly there; the “idols of the marketplace”, our tendency to let social conventions distort our experience; and the “idols of the theater”, the distorting influence of prevailing philosophical and scientific dogma. The scientist, according to Bacon, must battle against all these handicaps to gain knowledge of the world.
Science, not religion, was regarded increasingly as the key to knowledge from the 16th century onward. This 1598 print depicts the observatory of Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546–1601).
Scientific method
Bacon goes on to argue that the advancement of science depends on formulating laws of ever-increasing generality. He proposes a scientific method that includes a variation of this approach. Instead of making a series of observations, such as instances of metals that expand when heated, and then concluding that heat must cause all metals to expand, he stresses the need to test a new theory by going on to look for negative instances—such as metals not expanding when they are heated.
Bacon’s influence led to a focus on practical experimentation in science. He was, however, criticized for neglecting the importance of the imaginative leaps that drive all scientific progress.
"By far the best proof is experience."
Francis Bacon
The Philosophy Book Page 13