Finding Quotes from Machiavelli’s Prince and Discourses
1. Method
Niccolò Machiavelli contradicts the advice in the Gospels of Mathew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 that “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Instead, Machiavelli argues that you shall “Do unto others as they would do unto you” (Machiavelli 2011, p.58)
The Christian Bible in 1 Corinthians 13:13 asserts “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” On the other hand, Machiavelli in The Prince holds that:
“But since it is difficult for a ruler to be both feared and loved, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two must be lacking. For this can generally be said of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for profit; and as long as you serve their welfare, they are entirely yours, offering you their blood, possessions, life and children…when the occasion to do so is not in sight; but when you are faced with it, they turn against you. And that prince who lays his foundations on their promises alone, finding himself stripped of other preparations, falls to ruin… For men are less concerned with hurting someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared, because love is held by a link of obligation which, since men are wretched creatures, is broken every time their own interests are at stake; but fear is held by a dread of punishment which will never leave you” (Machiavelli 2011, p.62).
Machiavelli addresses himself to moral and religious education of the pagan worldliness on the one hand and the Christian innocence on the other. He writes:
“Our religion, has glorified humble and contemplative men, monks, priests, humble and contemplative men, rather than men of action. It is assigned as man’s highest good humility, abnegation, and contempt for mundane things, whereas the other identified it with magnanimity, bodily strength, and everything that conduces to make men very bold. And if our religion demands that in you there be strength what it asks for is the strength to suffer rather than to do bold things” (Machiavelli 2009, p. 131).
He ridicules Christian strength as strength to suffer that thinks of Jesus Christ on the cross as opposed to strength to do bold things, leaving the world at the mercy of the wicked.
2. Concepts: Virtù And Fortuna
Machiavelli addresses the dichotomy between what the terms as virtù and fortuna, translated in English as virtue and fortune respectively. However, virtù can also be an equivalent of strength, character, valor, ability, talent, capability, vigor, shrewdness, ingenuity, competence, skill, effort, courage prowess, , power, energy, or bravery. Fortuna is the direct opposite of virtù, translating into temporal instability, fortuitous love. In the Prince, Machiavelli shows the persistent antagonism between virtue and fortune. He writes:
“I hold that it could be true that fortune is the arbiter of half of actions, but that she still leaves the other half, or close to it, to be governed by us. And she resembles one of those violent rivers which, when they become enraged, flood the plains, tear down trees and buildings, lift up the earth from one side and deposit it on the other… But this does not mean that men, when times are quiet, cannot take precautions with floodgates and embankments, so that, when the rivers swell up again, either they would move along through a canal, or their rush would not be so unchecked and harmful. The same happens with fortune, who displays her force where there is no prepared resource to resist her” (Machiavelli 2009, p.209).
Also in The Prince, Machiavelli discuses Cesare Borgia’s political career and paints his a model of virtù because of how the newly enthroned Borgia goes about gaining the obedience of his subjects with characteristic human nature of fear, greed, fickleness, and self-interest. Machiavelli writes:
“Later, Borgia decided that such excessive authority was no longer necessary, for he feared that it might become odious…. He had the minister placed one morning in Cesena on the piazza in two pieces with a block of wood and a bloodstained knife alongside him. The atrocity of such a spectacle left those people, at one and the same time, satisfied and stupefied” (Machaivelli 2009, p.69).
Further, Machiavelli shows the difference between political morality and societal morality. He opposes the relevance of political morality, arguing that craft and deceit are necessary in the pursuit and maintenance of power. As such, the priority of the power holder should be to maintain the security of the state notwithstanding the morality of the means used to achieve it. He states that:
“…he (the state leader) must stick to the good so long as he can, but, being compelled be necessity, he must be ready to take the way of the evil.”(Machiavelli 2009, 63).
Machiavelli thus pursued the reality of keeping power in a real and sinful society as opposed to the way the church would perceive society. He also stresses the need for a power holder to manipulate people’s passions so as to ensure self-preservation through power:
“For the manner in which men live is so far removed from the way in which men ought to live, that he who leaves the common course for that which he ought to follow will find that it leads him to ruin rather than to safety. For a man who, in all respects, will carry out only his professions of good, will be apt to be ruined among so many that are evil. A prince therefore who desires to maintain himself must learn not always to be good…” (Machaivelli 2011, p.189).
3. Insights
Machiavelli’s teaching on power nearly 500 years ago greatly remain relevant in contemporary politics. Many commentators term Machaivelli as the father of modern political science or modern political thought. He observed that to tell the measure of a ruler we need to “look at the men he has about him”. He also rightfully warned that “…there can be no worse example in a republic than to make a law and not to observe it” (Machaivelli 2011, p. 229).
Machaivelli’s argument in The Prince that the end – regardless of how immoral – justifies the means for preserving political power is still highly applicable to modern-day politics as evidenced by the immoral means many leaders across the world are using to get and maintain power. In line with the Machiavellian doctrine, many political leaders are masking their true intentions for seeking power, avoid inconsistency and often “act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion, in order to preserve the state” (Machaivelli 2009, p.69)
