The Comedies of Machiavelli, Essay Example

Prima facie, one of the governing contradictions of Machiavelli’s political theory as elaborated in The Prince is in his usage of conflicting concepts. To the extent that Machiavelli can be seen to present a theory that summarizes political theory in terms of the notion that the success of any ruler is dependent upon a realistic perspective that emphasizes the maintenance of princely power, at the same time Machiavelli evokes notions such as compassion, honesty and liberality. However, Machiavelli only employs such notions to the extent that these traits are subordinate to the primary goal of effective princely rule. Accordingly, the immediate contradictory appearance of Machiavelli’s claims can be rather thought of in terms of a radically malleable political theory, in which Machiavelli begins from a central thesis and then posits various political scenarios in terms of this very thesis. The thematic of Machiavelli’s treatise is at the outset clear, as he states he intends to examine how monarchies can be “governed and maintained.” The central thesis of the treatise is thus the notion of the preservation of a particular kind of government. Insofar as this preservation assumes a nodal role, all conceivable political situations in Machiavelli are posited in terms of this initial theoretical framework. In the following essay, we will examine how Machiavelli utilizes the aforementioned notions of compassion, honesty and liberality in relation to the guiding thread of his thesis as the preservation and effectiveness of princely rule.

Machiavelli’s utilization of compassion is tied to the effectivity of princely rule: such compassion must be measured in terms of the latter. For example, in Part 15, Machiavelli establishes the thesis that princes “are reputed for certain qualities which bring them either praise or blame.” (61) He discerns compassion to be one of these qualities, to the extent that some princes may be considered “humane, whilst another haughty.” (61) The significance of such notions, however, does not lie in their intrinsic meaning, but rather in how they are applied to the maintenance of state rule. Thus, Machiavelli writes that “one will admit that it would be highly praiseworthy in a prince to posses all the above-named qualities that are reputed good”, (61) however, at the same time this is contrary to the very nature of “human conditions” (61) as there is essentially no perfect human being. Accordingly, a trait such as compassion is important insofar as it helps maintain the state. That is, there can be a strategic advantage in such compassion in order ot help ensure the consistency of state power. Concomitantly, however, the very notion of the maintenance of state power means that the prince “must not mind incurring the scandal of those vices, without which it would be difficult to save the State.” (Machiavelli, 61) In other words, the realism of the political arena requires a certain ruthlessness as opposed to compassion, since politics itself is not merely a field that is constituted by some naive idealistic perspective of a metaphysical human good. Hence, as Atkinson notes, for Machiavelli “compassion, when appropriate, is a value that authority must know how to demonstrate.” (11) The key word is appropriate – in essence, compassion for Machiavelli is a question of pragmatism within the paradigm of realpolitik.

Honesty functions in much the same manner in Machiavelli’s treatise. Machiavelli wrties: “How praiseworthy it is for a prince to keep his faith, and to live with honesty.” (68) However, Machiavelli immediately qualifies this statement by noting that “princes who have done great things are those who have taken little account of faith and have known how to get around men’s brains with their astuteness.” (68-69) In this sudden switch of position, Machiavelli evokes two accounts of honesty; everyone will necessarily praise the honest prince, whereas the Prince who has accomplished great things will not share this same quality. The dichotomy he presents is thus either political popularity or the maintenance of power.  Since Machiavelli’s treatise concerns power, honesty is therefore only valuable to the extent that it may serve this latter goal. Moreover, in the overwhelming number of cases, for Machiavelli, honesty is not a beneficial quality to a prince. As Bernard interprets Machiavelli’s position: “While the reputation for honesty may be a prerequisite for achieving power, order, and happiness, the reality is not required and may even on occasion be a hindrance.” (43) Honesty is only useful to the extent that it serves the greater role of political power.

The notion of liberality is especially prescient to a state insofar as it denotes a clear relationship between the Prince and his subjects in terms of the freedoms to the former grants to the latter. However, Machiavelli views such liberality as an intrinsic threat to authority. Machiavelli writes: “Since a prince cannot, without damage to himself, use the virtue of liberality so that it is recognized, he should not, if he is prudent, care about a name for meanness.” (62) The notion of liberality by very definition subtracts from the power that is concentrated in the Prince. This is because liberality allows realms of decision to be determined by the populace, which removes a sphere of influence in the Prince’s realpolitik. Whereas Machiavelli concedes that to a certain extent liberality must be allowed, it nevertheless must be restrained: “I say that it would be good to be held liberal; nonetheless, liberality, when used so that you may be held liberal, hurts you.” (62-63) The crucial gesture in realpolitik is thus to be perceived as liberal, whereas in reality this liberality is merely to serve as a facade in order to maintain state or princely power.

The flexibility of Machiavelli’s utilization of such concepts can thus be understood according to the manner with which they are made to be consistent with his central thesis concerning the preservation of princely authority. Insofar as politics is an essentially dynamic arena, this flexibility of concepts shows how such concepts in themselves remained determined in the last instance by the political paradigm as it is defined by power. Thus, despite the apparent contradictions in Machiavelli’s commentary, he presents a systematic and consistent discourse when viewed from the perspective of his central thesis on the heterogeneity of realpolitik and the preservation of power.

References

Atkinson, James B. “An Essay on Machiavelli and Comedy.” The Comedies of Machiavelli. Ed. David Sices and James B. Atkinson, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2007. 1-34.

Bernard, John D. Why Machiavelli Matters: A Guide to Citizenship in a Democracy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2009.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.