Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian politician, historian, and author of The Prince, a novel written in 1513 about the rise to political power and maintaining political power. Through Machiavelli’s text we gain insight to politics during the Renaissance and learn Machiavelli’s thoughts on what makes a good leader. Even though the book was written in specific after Machiavelli had been tortured for a week as a prisoner after the fall of the Florentine Republic, we still use The Prince as a foundation for political theory as the book transcends historical moments. By comparing The Prince to Jacob Burckhardt, analyzing Machiavelli’s principles, and looking into Machiavelli’s notion of virtù we are able to better comprehend the Italian Renaissance and how an article written for a specific historical moment can still be used as a political foundation.
Jacob Burckhardt was a historian of art and culture and the author of, “The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy,” which laid the foundation for our understanding of the renaissance. Now how does that play into the text, The Prince? Burckhardt brought to light two main concepts that play defining roles in what we understand of the renaissance. The first of these two concepts is individuality. Up until the 14th century, at the beginning of the Italian Renaissance, people didn’t view themselves as individuals and therefore didn’t identify in an individualistic light. Before the Renaissance people always identified as a part of something bigger such as a family or a religious affiliation, but the emergence of the Renaissance era wouldn’t have been possible if people still viewed themselves as just a piece to the puzzle that they had no power over. This idea of individualism was very modern and something that is still prevalent. Before the Renaissance everything was left up to divine will and God, so how can one take control over their life if they don’t believe they have any effect in the outcome? This is where individualism plays a role by allowing the people to believe that they had some control over their life. While it is one thing to read Burckhardt’s text and assume it to be true, it is another thing to read The Prince and see individualism unfold firsthand. Early on in the novel Machiavelli states, “many have held and still hold the view that the affairs of this world are so completely governed by fortune and by God that human prudence is incapable of correcting them. So one may conclude that there is no point in trying too hard; one should simply let chance have its way… nevertheless, since our free will must not be eliminated, I think it may be true that fortune determines one half of our actions, but that, even so, she leaves us to control the other half.” While this quote is lengthy, it proves Machiavelli to be an exemplar of the idea of the Renaissance in the same light that Burckhardt depicts the Renaissance. Machiavelli is saying that while some people believe that our whole life is left to fortune and God with no choice left up to us, he believes that our free will, our individualism, is important and that while half may be left to fortune and God, the other half is our own free will; which is the exact idea of individualism that Burckhardt depicted. The second concept that Burckhardt uses to help along our understanding of the Renaissance is the idea of secularization. The concept of secularization that Burckhardt is referring to differs from our modern view of the word “secular” in the fact that we would associate secularity with having no religious affiliation, while that wasn’t the case in reference to the Renaissance era. Secularization during the Renaissance was important because it referred to religion losing some of its social and cultural significance, which in turn allowed people to create a life outside of just their religious beliefs. Secularization during the Renaissance relates to individualism because this new secularization meant a shift in how the people viewed life. They were now able to take their life seriously because they believed they had the ability to impact their time on earth rather than just accepting life on earth for what it was and waiting for the afterlife. Thus we see another example of Machiavelli backing up Burckhardt as Machiavelli commonly refers to the fact that a successful ruler cannot always do what is morally right or respectable. Without secularization, this kind of ruler would never be seen because going against ones morals and beliefs for the benefit of power would be directly contradicting religion.
Virtù and how it relates to the efforts to make something new of yourself, the characterizing factor of the commoners in trading cities? The historical context that Machiavelli wrote The Prince in was after the fall of the Florentine Republic and after he had been tortured for a week, just 10 months prior to writing the novel. I can’t speak on if that influenced his view of human wickedness and the ruthlessness that he says is required of a ruler, but it would be logical. A common theme throughout Machiavelli’s text is that it is “better for a ruler to be feared than loved.” I would have to agree with that statement when we are talking about rulers in power. Because pain is the most common thing that we fear, you can get your citizens to act out of fear of pain, but love has no consequence, only reward, thus making it more difficult to get action and respect out of love. Machiavelli states, “He [the prince] must be mentally prepared to act as circumstances and changes in fortune require… he should do what is right if he can; but he must be prepared to do wrong if necessary.” He follows this with, “because you cannot always win if you respect the rules, you must be prepared to break them.” This backs Burckhardt’s statement on secularization, because if the moral backing were all the way there for rulers, it wouldn’t be okay to defy the rules just to gain power. While it doesn’t seem morally just for a ruler to go against what is right, I understand and agree with doing wrong temporarily. This idea, that the end justifies the means, is an overarching theme that has allowed The Prince to stay relevant across historical moments. The final topic to touch on is Machiavelli in modern day. We’ve already seen how individualism is still used, we’ve said that Machiavelli has been a foundation for Western politics, and sometimes a ruler has to be wicked and ruthless in order to maintain power. But does that mean that all leaders should follow Machiavelli’s principles even in modern day? I don’t think so, at least not to the letter. There are concepts in The Prince that all leaders can learn from, and there are ideas that can be implemented no matter what time period we’re talking about. Politics are by no means all good, I think all leaders have done things that they wouldn’t be morally proud of, the citizens just don’t know of it. Machiavelli writes, “a ruler ought not to mind the disgrace of being called cruel, if he keeps his subjects peaceful and law-abiding.” This summarizes the entirety of my beliefs towards Machiavelli’s principles. A ruler sometimes will have to go against to normative rules and morals in order to do what is best for the end picture. Where I differ from Machiavelli is in the desire, I don’t think the desire in modern politics should be for gaining power, the desire and the root of a ruler’s actions should be for the benefit of the citizens. The end justifies the means if the end is for the bettering of the citizens, we can’t just use “the end justifies the means,” so a ruler can justify their actions to oppress a population. Nevertheless, the writing done by Machiavelli has laid the foundation of concepts that will always be relevant, and Burckhardt has helped along our understanding of these concepts, for that, both are important historical texts.