Comparing Machiavelli's The Prince And The Discourses

Western Political Theory
Professor Roger Paden
Authored by Jorge A. Osuna

Concerning Machiavelli’s Philosophy

Niccolò Machiavelli was a very complex thinker who displayed his thought through several works. There is strong biographical evidence that suggests that the author worked on The Prince and The Discourses at the same time, writing the former’s first draft in 1513 and starting to write the latter during the same year. It is obvious then that in order to understand the essence of The Prince we cannot restrict ourselves only to its lines, but we must look beyond into Machiavelli’s other writings, such as The Discourses, to achieve a general understanding of his philosophy, and to better appreciate the full picture he wished to put together.
It is evident that Machiavelli drastically separated himself from rationalism, he did not bother to resort to abstruse hypotheses to discover the truth, and instead took a rather empiricist approach when interpreting the world. He relied on his senses and dealt with the messy reality that these put in front of him:
“I have decided that I must concern myself with the truth of the matter as facts show it rather than with any fanciful notion.
Yet many have fancied for themselves republics and principalities that have not been seen or known to exist in reality. For there is such a difference between how men live and how they ought to live that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his destruction rather than his preservation […] ” (The Prince, Chapter 15)
Far from being a Utopian, Machiavelli analyzed history from a human perspective, separating himself from the Christian view of history seen as providential. He tried to discover how to bring the most good to society in spite of what he considered humanity’s inherent tendency to evil. This view, seen from a historical perspective, goes in defense of freedom, since those who follow the path of pure reason, and often claim to have found the Platonic truth of how we should live our lives, are more than often ready to coerce the rest to conform to it. Machiavelli had a perception of human nature quite different from Hobbes’. He believed that human nature would resort to evil unless some hidden cause prevented it from doing so, and he reveals this cause to be the
law: “From the moment that they [humans] have the option and liberty to commit wrong with impunity, then they never fail to carry confusion and disorder everywhere. It is this that has caused it to be said that poverty and hunger make men industrious, and the law makes men good; and if fortunate circumstances cause good to be done without constraint, the law may be dispensed with. But when such a happy influence is lacking, then the law immediately becomes necessary.” (The Discourses, 1:3)
Machiavelli’s vision of glory was more similar to Rousseau’s, a vision of people living freely under laws they create for themselves. He considered that humanity had both the potential for glory and for corruption, and that the law determined whether the former or the latter was achieved.
In The Discourses, Machiavelli shows a strong commitment to the Republic as the ideal form of government, and he did so for he believed it brought “the common good” to society. This commitment shows Machiavelli’s true intentions, to realistically bring the most good possible to society:
“It is truly a marvelous thing to consider to what greatness Athens arrived in the space of one hundred years after she freed herself from the tyranny of Pisistratus; but, above all, it is even more marvelous to consider the greatness Rome reached when she freed herself from her kings. The reason is easy to understand, for it is not the well-being of individuals that makes cities great, but the well-being of the community. And it is beyond question that it is only in republics that the common good is looked to properly in that all that promotes it is carried out; and, however much this or that private person may be the loser on this account there are so many who benefit thereby that the common good can be realized in spite of those few who suffer in consequence.” (The Discourses, 2:2)
Since Machiavelli believed that in order to satisfy our needs we engage in social interactions, and that the law arises from the necessity to regulate those interactions, we can conclude that the law is in place so we may satisfy our needs. This conclusion along with the aforementioned importance of the law in determining whether humans achieve glory or fall into corruption, gives us an idea of Machiavelli’s ethical stance. We can expect that he would approve of our obedience to good laws, but when these laws were absent, we were no longer subject to conventional morality, and, recognizing the objective value of civilization, it would be our duty to do whatever is necessary to establish a system of good laws.
Machiavelli believed that those who took on their own hands bringing back civilization were glorious leaders, and he makes an emphasis on Big Men creating governments both in The Prince and The Discourses. This marks a drastic contrast with the medieval spirit, since he recognizes man’s ability to create his own future. He praises Theseus, Solon, Romulus, Moses, and Cyrus in this regard, and admires their excellence and success as founders. He worships their ability of going beyond morality giving us a great indicator of his intention for writing The Prince. Machiavelli believes that a Republic is the most desirable form of government, and he believes that for a Republic to rise there must be a leader to found it. In the absence of good laws this leader must go beyond morality to achieve his glorious end. The Prince presents the guidelines for the leader to rise to power and to hold it, as the discourses present an argument for a free Republic to be brought about.
In this spirit we must analyze one of The Prince’s most important quotes:
“And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to faith, friendship, humanity, and religion. Therefore it is necessary for him to have a mind ready to turn itself accordingly as the winds and variations of fortune force it, yet, as I have said above, not to diverge from the good if he can avoid doing so, but, if compelled, then to know how to set about it.”
Machiavelli immediately separates princes from conventional morality when he says, “a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed”. Then when he says that the prince is “forced” he is asserting the separation to be not out of will, but out of necessity. Finally Machiavelli advices The Prince “not to diverge from the good if he can avoid doing so” making clear the importance of good over evil, which is the ultimate goal, and the root of the author’s strong belief in republicanism.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Chabod, Federico. Machiavelli and The Reinassance (London, 1958), pp. 31-32.