Feared Versus Loved: An Analysis of "The Prince" by Machiavelli

Other essays and articles in the Main Archives related to this topic include : Violence, Fear and Glory in "The Prince" by Machiavelli

In The Prince, Machiavelli sets forth several guidelines and a summary of behavior for a ruler and establishes that, “It is best to be both feared and loved, however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved.” [1] By suggesting this, he is saying that this is because a ruler that is well-loved is not always well-respected and is at risk of losing control, especially because of the devices of others. By instilling fear while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cruelty, the ruler is able to maintain power and perhaps at the same time still have the respect of his constituents. In essence, Machiavelli sees little value in love or the loyalty this might incur from his people. Instead, he feels that it is vital for rulers to make people aware of his ultimate power. In a more general sense, when Machiavelli states, “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is his own control and not that of others; he must endeavor to avoid hatred” he is saying that a ruler must be firm but cannot incur the hatred of his people or else his power will not be secure.

 
Many of Machiavelli’s statements throughout the text could easily lull one into believing that he is supporting a regime of violence and aggression as crucial to maintaining power. At several points throughout the text he discusses how violence can be essential to maintaining power, but these statements are nearly always backed up by softening elements. For example, while Machiavelli might suggest that it may be necessary to be violent toward a territory of unruly people in order to establish a sense of fear, “The prince should make himself feared in such a way that, if he is not loved, at least he escapes being hated.”[2] Although it is clearly for self-serving purposes, Machiavelli is not suggesting that one should be cruel toward a nation just because the position of power might allow for it. While he sees aggression and war as vital to the success of any leadership, this is not exactly something that exists for its own sake. Several scholars have mixed opinions about the argument that Machiavelli is not attempting to put forth a theory of violence and fear. Violent force is, at least, the short-term action of choice in Machiavellian politics. Acts of war and killing change any situation, if only for the moment, and in another context, what holds supporters in place, of course, is ultimately always coercion.”[3] The problem with this argument is that it fails to address the importance Machiavelli associates with a sense of glory. While a leader may be strong, aggressive, and feared by both his enemies and people, he cannot be called a great ruler because he lacks this necessary trait.

 
Machiavelli’s idea that a prince should be feared rather than loved is also tied in with his notions about what makes him honorable. While this may not seem at first to be something that Machiavelli cares about, it is a matter of retaining authority rather than the love of the people. The concept of glory keeps Machiavelli’s most shocking statements about necessary violence and cruelty (which make him feared rather than loved) in context. For instance, even though he discusses at length the times when violence is a necessary evil, he does not condone wholesale cruelty at all times. He prefers that any cruel acts be committed all at once instead as a series of constant predictable events. Furthermore, Machiavelli states that despite the occasional call for violence, “it cannot be called prowess to kill fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, or irreligious. These ways can win a prince power but not glory.”[4] Again, the idea of glory has more importance that critics such as Tarlton suggest since Machiavelli seems to think this is just as important as being feared. This is not just something that the Machiavelli considers in context of relationships with subjects, but also abroad. For instance, as one scholar notes, “Machiavelli believed that diplomacy, unlike military service, was of no significant virtue, and that in foreign policy it was no substitute for arms and money. Nevertheless, it enhanced the virtu of even the strongest prince.”[5] What is being suggested is that although having the capacity for war and violence, this alone is not something that can make one a successful ruler overall. It is the ability to at least appear (if not always act) in a diplomatic, kind, and fair way during certain advantageous times that makes a ruler great. The ability to garner honor and glory are thus of almost parallel importance to being an excellent warrior with a reputation of being feared.

 
In reviewing this text, it is impossible, even after a few successive readings of important sections, to gain a perfect understanding of what kind of leader would exist if he were forged from the advice in this book. He does make a compelling argument about the need for a ruler to be feared but his methods are almost too harsh. He advocates walking all over everyone to stay in power and admits that while being moral is a good thing, sometimes complete evil is necessary. It is feasible to think that a ruler could stay in power through these means but it does not seem possible to think that he would not eventually be hated by his people. One could imagine that he would be aggressive, untrustworthy, self-serving, and manipulative of course, but it might not be that simple. On the other hand, however, Machiavelli makes it a point to discuss how a leader with such bad characteristics could still be viewed as respectable and possessing the quality of virtu or glory as well. By looking at history and identifying certain rulers who did or did not fit this mold he created, Machiavelli shows that the best leaders in history were not those who were criminals or overly and unnecessarily cruel. Instead, the best leaders were those who practiced cruel or evil acts as a matter of necessity rather than because their positions allowed it. The idea of glory that he discusses becomes the yardstick by which a great ruler is measured, not how feared he was by his subjects or enemies.
 

References

[1] Machiavelli, N, The Prince (New York: Penguin Books, 1961), 109
[2] Ibid. 97.
[3] Tarlton, Charles D. 2003. 'Azioni in modo l'una dall' altra': action for action's sake in Machiavelli's The Prince. History of European Ideas 29, no. 2:123.
[4] Machiavelli, Prince,67.
[5] Machivelli, Prince, 62.

Article by Nicole Smith  ~   All Content Copyright 2008 Article Myriad. All Rights Reserved.

* If you are using this article as a study guide or as a resource for your own essays, please make sure to cite it as your source with proper citation, (even if you are just using a few important quotes or the same thesis statement or thesis statements) as this essay or article  is copyrighted material. For a short summary of citation guides, please visit the MLA main website where a synopsis, tips and analysis on how to properly cite references can be found.*