FEAR THIS

__________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. James Lee Williams

The College at Southwestern

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for IDE 2203-B

__________________

by

Wes Terry

March 4, 2008
 FEAR THIS

Niccolo Machiavelli answers a question in The Prince that has been asked by

leaders, politicians, and philosophers for ages. Is it better for one, while serving in a

position of authority, to be feared or to be loved? Machiavelli posits that it is better to be

feared and offers convincing evidence to support his claims by using history and human

psychology. Machiavelli’s worldview, heavily influenced by his love for history and war,

was instrumental in forming his belief that it was better for the prince to be feared rather

than loved, but this philosophy has devastating consequences when applied to the social

order of man because it completely ignores the moral will of God.

Machiavelli’s World

In order for one to fully understand Machiavelli’s contribution to history and

politics, whether he agrees with him or not, he must first understand the world

Machiavelli was writing in. Machiavelli was born in Florence in May of 1469 and first

served politically at the age of twenty-nine as 2nd Chancellor. Classically trained in the

humanities, Machiavelli was writing his own Latin compositions at the age of twelve!1

Imagine Machiavelli, a young and insightful student, full of passion and new

ideas, growing up in a world where humanism and renaissance were beginning to

overshadow the medieval worldview. This paradigm shift became most exemplified in his

own hometown of Florence. Machiavelli was born into a cultural reformation and, due to

his brilliant mind, had been equipped to add to that reformation politically. One could say
1
Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981), 3.

1
 2
it was his destiny.

Why Change?

What is it that Machiavelli saw in the political system of his day that caused

him to write such works as The Prince? This author argues that it was not so much the

political system of his day that caused his passion for politics but because he was an

epicure of history and war. This is not surprising. From 1498 to 1512 the core of

Machiavelli’s job consisted of planning and executing matters of war and foreign

relations.2 This undoubtedly affected his worldview and contributes to the discussion over

why Machiavelli believed it was better to be feared than loved.

Reading through The Prince, one will be taken back in history to great battles

between empires of old. In each case, Machiavelli adds commentary to explain what

makes a prince great and what is needed to sustain a good social order. The world’s best

social order to Machiavelli was the republic of Rome. Author H. Butterfield explains:

“It might be argued that the immense importance which he attached to the art
of war, the emphasis which he placed upon the personal military capacity of princes,
and the attention which he paid to the military aspect of governmental activity were
the result of his admiration and study of republican Rome. These things represented
the point at which he regarded his contemporaries as most open to criticism; they
represent perhaps the most important lesson which he drew for contemporary rulers
from ancient history.”3

Butterfield points out something important. Machiavelli was not only writing as

someone who wanted to criticize the current political situation. He was writing as a

romanticist and student of the classics who saw what had worked (and failed) in the past

and how to bring that paradigm into the social order of his day. For this, Machiavelli has
2
J.R. Hale, Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy (New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1960), 7-8.
3
H. Butterfield, The Statecraft of Machiavelli (London: G. Bell and Sons LTD,
1940), 93-94.
 3
been unfairly judged.

The reason so many moralists and conservatives criticize Machiavelli’s work is

because he places the office of the prince above the call of human morality and ethics. He

had a low view of the goodness in man. Concerning these matters, may the reader

contemplate two reasons why Machiavelli would feel this way.

One, Machiavelli saw the abuse of such means in the Roman Catholic Church.

Though not explicit in The Prince, a simple glance at history will show that the Roman

Catholic Church had a reputation of coercing people into faith and then holding them to

that moral excellency. Further, if one chose to believe otherwise, the “heretics” were

killed in the name of holiness.4 Machiavelli would never question the authority of

almighty God, or his so-called “chosen ones,” but he leaves the reader curious as to how

well this supposed theocracy could function in society.

Harvey Mansfield explains this curiosity on the part of Machiavelli by writing,

“He [Machiavelli] appreciates that Christianity tried to put an end to such partisanship

with belief in God…but he notes that partisanship continues and that Christians actually

inflame it by claiming that God is on their side – not above them, but behind them.”5 In

other words the people demanding moral excellence were themselves immoral!

The second reason is because Machiavelli was a Roman Romanticist! It was

Christianity that Machiavelli accused of creating the effeminate culture of his day. The

4
Leonard Verduin highlights the abuse of power in the Roman Catholic Church
while profiling certain groups that suffered that abuse with the loss of their lives. Many
times these men were deemed "heretics" because they disagreed with the Church on the
function of mass and baptism. Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 159.
5
Harvey C. Mansfield, A Students Guide to Political Philosophy (Wilmington:
ISI Books, 2001), 33.
 4
Church was teaching men to “despise worldly glory and to seek salvation in humble

contemplation instead of manly virtue.”6 This is quite opposite the religion of the Romans

which stressed glory, strength of mind and body, and patriotism.

Interestingly, despite Machiavelli’s break with moral restraints, he did not wish

to abolish organized religion completely. If there was one thing he learned from religion

it was that it functioned as a powerful motivator for getting people to both fear and love

you. Quentin Skinner points out that this had been the promise underlying Savonarola’s

campaign in Florence during the 1490’s. He persuaded the Florentines that, “he spoke

with God and that God’s message to the city was that He would restore it to its former

greatness as soon as it returned to its original piety.”7

Machiavelli saw no need to abolish a system that could possibly work to the

advantage of the prince; rather, he only argued that the prince should not be held to the

moral excellence that the system asks of its participants. In keeping with this, Machiavelli

goes on to explain that this system should never be sustained by relying on man’s

morality (since this is conditional to his circumstances) but by instead by physical force.

May these words from Machiavelli serve as a chilling reminder of the ills of

tyranny as seen throughout history. “It is easy to persuade them about some particular

matter, but it is hard to hold them to that persuasion. Hence it is necessary to provide that

when they no longer believe, they can be forced to believe.”8 Fear trumps love.

6
Ibid; Pg. 32.
7
Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981), 63.
8
Machiavelli elaborates that Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus, would have
been unable to have their constitutions obeyed for so long a time if they had been
unarmed. Likewise he blames Savonarola's failure to institute his new laws on the fact
that he had no means of forcing the unbelievers to believe and keep the faithful from
losing faith. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. Daniel Donno (New York: Bantam
 5
It is here that the darkness in Machiavelli’s logic begins to show itself clearly.

It is here that Machiavelli’s assumptions begin to compromise with what this author

believes is mandatory for effective leadership. It is this philosophy that has caused

paranoia-driven tyrants, of all persuasions, to act most grotesquely on their subjects,

though undeserving, all in an effort to protect their ill-gained power from attack.

Machiavelli believed in two classes of people. There were the rulers and the

ruled. Neither side can be brought to understand the other. Mansfield writes, “Political

men do not see why anyone could be satisfied with a life without glory, and nonpolitical

types do not see the reason why they would bother.”9 Agreeing with this assumption in

part, this does not give the ruler the authority to fraudulently conceal what he does,

calling it just, because those who are ruled simply “do not understand.” History is clear

on why such reasoning should be avoided.

A Critical Look

Machiavelli is dead wrong when he presupposes that morality serves no

authentic purpose in government or society. Likewise, Machiavelli’s conclusion, which

supposes that a prince should be more feared than loved because fear is controlled by the

agent who inflicts it, is also simply illogical.

Innocent Gentillet, a Huguenot lawyer contemporary with Machiavelli, wrote

these words in reaction to Machiavelli’s “better to be feared than loved” philosophy:

“Now concerning Machiavelli’s pronouncement that it is very difficult for a prince to be

Dell, 2003), 31.

9
Harvey C. Mansfield, A Students Guide to Political Philosophy (Wilmington:
ISI Books, 2001), 34.
 6
feared and loved at the same time; this is entirely erroneous.”10 Gentillet then supports his

critique of Machiavelli by using sound logic and convincing evidence from history.

“Friendship (said Cicero) is the true bond of all human society and whosoever wishes to

do away with good will among men (as Machiavelli did among princes) will succeed in

eliminating all pleasure, consolation, contentment, and security that exists among men.”11

These are timely words even for today’s tyrants.

There stands another notorious literary assault against Machiavelli by

Frederick II (Frederick the Great) before his accession to the throne of Prussia. After

acknowledging that such a book is somewhat useful to a mature politician Frederick II

writes, “Nor is it unlikely that ambitious young men, whose heart and judgment have not

yet matured enough to enable them to distinguish between good and evil, will be

corrupted by these maxims that flatter their passions.”12 This is a historical and prophetic

picture of what comes from Machiavelli’s philosophy when left in the wrong hands.

Admittedly, Machiavelli has been unfairly criticized. This is likely because

those who criticize him are unaware of the context in which he wrote. J.H. Hexter calls

this ignorance the third alternative for those who study Machiavelli. Explaining he writes,

“If the third alternative were found to hold with great regularity in Machiavelli’s writings

we had as well pack up our kit of erudition and go elsewhere because then it would be

10
Innocent Gentillet, Contre-Machiavel, ed. De Lamar Jensen, Machiavelli:
Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist? (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1960), 2.
11
Ibid; Pg. 3.
12
Frederick II (Frederick the Great), L'Antimachiavel, ed. De Lamar Jensen,
Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist? (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company,
1960), 5.
 7
quite impossible to ever find out what Machiavelli was talking about.”13 It is agreed that

context is of first importance in the process of interpretation. However, Machiavelli’s

context does not excuse all of his erroneous conclusions.

A Better Way

It seems as though Machiavelli is a product of his passions: war and politics.

Sadly, his amblyopic vision of what constitutes a healthy social order lacks a moral

foundation. Humanity has been given the image of God by their creator. The moral law of

God has been eternally written on the heart of man and, likewise, must be integrated into

the cruxes of government and society. Fossey Hearnshaw correctly writes these words,

“The records of history tend to show that Socrates and Plato were right when they said

that in the long run the knave and the fool are one and the same. For human society is

established on moral foundations, and righteousness must in the end prevail.”14

A leader of real greatness will exemplify the moral will of God in his own life.

In so doing, that leader will make decisions that will align his purposes with the purposes

of God. And, according to these premises, the eventual end of such means will create a

society that is sustained by men and women who are intentionally living under the rule of

God and thus make decisions that align to his will.

The unfortunate consequences of Machiavelli’s philosophy will be avoided.

The law of the land will be a law of love for one another. Men will fear but they will fear

God and the consequences of living outside of his will. When a social order decides to

13
J.H. Hexter, The Vision of Politics on the Eve of the Reformation (New York:
Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1973), 153.
14
Fossey John Cobb Hearnshaw, Some Great Political Idealist of the Christian
Era (Freeport: George G. Harrap & Company LTD, 1970), 79-80.
 8
serve God with their government they will elect men of godliness who will lead not only

in matters of war but in matters of character and integrity.

Other nations will see that government as the ancients saw Israel when they

modeled this well. God cannot be defeated and those he has chosen to be his people will

not be overtaken. Perhaps Machiavelli’s model would work if God were absent and men

of war were the only hope for survival. However, that is not the case. God is on his throne

and he gives and takes away the power from those he chooses. If society wishes to avoid

the unfortunate consequences of Machiavelli’s philosophy they must be a social order

that is rooted in the moral will of God and fearful of the consequences when they are

outside of it. May these words drive those who read them to resist Machiavellian men,

who manipulate morality, and, in their resistance, hold fast to men of godliness.
 9

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Butterfield, H. The Statecraft of Machiavelli. London: G. Bell and Sons LTD, 1940.

Frederick II (Frederick the Great). L'Antimachiavel. Edited by De Lamar Jensen.

Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist?. Boston: D.C. Heath and
Company, 1960.

Hale, J.R.. Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy. New York: The Macmillan Company,
1960.

Hearnshaw, Fossey John Cobb. Some Great Political Idealist of the Christian Era.
Freeport: George G. Harrap & Company LTD, 1970.

Hexter, J.H. The Vision of Politics on the Eve of the Reformation. New York: Basic
Books, Inc., Publishers, 1973.

Innocent, Gentillet. Contre-Machiavel. Edited by De Lamar Jensen. Machiavelli: Cynic,

Patriot, or Political Scientist?. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1960.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Translated by Daniel Donno. New York: Bantam Dell,
2003.

Mansfield, Harvey C. A Students Guide to Political Philosophy. Wilmington: ISI Books,

2001.

Skinner, Quentin. Machiavelli. New York: Hill and Wang, 1981.

Verduin, Leonard. The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.