Caitlin Mitchell

Paper 1
2/5/2015
The Murderous Machiavel: Intentional or Accidental?
Machiavelli at times, indeed, endorses the pursuit of power at any price; but he makes
this claim with an important distinction While the attaining of power requires incalculable
cruelty, it does not change the perception the people hold of the Prince or ultimately what
principles should guide politics in their eyes. However, it is clear that although the perception
may change, the ultimate actions that the Prince takes are indeed motivated by a pursuit of not
just power, but also of a common good for society and the Prince combined.
As a brief outline, this paper will first address the issue of why the distinction between
the pursuit of power and the perception of reality becomes important. Second, it will further
discuss what reputation the Prince should pursue while in power; and finally, the conclusion
will address what principles Machiavelli endorses when examining any government.
To begin, it is important to address that the perception of the Prince and Machiavelli
being both cruel and inhuman is true. In his novel, The Prince, Machiavelli discusses that while
it would be ideal to have a prince that was considered a man of principle, reality dictates that he
be more ruthless when attempting to rule a group of citizens.1 The reasoning behind this, as
Machiavelli explains, relates to the assumption that all men are selfish and will be cruel in order
to attain the ends that they desire. As he briefly explains in The Prince, For one can say this
generally of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and dissemblers, evaders of danger,
eager for gain.2
1
2

The assumption that all men behave this way is quite important because it dictates the status
quo of humanity, and, in doing so, inevitably commands how the Prince should behave. Due to
the nature of humanity, a man cannot rule a kingdom and assume that he is constantly secure in
his position and power. Therefore, it becomes crucial to the stability of the kingdom itself that
the Prince rules through cruelty more so than anything else. As Machiavelli further explains,
From this dispute arises whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The
response is that one would want to be both the one and the other; but because it is
difficult to put them together, it is much safer to be feared than lovedfor love is held by
a chain of obligation, which, because men are wicked, is broken at every opportunity for
their own utility, but fear is held by a dread of punishment that never forsakes you.3
Therefore, while a Prince may choose to be beloved by his people that creates a bond of love that
will not guarantee security in his reign. The importance of this conclusion lies not only in the
establishment of where the security of power comes from, but also from the definition of why it
is easier to secure power through fear than love. Due to the nature of the obligation the citizens
make with the Prince and what Machiavelli assumes mans behavior will follow, he is
concluding that it is not that a Prince should be truly evil; but that a Prince must be evil to
ensure that men do not cause one another or the state harm.
The reputation of the Murderous Machiavel comes from these above conclusions that
not only are men evil and therefore should be ruled through evil, but also that being feared as a
ruler will ensure the stability of your kingdom and power. Although we have now established
Machiavellis reputation as being true with reasoning, there is an important idea that Machiavelli
insists upon throughout his work. Machiavelli mentions in the above quote that a Prince should,

ideally, be both feared and loved it is difficult to accomplish because the two cannot be
combined. This is the turning point in the paper where the discussion regarding the pursuit and
the perception of power being an important distinction.
As he writes later on in his novel,
And I know that everyone will confess that it would be a very praiseworthy thing to find
in a prince all of the above-mentioned qualities that are held good. But because he cannot
have themsince human conditions do not permit it, it is necessary for him to be so
prudent as to know how to avoid the infamy of those vices that would take his state from
him and to be on guard against those that do not.4
The last sentence of the above quote creates an interesting conundrum for the reader to
take into account when considering Machiavellis theory.
Due to the nature of government, it is has always been important to examine how the citizenry of
a state feel about their Prince. This, in essence, is what Machiavelli is anticipating that Princes
should worry about and attempt to persuade their kingdom to view them in a favorable manner
because a Prince cannot continue to maintain his kingdom without the use of cruelty, his people
can never know.
Since ancient times rulers have been revered as untouchable and nearly God-like, but if a
ruler was oppressive and feared they inevitably lost their kingdom and lived in infamy as cruel
instead of a hero. Machiavelli states in the above quote that it is necessary for a Prince to be
aware of how his people speak of him in order to lessen the belief that he is cruel and be on
guard against being believed to be incapable of punishment. For a Prince, there must be a strict
understanding of what he accomplishes for the kingdom He is only cruel when necessary, and

continually remains an admired figure. These values are important for the people because it is the
balance that Machiavelli describes repeatedly. It is vital for a Prince to have a poise when dealing
with his people that requires him to be both feared and loved, and when these are accomplished
then a Prince is successful; but without accomplishing this achievement regarding his reputation,
a Prince can easily encourage his own demise.
If a Prince is perceived by the people to be oppressive, cruel and inhuman than action
will be taken against him. He will be overthrown and the kingdom will find a new ruler to
replace him. As Machiavelli further explains in his work, The Discourse on Livy,
When this fear is groundless it finds its remedy in public meetings, wherein some worthy
person may come forward and show the people by argument that they are deceiving
themselves. For though they be ignorant, the people are notincapable of being taught
the truth, but are readily convinced when it is told them by one in whose honesty they can
trust.5
In the event that a citizen understandings that a Prince is being cruel to the extent of
gaining more power, Machiavelli states that they will ultimately revolt due to a belief that one of
them is being honest with the public body and that action should be taken. This has not only been
historically proven, but it is also important to keep in mind that Machiavelli himself continues to
explain why logically this is true. He goes on to discuss that public meetings become a thoroughfare for those who believe that they are being mistreated and, as a selfish being, shares their
displeasure with others and finds favor.6

5
6

All of this is crucial to the conclusion that if the people believe that their prince is oppressive, as
the Murderous Machiavel reputation dictates that they should be, then they will seek to replace
him with one who is not the same way. Therefore, there is a distinction between maintaining a
reputation as a Prince and acting as Machiavelli dictates a Prince must. Inevitably, a Prince must
continue to behave as Machiavelli believes, but ensure that his people also continue to believe
that he is the admired figure that he should be. Without such a guarantee, the people will not
continue to obey due to their own true nature, and ultimately they will continue to destroy the
regimes that the Murderous Machiavel continues to create.
Now, as we move forward with the analytics of this paper, the question is what are the
principles that the people believe their Prince should have? And once we establish those
principles, why do the people believe that they must be followed or their ruler is a failure?
For this we turn once again to the Discourse on Livy, which examines not only Republics
and the concepts of Freedom and Statehood, but also the ultimate understanding of what an ideal
relationship between Man and State should represent. Beginning with Machiavellis examples of
Romulus and Numa, he explains that the ideas that a Prince is believed to require by the people
include Ferocity and Religiosity (or some form of this principle). Using each ruler in turn, this
paper will continue by analyzing these principles and connecting them to the overall concept of
how the people must view their Ruler.
In the instance of Romulus, Machiavelli admired him for the ability to do what was
necessary to ultimately achieve the best ends for his people. However, he was not a traditional
Machiavellian Ruler in this sense, he was both a combination of a wise ruler and a Prince as
explained further in Discourses, Machiavelli describes why this combination was approved of by
the people, For although the act condemn the doer, the end may justify him; and when, as in the

case of Romulus, the end is good, it will always excuse the means; since it is he who does
violence with intent to injure, not he who does it with the design to secure tranquility who merits
blame. Romulus was ultimately held in high esteem by his people because unlike rulers who are
traditionally called tyrants or dictators, his intention was never to harm the people. Instead, it was
to ensure their safety and the stability of the state to protect them from further harm. In the
instance of Machiavellis theory, Romulus was a perfect example of the Prince as a political
figure and not just a tool to be used against his own people. A Prince must continually try to
secure the stability of his nation and maintain his own reputation to ensure that his people will
continue to support him. Romulus did exactly that and was held in high regard by his people
while still accomplishing everything that Machiavelli encourages his Princes to pursue.
However, there is another example that Machiavelli mentions that is slightly less straightforward.
Numa, who is mentioned as a fiercely religious ruler, chose a different method of
enforcement than Romulus. Instead of having the reputation that he would punish his own
people, he used an extremely religious government to instill fear in the hearts of his people. They
would not be beholden to him if they were to disobey the government, they would be behold to
their God who was not so merciful. As further explained in Discourses, He finding the people
fierce and turbulent, and desiring with the help of the peaceful arts to bring them to order and
obedience, called in the aid of religion as essential to the maintenance of civil society, and gave it
such a form, that for many ages God was nowhere so much feared as in that republic. Although
Machiavelli did not explicitly state that this was a method in which to maintain rule over his
kingdom, it was an extremely useful way for Numa to continue to be the Prince that he should
have been for the Romans and to ensure that his people would not overlook him. In essence,

Numa proved to be more clever than most in his undertaking of how to maintain control of his
people and the stability of the state by enforcing punishments through an external being. While
Numa would continue to be held in high esteem, his people would be unable to determine
whether he was an unjust or just ruler, due to their behaviors in worshipping God.
The aim ultimately of the Roman rulers was to find a set of principles that created a
greater good for the people that lived within Roman borders, and they successfully found those
principles through one common idea that as long as the ends were good, they justified the
means used to get there and thus created the principles mentioned above. However, the
conclusion that follows is ultimately how the reader of both works can reconcile the two different
ideas.
The Prince and Discourses on Livy do not have two different conclusions, in fact they
have one conclusion and in due course all governments will follow this pattern due to the nature
of humanity Because men are selfish and in their own ways Murderous Machiavels, the ends
will justify the means of achievement. As long as the rulers bring about good for the people and
continue to act in the interest of the common good of the state, they will continue to be respected
by their people and by history. However, that does not mean that a Prince acts differently than
Machiavelli stated in The Prince. On the contrary, it means that a Prince must continue to act this
way in an attempt to achieve the ends that are good for the state. In order to achieve the right
ends, a Prince must continue to be cruel and pursue power at any cost, but he must continually do
so under the guise or genuinely being done for the people. This ensures not only that the state
will remain secure, but also that the Princes own power and legacy will continue to be that of an
esteemed and righteous ruler.

In conclusion, the principles that were mentioned in the Discourses, while different from
those designed for a Prince to rule his kingdom, demonstrate that Machiavelli was not
completely Murderous as some may seem. While his actions indeed took a terrible pathway
towards the stability of his nation, they did not deviate from the original intentions of
Machiavelli that a Princes ultimate achievement should be to protect the stability of the state at
any cost.