Machiavelli's Cruelty

Machiavelli is remembered in popular culture for his ruthless pragmatism, which is best circulated through out-of-context maxims, such as “Dictatorship [is] always of benefit to the state”. This quote is seemingly paradoxical as it was written in The Discourses, his most known work in the support of republican governments. Machiavelli’s The Prince, the preceding work to Discourses, is read as an instruction guide to a prince or aspiring authoritarian ruler and seems to be in support of a single-ruler regime. Though The Prince appears to be in conflict with the republicanism Machiavelli later espouses in The Discourses, it still remains that his true inclination lies with the republican model of government, as in both works he writes about the

When considering political actions, Machiavelli eschews ethical considerations, even advocating for “well-used cruelty” in lieu of solely thinking in the context of the operation of the state (Prince 8: 30). The term virtu has been translated as “skill”, “strength of purpose”, or more specially “political skill” (Prince 6: 19). The most important component of virtu is the “strength of purpose” to act appropriately when opportunity occurs. To illustrate this aspect of virtu, Machiavelli praises the Roman leadership’s ability to tame circumstance, even in advance, by relying on their “strength [virtu] and prudence, for in time anything can happen”, rather than to abide by the common phrase of his time, ‘take advantage of the passage of time’ (Prince 3: 11). To Machiavelli, the Romans exemplify virtu because of their history of acting upon circumstance. However, virtu not only entails acting when required, but also the ability to adapt changing circumstance. Machiavelli later writes that a leader will “flourish if he adjusts his policies as the character of the time changes” (Prince 25: 75). Thus, virtu is best defined as the skillfulness in the way a ruler exercises their power over the state given any

He pointedly writes that this is applicable to all people, even princes. Interestingly, this point is contradictory to the previous point about the obstinacy that most men show in the face of circumstance. Though, this could to mean that inconstancy itself is one of the unchanging traits found in men. To illustrate a feature of man’s fickleness, Machiavelli brings up the influence of passion on action. He writes that “…a prince often err where his passions are involved, and these are much stronger than those of the populace” (Discourses I.58: 255). Not only does he regard princes to be similarly inconstant as the masses, but leaders are also subject to the same sway from passions that cause them to do wrong. Taken in this context, the same detrimental features of the masses controlling the state can apply to principalities as well, perhaps to even greater effect. In sum, the irreconcilability between Machiavelli’s perspective on the flawed nature of men, particularly man’s fickleness and obstinacy, with the virtu that is expected of Machiavelli’s prince weakens the feasibility for Machiavelli to be purely advocating for a regime that is dependent on a single