君主论 - 书评

jelly

　　Since the birth of “The Prince”, Machiavelli, the important character in the history of Western political thought and the ideas of “The Prince” has been affirmed full of criticism. However, we should take an objective evaluation of “The Prince”. In the time of Machiavelli, Italy is disrupted and corrupt, people are eager for unity. As an expert that is used to be working for government, Machiavelli looks for the existence of a tyrant who can bring the unity. This great work reflects Machiavelli’s philosophy of politics. It also gives expression to his patriotism.
　　In the great work The Prince, I feel that Machiavelli offers us a significant model of ruler that refers his political ideas. Additionally, he defines a successful rulership by emphasizing the laws of human nature, the importance of military and the characteristics of a great leader. He tries to persuade his emperor to take his concepts of governing a state by giving such a wonderful presentations.
　　First of all, Machiavelli points out that the nature of human beings is evil. He discusses the human nature in the entire book to sustain his persuasion.  The human beings are, as Machiavelli says,"…ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours" (The Prince, p.46). According to him, people are changeable by nature. 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. Likewise, government must take account of man's real nature and use his real qualities for its purposes. Machiavelli’s point of view is based on the reality that is human nature is not as innocent as we thought.
　　Secondly, to speak about the military, Machiavelli points out the weakness of depending on the mercenaries, and he emphasizes numerous times that the importance of building its own army of a country, “…it is of such value that is not only keeps born princes in place, but often raises men from private citizens to princely fortune”(p.40). He holds that the cultivation of this art is the chief means of gaining and keeping power, and that the neglect of this art is the chief means of losing power. It is a central belief of Machiavelli's that security could only be obtained by raising a body of troops within one's own country--loyal soldiers who would be defending their own homes and families. He particularly opposes the use of mercenary forces, or dependence on the help of foreign armies. He is also inclined to downgrade the importance of fortifications, remarking that "the best fortress is to be found in the love of the people" (p.40).
　　Meanwhile, he suggests the prince keep studying from the war. “Thus a prince who knows nothing of warfare, apart from his other troubles already described, cannot hope for respect from his soldiers or put any trust in them”(p.41). And “Therefore the prince should never turn his mind from the study of war”(p.41). Moreover, he briefly proposes the tyrant that learn the art of the war by“…training the body and training the mind” (p.41). He gives the example of Philopoemon, the prince of the Achaeans.
　　In addition, later in The Prince, Machiavelli implies that no matter how cruel a prince is, but at the head of his army, the prince should not be considered cruel. Because “without such a reputation, he could never hold his army together and ready for action” (p.46). The right instance that Machiavelli mentions is Scipio.
　　From this part, I am able to see that Machiavelli is so solicitous of the national unity. He loves his country and desires the dominator can equip a strong army to realize the unity of Italy.
　　Briefly and broadly, I appreciate the suggestions about how a prince can keep his authority and how he should look at morality. Though his point of view is a little bit bias and cruel. To relate to human nature, according to Machiavelli, human is immoral, they are loyal to you when benefiting them, and they leave you when needing them. Human beings are always unkind unless under a pressure.
　　What more, he talks about the theory of Plato about the two worlds: the world “the way we really live” and the world “we ought to live”. And the theory implies that although “every prince would like to be both”—“be loved” and “be feared” (p.46), however, “…a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot possibly exercise all those virtues for which men are called ‘good’” (p.49), as for new princes: “new states are always in danger”. So when a prince faces a choice that is cruelty or clemency. As if the clemency goes against his interests, he should give it up without hesitating, “…he should not depart from the good if he can hold to it, but should be ready to enter on evil if he has to” (p.49). Since“…to be feared is much safer than to be loved”.
　　I am convinced that although extinguished leader can gather people by his morality, but if he didn’t take advantage of political means out of morality, so, it’s absolutely impossible for him to succeed in politic. “Hence a prince who wants keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that know ledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires”(p.42).
　　According to Machiavelli, there are two ways of fighting: laws that are human method and the force that comes from beasts. “Thus a prince must know how to make good use of both the beast and man”. Machiavelli said that the ruler must be able to imitate both the lion and the fox. “Since a prince must know how to use the character of beasts, he should pick for imitation the fox and the lion”(p.48). The bravery and strength of the lion will not be enough to enable the ruler to escape the traps set by his enemies; for that, the slyness of the fox is also needed. This is especially true of the new prince, who is in a very exposed position. Machiavelli admitted that Marcus Aurelius, the "philosopher King" (Roman emperor, 161-180 A.D.), who had been a virtuous and just ruler, had kept his throne. But Marcus Aurelius had become emperor by hereditary succession. Machiavelli offers Septimius Severus (Roman emperor, 193-211 A.D.) as an example of a new prince who effectively used the techniques of both the lion and the fox to maintain himself in power.
　　The discussion of praising and blaming is also very interesting. Regarding the liberality, Machiavelli believes that “…if you wish to be widely know as a generous man, you must seize every opportunity to make a big display of your giving” (p.43). He states the stories of Caesar, Cyrus, and Alexander as examples to support his opinions.
　　Additionally, Machiavelli keeps using “necessity”, “fortune” and “virtu” to demonstrate what features a successful ruler should have.
　　In fact, necessity as Machiavelli’s view means the political stability and power that which is necessary to the maintenance of the state, a specific political goal would be reached.  Then, Machiavelli use fortune specifically means chance, luck, destiny, and unpredictability. On the other hand, he emphasizes man’s ability to press back against the vicissitudes of fortune. And the human exertion against fortune is achieved through virtu. Virtu often refers to qualities that make a military commander successful.
　　I support Machiavelli since I believe that politics is not the morality. I think the national interests are more important than anything else for a ruler. These interests were gaining, maintaining, and expanding political power of prince. All the princes should take foxes and lions as examples that take every means in order to reach one’s goal. The impactions of mercy and cruelty that have been discussed in The Prince are very controversial through the centuries. In my opinion, the political man always acts mercifully, and may not be merciful in his deep heart. As for the function of kindness and cruelty, alternatively, I think hatred always lasts longer than love.
　　Although Machiavelli has always been considered as a typical representative of non-moralism and criticized, I think he is still an outstanding ideologist. His ideals of the leadership not only guide the tyrants in the past, the feudal dynast, but also they make sense now for leaders. In the book The Prince, Machiavelli embodies political philosophy by arguing the various methods of being a successful prince. He states that a prince cannot always be good, and if he wants to keep his post he must learn not to be good. For example, I agree with his opinion on generosity. Machiavelli states that if you are too generous, the non-generous people will take advantage of you and will take away your power. I do believe that you cannot be too generous to your subjects or well they will take advantage of you. Many of the great rulers who were too generous to the people ended up in bloodshed because of small things that the ruler overlooked. You must keep guard and not be taken advantage of if you try to be generous.
　　On the other hand, his view of human nature is certain excessive and prejudice. He totally repudiates the goodness of humanity. As far as I concern that there is justice, kindness and love. Furthermore, throughout the history, people keep struggling against cruel emperors and their repressions. And there indeed appear a large number of moral persons such as Aristotle and Plato. As a result, we should take a cautious and rational approach for Machiavellian.
　　In conclusion, Machiavelli and his masterpiece The Prince deeply affect the later generations. Regardless the controversial parts, his theory clearly and brief give us hints of charging daily business and dealing the relationships with others.  Therefore, The Prince is remarkable and valuable.