Natinsky 1
Jessica Natinsky
HIST 439– 01 – Professor Moran-Cruz
May 10, 2012
The Prince’s Tyranny: A Look at Machiavelli and Aristotle’s
Discussion of Tyrannical Rule
Forms of political regimes have been a central topic of discussion for centuries. From
definitions to qualifications and on to specific examples countless writers have ventured to this
topic, yet only some have the impact necessary to continue their discussion to today. Many write
about freedom; few analyze tyranny.1 In considering two of the most significant political writers,
Aristotle and Machiavelli, their respective discussions of tyranny appear sparse. Yet, in actuality
these two men had much to say about tyranny, they were simply more deceptive in their
discussions than most realize. In examination of Machiavelli’s The Prince compared with some
of his other writings, the prince is realized to be a tyrant. While a comparison of Machiavelli’s
tyrant with Aristotle’s appears straightforward, not only are the two descriptions of tyranny
extremely similar, but also both authors utilize these various discussions of tyranny as an attempt
to guide a tyrant to some stabilized state of mass politics.
Machiavelli’s Formative Experiences
Machiavelli came of age in a time dominated by political turmoil, and these destabilizing
yet revolutionary events lay the foundation for his authoring of The Prince. The virulent politics
of later Middle Ages Italy continued into the politics of Machiavelli’s time. These earlier
conflicts between the papacy and the Holy Roman Empire divided Italian cities both politically
and culturally. This dynamic of Italian politics drastically changed with the Invasions of King
1
Boesche, Roger. Theories of Tyranny From Plato to Arendt. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP,
1996. Print. 1.
Natinsky 2
Charles VIII in 1494. 2 Simultaneously the Papacy, France, Spain, and the city-states of Milan,
Venice, Naples, and Florence battled for land and power.3 While Charles was eventually forced
to retreat, what should have emphasized the need for unity within Italy had no such effect. The
individual states’ military weaknesses set the precedent for future foreign invasions and a
continued lack of political order.4 Charles’ invasion most severely affected Florence,
Machiavelli’s home.5 It was in response to Charles that Piero de’ Medici, the leader at the time,
pleaded for Charles’ mercy, which so displeased the city council that they expelled the Medici
family from Florence.6 With Alexander VI in the papacy, Louis XII, Charles VIII’s successor
needed a divorce for political purposes so he turned to the pope. Louis XII granted the papacy a
pledge of military assistance backing one of Alexander’s many illegitimate sons in return for a
divorce. This son was Cesare Borgia.7 With this newly provided papal and military support,
Cesare Borgia embarked on a “campaign of conquest” and thus established Romagna.8 During
Machiavelli’s time as head of the Second Chancery and as secretary to the Council of Ten for
War he interacted frequently with Cesare Borgia9; one of the many who would come to play a
significant role in Machiavelli’s development of the Prince. After Cesare’s expulsion at the
hands of the new pope, Julius II lost little time in returning the Medici to power. In 1512, as
Florence was placed back in the hands of the Medici, Machiavelli was forced out of office.10
Outside of his writing Machiavelli remained removed from the political sphere for the remainder
2
Machiavelli, Niccolò, and William J. Connell. The Prince: With Related Documents. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin's, 2005. Print. 7
3
Connell 8.
4
Johnson, Arthur H. Europe in the Sixteenth Century, 1494-1598. Vol. IV. New York: Macmillian, 1897. Print. 34.
5
Rudowski, Victor A. The Prince: A Historical Critique. New York: Twayne, 1992. Print. 3. (For a more indepth look at the historical context of The Prince’s authorship consider pages 1-8)
6
Rudowski 4.
7
Rudowski 5.
8
Rudowski 6.
9
Rudowski 6.
10
Connell 17.
Natinsky 3
of his life. Exposure to this extreme political turmoil influenced Machiavelli’s attitudes towards
government, and laid the foundation for his later pleas for Italian unity and direction as to who
was fit to lead this unification.
Machiavelli’s Tyranny
Machiavelli dedicates the majority of his writings to various forms of government, but in
order to understand his views on tyranny specifically, the discussion must begin with recognition
of his broader perspective on politics. Machiavelli categorized essentially six types of
government: principality, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and finally anarchy. 11
Within these there are allegedly three good kinds: principality, aristocracy, democracy; and three
bad ones: tyranny, oligarchy, anarchy. Within these six terms there exist three pairs of
association so significant that one form can easily pass into the other. For example, Machiavelli
discusses the ease with which a principality can transform into a tyranny.12 Machiavelli believed
this progression to occur quite frequently, that one thing readily transforming into another is
natural. For Machiavelli, all forms of government “are to some extent respected at the onset,”13
but this implies that eventually the fog fades and the people are more aware of the failures of that
government than its successes. This sends that state into what Machiavelli viewed as an
inevitable cycle in which the good forms of government are short in life so they transform into
the three bad ones, which are depraved in nature14. So, while a state may go through one or two
of the above, at a certain point (it is hoped) that the legislators will recognize the only way to
have a truly successful form of government is to create some combination in which various
11
Machiavelli, Niccolò, and Bernard Crick. The Discourses. Trans. Leslie J. Walker. Ed. Brian Richardson.
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970. Print. I.2. 106.s
12
The Discourses I.2. 106.
13
The Discourses I.2. 108.
14
The Discourses I.2. 109.
Natinsky 4
aspects of each type of government ensures stability.15 This combination, for Machiavelli, being
a republic; a well-led republic is greater than a principality largely because of its malleability.
Machiavelli contrasts the ability of a principality to adapt with a prince’s more static tendencies.
This is precisely why a republic will last longer, because a prince typically does not change even
as the times do.16 It is qualified, however, that within republic rule there are circumstances in
which a dictator is temporarily necessary. 17 This in no way takes away from the republic itself; if
anything this demonstrates the pragmatism of its malleability. Moving forward to a deeper
analysis of each of Machiavelli’s governments individually, his discussion of tyranny is central.
Throughout Machiavelli’s major works there is an emphasis on the particulars of specific
governmental forms with a focus placed on tyranny and its uses. Early in The Discourses
Machiavelli establishes that tyranny results from the decomposition of a principality, what he
established as the best possible form of government.18 What he means is that within a
principality there are good laws, and once there becomes a lack of these good laws social conflict
arises. With this social strife people become selfish in their desires, and any clear sense of liberty
among the people disappears. This is what leads to tyranny.19 Machiavelli claimed that tyranny is
incapable of being successful at length, and will lead to the eventual decline of society.20
There exists a distinct contradistinction between living “civil and free” and living in an
“absolute tyranny”. Machiavelli successfully defends this claim through an examination of the
15
This portion of The Discourses reads almost like an outline for checks and balances – while it may be relying
on various kinds of government instead of branches within the same one this idea still focuses on the need for an
interaction for any government to rule successfully.
16
The Discourses III.9. 431; Crick 27
17
Rees, E. A. Political Thought from Machiavelli to Stalin: Revolutionary Machiavellism. Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Print. 1.
18
The Discourses I.2. 107; Giorgini, Giovanni. “The Place of the Tyrant in Machiavelli’s Political Thought and
the Literary Genre of The Prince.” The Italian Academy for Advanced Studies at Columbia University Lunch
Seminar. New York. 18 Feb. 2004.
19
The Discourses I.40. 214; Giorgini 6
20
The Discourses II.2. 276; Rees 5.
Natinsky 5
lack of assassinations during the rule of Roman good princes because the people believed they
were living freely even under this tyrannical leadership.21 Machiavelli also emphasizes the role
class plays within a tyranny. In Roger Boesche’s essay analyzing Machiavelli’s view on tyranny
he deconstructs Machiavelli’s argument and concludes that for Machiavelli tyranny is class
rule.22 In The Discourses Machiavelli notes the dominant role within the various classes
remained with the nobles.23 Within Machiavelli’s tyranny there will always be one class
dominating another. This becomes extremely useful for the tyrant because now he has the people
limiting their own freedom; the difference being that instead of being a result of individual
selfishness this limitation results simply from class tensions. Eventually Machiavelli came to
define tyranny as the denial of liberty and the rule of law by some man pursuing selfish gains at
the expense of the people.
Understanding Machiavelli’s Prince as a Tyrant
With Machiavelli’s concept of tyranny in mind let us turn to an examination of the Prince
as a political ruler, and first consider the way in which he qualifies as a tyrant within
Machiavelli’s own definition. Machiavelli’s prince is war-wise; he knows when to aggressively
attempt to expand territorially yet is able to recognize the need for self-defense and a sense of
lawful stability.24 He must be capable of differentiating times in which to be cruel yet be just as
able to display compassion. He understands when action is necessary and when passivity is
required. He knows how to inspire fear and admiration, but understands that it is “safer to be
feared than loved.” 25 This man avoids hatred through carefully calculated interactions with his
21
The Discourses I.10. 137 – emphasis my own
Boesche 154.
23
The Discourses I.40. 215
24
The Prince XII. 76.
25
Machiavelli, Niccolò, and William J. Connell. The Prince: With Related Documents. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin's, 2005. Print. XVII. 91
22
Natinsky 6
subjects, yet knows that force may be required with his armies. The prince is overflowing with
skills of deception; he combats the people with both laws and force.26 He turns from man to beast
by will because he is in full control of himself and his actions as well as the situation. He knows
when cruelty is required and morals must be set aside, yet he can remain good when applicable.
The prince must appear virtuous, compassionate, honest, religious, etc.27 His most crucial quality
being his ability to appear to have all of the above. Machiavelli made a crucial observation when
he noted that, “men judge more with their eyes than their hands.”28 To be great and powerful so
much of that success is based on convincing others that you are great and powerful regardless of
what you may actually be. The prince is a complex character, yet even with the abundance of
descriptions Machiavelli provides, he does not once refer to him as the leader he truly is: a tyrant.
Machiavelli wrote The Prince during a time of political corruption with an intense desire
for the unification of Italy. Machiavelli blamed the incompetence of the earlier “Italian princes”
for the political disarray, which is why he was hoping to find a solution to Italy’s perpetual
political problem.29 Almost all of his works demonstrate his “disenchantment” with the Medici’s
cruel politics at the time.30 Once he established his desire for someone to take on this challenge,
Machiavelli began using the terms “prince” and “tyrant” interchangeably in his later texts,
particularly within The Discourses. Within The Prince and The Discourses there is one man who
is referred to directly once as prince and another time as tyrant. Spartan Nabis is referred to as
“prince” within The Prince but “tyrant” later in The Discourse.31 These examples continue in
The Discourses, where in describing both Annon of Carthago and Pandolfo Petrucci of Siena the
26
The Prince XVII, XVIII. 92-3.
The Prince XVIII. 93.
28
The Prince XVIII. 95.
29
Boesche 111; 125
30
Boesche 124
31
Giorgini 10; The Prince IX; The Discourses I.40
27
Natinsky 7
words are used indifferently.32 Machiavelli uses “tyrant” when describing each of the men
specifically, yet once he moves to the more general applications of what he learned from these
tyrants he uses “prince.”33 This occurred particularly in his discussion of, “ the Roman Emperors
and other tyrants and princes.” 34 Machiavelli fails to distinguish between the two terms even if
he is referring to a criminal tyrant as opposed to a non-criminal tyrant.35 This implies that
Machiavelli believes there is no difference between the good-willed spirit of the founder of a
republic and the selfish drives of the founder of a tyranny.
Machiavelli then moves into the specifics of why these two types of leaders are so similar.
Strauss points out that both of these kinds of leaders (or founders), within Machiavelli’s own
descriptions, must commit crimes on some level. They also must recognize which aspects of, or
groups within society hold the most power and use that knowledge in establishing their rule.36 In
Machiavelli’s mind, there is some point at which all princes become tyrants. Boesche recognizes
that the prince was forced to become tyrannical to preserve his power, thus even a benevolent
prince would become authoritarian in the hope for survival.37 Machiavelli discusses this shift in
leadership as though it is inevitable.38 This directly relates back to Machiavelli’s description of
the Prince. The ease with which this character abandoned morals and virtue was done for the
identical reasons the tyrants in Machiavelli acted. Even if the tyrant acted largely out of greed,
and thus the reasoning was different, the actions by these men remained the same. The
resemblance of qualities becomes almost identical as you continue to move through a reading of
The Prince while simultaneously going through The Discourses. He also makes a point to
32
Giorgini 10; The Discourses III.6. 400
The Discourses III.6. 412, 418.
34
The Discourses I.58. 256; II.2. 275; I.55. 246; III.6. 401-06; Boesche 127.
35
Strauss, Leo. Thoughts on Machiavelli. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1978. Print. 272.
36
Strauss 273.
37
Boesche 128.
38
Boesche 127.
33
Natinsky 8
emphasize the significance of one man in the successful establishment of a state. He goes as far
as to say that principalities and republics equally owe their existence to the actions of a single
man39 – this could just as easily be a tyrant as it could a prince. Even in The Discourses
Machiavelli describes a prince, “whose private interests are generally in opposition to those of
the city…(a) state of things that soon leads to tyranny.”40 When carefully examining both the
extent to which Machiavelli addresses tyranny combined with the role he has it playing within
his governments, it becomes evident that to Machiavelli, tyranny is almost essential to the
foundation of a state, and thus essential to the foundation of society.41
In considering why Machiavelli chose not to use the word tyrant in describing his prince
it is imperative to recognize his audience. This work is dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici who
Machiavelli describes as a prince. In his analysis of the presence of a tyrant as well as the literary
genre of The Prince, Giorgini recognizes that it is particularly strategic of Machiavelli to omit
the word tyrant when that work is dedicated to a prince.42 Machiavelli also wrote this work
directly after being removed from his political office by a member of the family to whom the
book is dedicated; he was an extremely intelligent man thus he most likely understood the need
for discretion. Subtlety was key during a time when the stakes were extremely high. There is also
a general understanding that The Prince is meant to be a pragmatic piece of writing. Machiavelli
genuinely desired some man to gain control and bandage Italy’s political wounds. The
connotation of a tyranny during the time of his authorship was far from positive. By strategically
developing the character in a noble and well-regarded light, Machiavelli was able to give this
39
The Discourses II.2. 282
The Discourses II.2. 282
41
Strauss, 293
42
Giorgini 5.
40
Natinsky 9
character some of the less positive qualities because they would be overshadowed by the
positives this leader, this prince, would bring.
While Machiavelli made the rhetorically strategic decision to separate the idea of tyrant
and prince within The Prince, his choice of examples for both princes and tyrants elucidates their
striking similarity. In some instances he uses rulers one would not typically describe tyrannically,
and simultaneously describes leaders typically addressed as tyrant as prince.43 Giorgini
highlights two specific examples in which Machiavelli describes tyrannical men as princely.
Hiero became “the prince of Syracuse” by way of the private condition, which is technically an
illegitimate means of rising to power. An interesting point to make is that Aristotle, in The
Politics, uses Hiero as an example of a tyrant while describing the practicality of spies.44
Whether Machiavelli wrote this example with this knowledge in mind, it remains a noteworthy
example of the synonymy between the prince and a tyrant. Secondly, Olivertotto from Fermo is
an incestuous murderer and yet he too receives the title of prince.45 Contrastingly, the men and
governments whom he describes as tyrant are ones not typically considered such like Caesar and
the Roman church as a whole. When discussing Caesar’s rule Machiavelli describes his use of
liberality is harmful, and claims that if Caesar had survived to see the establishment of the
principality of Rome he would have eventually destroyed it.46 These are precisely the qualities
Machiavelli attributes to a tyrant. With the establishment of the character of the prince,
Machiavelli moves into an examination of historical figures to elucidate precisely how his prince
should conduct himself.
43
Giorgini 5.
The Politics 1313b14-19.
45
Giorgini 5; The Prince VI. 57.
46
The Prince XVI. 89; Giorgini 5.
44
Natinsky 10
With the establishment of variations on the prince, Machiavelli focuses on one historical
example of each prince, using their mistakes in particular to guide the “new” prince. In
Machiavelli’s perspective the best example of a New Prince is Cesare Borgia. The new prince
includes those men who rise to power as a result of special favors resulting from Fortuna.47 This
man, the illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VII, became the ruler of Romagna by way of
“cruelty well used.”48 Machiavelli applauds his cruelty because it successfully unified part of
Italy that had previously been in turmoil, and in Machiavelli’s eyes this makes Borgia a
successful prince.49 Interestingly, this quality of using cruelty in self-interest (in this case
Borgia’s desire for power) is characteristic of Machiavelli’s tyrant. Borgia knew when to go out
and conquer land, a quality of Machiavelli’s tyrant just as well as his prince. Machiavelli
concludes in demonstrating Borgia’s sole flaw to be his inability to offer his support to another
papal candidate instead of a man who was clearly against him.50 Borgia was too faithful, and
according to Machiavelli the prince must only put on the façade of this trust, yet never become
too trusting in actuality. Cesare Borgia was harsh, cruel, and violent in his conquests for power
and led as one man, thus in Machiavelli’s own definitions he is a prince and thus a tyrant.
In further examples of tyrants one of the recurring characteristics is not violence or
cruelty, but taking away the peoples’ freedom. One of the ways in which a prince turns into a
tyrant is his going against the ancient laws and customs and taking away the freedom and rights
of the citizens. 51 The fact that Machiavelli highlights this rather weak evil quality of his tyrants
highlights the similarities between these historical figures and Machiavelli’s prince. This
47
Rudowski 59.
Strauss 68.
49
The Prince XVII. 90.
50
Rudowski 57.
51
Giorgini 10.
48
Natinsky 11
becomes extremely important with the realization that there is only a “difference of degree”
between the most successful republic and a true tyranny.52 The more one examines Machiavelli’s
uses of tyranny, prince, and his specific examples of each, the more similar these terms become.
Eventually they come to describe the same type of rule. With a clear understanding of
Machiavelli’s idea of tyranny along with his synonymous use of “prince” and tyrant” there is
now the opportunity to examine Aristotle’s tyranny in relation to Machiavelli’s.
Aristotle’s Tyranny
Aristotle spent a significant number of his writings establishing his idea on government, a
portion of which is dedicated to defining tyranny. Aristotle classified variations of government
based on who was in power and their particular purpose. Aristotle’s characterization of
leadership extended to differentiate types governments based on rule by one, the few, or the
many. 53 Similarly to Machiavelli if the rule was in the interest of the people then these qualified
as one of the three types of positive rule: monarchy, aristocracy, or constitutional government.
Contrastingly, when the rulers begin to govern with their own selfish purpose as their guide, rule
by one becomes tyranny. While the polis was, in his mind, the best form of government, it could
be governed in a multitude of ways, and aside from these correct forms of rule there are also the
perverted ones.54 Aristotle viewed tyranny as a “perverted form of monarchy” which only
considered the needs of the monarch.55 For Aristotle tyranny qualified as one of three kinds: the
first being “monarchy that rules despotically over barbarians” the second as “elective tyranny or
52
Strauss 278.
Boesche 50.
54
Taylor, C.C. W. "Politics." The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle. Ed. Jonathan Barnes. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1995. 233-58. Print. 244.
55
Taylor 244; Boesche 50.
53
Natinsky 12
dictatorship of ancient Greece” and the third a pure form a tyranny, “the perverse counterpart to
the perfect monarchy.”56 For Aristotle, tyranny is the worst form of government.57
Aristotle’s argument against tyranny focuses on his view of a human’s purpose. Aristotle
held the belief that all things in nature have some potential that they spend their lives trying to
actualize. Thus, for him, the best kind of government was the one that allowed its citizens to be
the most good.58 Tyranny is thus unnatural in that it “undermines human development” by not
allowing a citizen to attain actuality within their life. 59 For Aristotle the “good life” can only
develop within the polis and a tyranny is not a true polis. 60 This life that Aristotle is describing
requires personal freedom and opportunity for growth of morality and virtue. Tyrants cruelly
withhold the possibility of these developments from the people, making it an unnatural form of
rule.61
The unnatural character of tyranny extends specifically to the cruelty of the tyrant. For
Aristotle the tyrant is one who inverts the political world. While free men should be participating
in governing they are treated as slaves, and although the aim of government should be the good
of the people, a tyrants rule is overwhelmingly selfish.62 He eliminates everything political that
would leave power with the people, and turns his rule into household management.63 Aristotle
uses this relationship as a comparison because within a household the rule is almost purely
hierarchical. For Aristotle, a polis involves active participation and a certain degree of equality
within the members of the society, but a household runs “like a monarchy” because each home
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
The Politics 1279b. 6-7; 1285a18-1285b3; 1295a17-19; 1295a19-23; Boesche 50.
Boesche 58; The Politics 1287b37-41
Taylor 233.
Boesche 52. See, for example, Metaphysics, 1017a35-1017b9
Boesche 57; The Politics 1280b5-8
Boesche 58; The Politics 1287b37-41
Boesche 62.
The Politics 1255b19-20, 1254b1-1255a3; Boesche 62.
Natinsky 13
and its members are under the control of one leader. 64 Because Aristotle viewed tyranny as a
perverted form of monarchy, it is possible to conclude that in relationship to a home he viewed
tyranny as the cruel misrule of a household in which the subjects are merely tools in the tyrant’s
selfish conquests.65 Aristotle’s tyrant is also aware of when he must act quietly, while ensuring
that he remains wholly informed on his subject’s actions discreetly.66
With the establishment that the prince in Machiavelli’s writing is a tyrant it becomes
evident that in writing The Prince Machiavelli is instructing how to be a tyrant, which is
precisely what Aristotle does in Book V chapter XI of The Politics in his discussion on
preservation of a tyranny. In this section of his writing, Aristotle intricately describes the
necessary qualities of a successful tyrant.67 The first advice is to remove those posing any sort of
threat as well as weakening the masses by removing any form of leisure. Aristotle does
distinguish that this is done largely to create disconnect among the people, to eliminate the threat
of the people developing trust in one another.68 The tyrant is successful in Aristotle’s view as
long as he limits the thoughts of the masses, that the citizens distrust one another, and they are
incapable of activity.69 Aristotle suggests, quite similarly to Machiavelli’s advice for the prince,
that he should never be hated, but respected. There is a continued emphasis on appearance, in
that the tyrant must act humbly while refraining from actual humility. The tyrant should place
significant emphasis on military and his relationship with them.70 This man must place no trust in
friends, and most notably, he should never appear to rule as tyrant, but rather in the ways of a
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
The Politics 1255b19-20, 1254b1-1255a3; Boesche 62.
Boesche 62-3.
The Politics 1313b14-19.
The Politics 1313a20-1315b10.
The Politics 1313a35-1313b6.
The Politics 1314a30-32.
The Politics 1314b36-40.
Natinsky 14
king.71 Together this advice outlines the possibility of a successful tyranny, written by a man
who despised that particular form of government. This becomes significant when compared to
the similarities with Machiavelli’s The Prince and The Discourses.
The Similarities and Significance of Aristotle and Machiavelli’s Views on Tyranny
While over a century occurred between their writings Aristotle’s idea of tyranny comes
striking close to Machiavelli’s. Both of these men placed a significant emphasis on their belief in
a best form of government. And while the precise terms may have varied slightly, they agreed
that the best form of government was a mixed one, and they emphasized the necessity of laws
within a government for success.72 In terms of tyranny, this was the worst possible form of
government for both men, which resulted from a “diseased state of affairs.”73 Together they held
that tyranny was governing by one ruler who acted purely out of self-interest with no regard for
the citizens74; and it hindered its citizens from great accomplishments.75 Within this tyranny,
both men held that the manipulation of religion was the most principal tool of deception.76 In
Leslie J. Walker’s translation of The Discourses he notes a striking similarity between the
methods of these two men.77 Even while Machiavelli draws heavily from historical examples and
Aristotle rarely turns to this type of evidence, Machiavelli’s writing in The Prince and The
Discourses remains “faithful to Aristotle.”78 In considering the similarities of Aristotle and
71
The Politics 1315a40-1315b13.
Pocock, John G. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican
Tradition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ., 2003. Print. 195.
73
Boesche 59.
74
Boesche 127.
75
Giorgini 7.
76
Boesche 162.
77
Strauss, Leo. "Walker's Machiavelli." Rev. of The Discourses of Niccolò Machiavelli by Leslie J. Walker. The
Review of Metaphysics 6.3 (1953): 437-46. JSTOR. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. 438.
78
Giorgini 22.
72
Natinsky 15
Machiavelli’s ideas on and hatred towards tyranny, it becomes evident that the purpose of these
writings extends beyond the apparent intention of merely authoring guides to tyrannical rule.
Their aims may have been different, but both Aristotle and Machiavelli used their
writings as a subtle guide for redirecting the tyrant’s rule. Machiavelli intensely desired
unification of Italy and with these desires he recognized that tyrannical rule was necessary for
the initial unification and establishment. Machiavelli does suggest extreme actions for his tyrant,
yet he qualifies them with his suggestions of just rule when possible, and emphasizes the success
associated with a prince who is in possession of the people’s affection.79 After a prince founded
his state, he must make it great but what one must recognize is that by making the state great, the
state is essentially no longer tyranny.80 Yes, the tyrant was required for the initial stages of
development, but he could then readily transition to a king or popular rule. Through his use of
historical examples of failed princes (or tyrants) Machiavelli is essentially outlining not only
what the prince should attempt to emulate, but also what actions to avoid, which adds a sense of
pragmatism to The Prince. Thus, this text transforms into a teacher, aiming to inform those
hoping to rule on how to be a “genuine statesman” who would not only be capable of making the
correct decisions given varying circumstances, but able to avoid history’s mistakes.81
Various perspectives read the purpose of The Prince differently. One of the stronger
republican perspectives, while recognizing this to truly be a work meant for a founder, considers
it to guide the prince in eventually becoming “superfluous” and thus allowing for the formation
of some form of mass politics.82 Mary Dietz, in an article on Machiavelli’s use of deception in
The Prince, suggests that the entirety of The Prince is meant to deceive Lorenzo de’ Medici into
79
Boesche 121, 127
Giorgini 17.
81
Giorgini 22.
82
Dietz, Mary G. "Trapping the Prince: Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception. "American Political Science
Association 80.3 (1986): 779-99. JSTOR. Web. 20 Apr. 2012. 780.
80
Natinsky 16
following his advice, which will in turn lead to popular government.83 While her evidence is
convincing, I find her claim slightly extreme given the evidence. Yet, in Dietz’s argument, she
advances the claim that The Prince is meant to unwittingly guide the tyrant towards a better form
of government. In a secondary discussion of this article, Boesche refers to Machiavelli’s
explanation of man, “But men with their lack of prudence initiate novelties and, finding the first
taste good, do not notice the poison within.”84While Aristotle’s writing were much less
pragmatic, he too wrote of tyranny in the hopes of redirecting it towards a gentler path.
Throughout Aristotle’s texts he establishes tyranny as the worst form of government, and
yet he spends an entire section within The Politics doing what appears to be the laying out the
guidelines for successful tyrant. In actuality, Aristotle is using this chapter in particular in an
attempt to guide the tyrant towards more successful leadership in the hopes that this will force
them to be less tyrannical. Like Machiavelli, Aristotle understood the possible circumstances that
might require tyrannical rule, but after this foundation is established he argued that the tyrant
should begin to act (or appear to act) like more of a king. He continues to argue that the only way
to preserve a tyranny is to “make it more kingly.”85 Through acting kingly as a tyrant Aristotle
argues this is how a tyrant’s rule is nobler and inspires more envy.86 This advice reads cyclically.
Aristotle appears to be offering genuine advice to a tyrant in an effort to stabilize and continue
their rule, but by stabilizing the tyrant is forced to act kingly, and thus, the tyrant will essentially
turn into a king. In Roger Boesche’s analysis on Aristotle’s view of tyranny as unnatural, he too
recognizes that because it is difficult to believe any tyrant who followed the outlined advice
would remain a tyrant, it is quite possible that Aristotle wrote this in the hopes of “deceiving a
83
Dietz 780.
Boesche 114; The Prince XIII. 82.
85
The Politics 1314a38-40; Boesche 79.
86
The Politics 1315b1-10
84
Natinsky 17
tyrant into becoming a king.”87 Aristotle is deceiving the tyrant just as he is teaching them to
deceive. Aristotle also discusses the short lives of tyrannies88, which makes it largely evident that
his advice, implying elsewhere that it will lead to longevity of rule, will be leading the tyrant far
away from his intended tyrannical path.
Conclusion
After a close examination of Machiavelli’s prince, considering both the historical context
of his authorship of The Prince as well as references within his other works, specifically The
Discourses it becomes evident that Machiavelli’s prince is in all actuality, a tyrant. With the
knowledge of this synonymy alongside discussion of Aristotle’s idea of tyranny, the similarities
between the ways in which these men defined tyranny as well as how they attempted to combat it
surfaced. Eventually the evidence directs the understanding that both of these men use writings
on suggestions for tyrannical rule in an effort to combat that tyranny. They use an extremely
successful persuasive approach along with mild deception to lure the tyrant (or the prince) into
their web of suggestions. They enter believing stabilized success will be waiting on the other side,
an offer too tempting for a tyrant too resist. Thus, these men are directed on a path toward kingly
rule without ever being told they were removing themselves from tyrant only to be crowned king.
Both Aristotle and Machiavelli, although centuries apart, employed similarly skillful rhetorical
techniques in their writings, and as a result their true purposes remain questioned since the
moment their works original distribution.
Works Cited and Consulted
87
88
Boesche 80.
The Politics 135b11-14.
Natinsky 18
Aristotle, and Trevor J. Saunders. The Politics. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Print.
Boesche, Roger. Theories of Tyranny From Plato to Arendt. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania
State UP, 1996. Print.
Brown, Bernard E. Comparative Politics Notes and Readings. 10th ed. New York: Wadsworth,
2005. Print.
Dietz, Mary G. "Trapping the Prince: Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception. “American
Political Science Association 80.3 (1986): 779-99. JSTOR. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.
Giorgini, Giovanni. “The Place of the Tyrant in Machiavelli’s Political Thought and the Literary
Genre of The Prince.” The Italian Academy for Advanced Studies at Columbia University
Lunch Seminar. New York. 18 Feb. 2004.
Johnson, Arthur H. Europe in the Sixteenth Century, 1494-1598. Vol. IV. New York:
Macmillian, 1897. Print.
Machiavelli, Niccolò, and Bernard Crick. The Discourses. Trans. Leslie J. Walker. Ed. Brian
Richardson. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970. Print.
Machiavelli, Niccolò, and William J. Connell. The Prince: With Related Documents. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin's, 2005. Print.
Nederman, Cary, "Niccolò Machiavelli", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/machiavelli/>.
Pocock, John G. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic
Republican Tradition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ., 2003. Print.
Rees, E. A. Political Thought from Machiavelli to Stalin: Revolutionary Machiavellism.
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Print.
Rudowski, Victor A. The Prince: A Historical Critique. New York: Twayne, 1992. Print.
Strauss, Leo. Thoughts on Machiavelli. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1978. Print.
Strauss, Leo. "Walker's Machiavelli." Rev. of The Discourses of Niccolò Machiavelli by Leslie J.
Walker. The Review of Metaphysics 6.3 (1953): 437-46. JSTOR. Web. 14 Mar. 2012.
Sullivan, Vickie B. "Machiavelli's Momentary "Machiavellian Moment": A Reconsideration of
Pocock's Treatment of the Discourses." Political Theory 20.2 (1992): 309-18. JSTOR. Web.
11 Mar. 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/192005. >.
Natinsky 19
Taylor, C.C. W. "Politics." The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle. Ed. Jonathan Barnes.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. 233-58. Print.