feat_summary_path: finished_summaries/gradesaver/The Prince/section_5_part_3.txt
feat_book_id: The Prince.chapter xvii
feat_summary_id: chapter xvii
feat_summary: {"name": "Chapter XVII", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210417004655/https://www.gradesaver.com/the-prince/study-guide/summary-section-6-chapters-xv-xix", "summary": "\"On Cruelty and Clemency: Whether It Is Better To Be Loved or Feared,\" posits the seemingly simple argument that, though it is ideally better to be merciful than cruel, clemency should be handled in moderation. Again, Machiavelli complicates the notion of good as purely subordinate to power, invoking utilitarian reasoning to argue that an excess of \"good\" can actually lead to harm. this case, too much clemency can lead to uprisings and civil war. Machiavelli cites the example of Florence, which was afraid to intervene with the required force in Pistoia and was in turn destroyed through civil conflict. If a prince needs to be cruel to keep his subjects united and loyal, so be it. Cruelty can serve the greater good. There are two ways of fighting, Machiavelli asserts in the following chapter, \"The Way Princes Should Keep Their Word\": with laws, and with force. The first is the human method, and the second belongs in theory to the beasts. That said, there are times when the first method does not suffice, in which case a prince needs to rely on force. Therefore, a prince should study the art of both laws and war, the methods of both man and beasts. When it comes to beasts, two models exist: the lion, which represents brute force and strength, and the fox, which represents wiliness. A prince needs both, for one without the other will lead only to ruin. Machiavelli, as might be expected, proceeds to focus on the fox: \"a prudent prince cannot and should not keep his word when to do so would go against his interest. To be crafty and to be able to deceive, the mythical hallmarks of the fox, are key skills for any ruler. You can break promises and treaties as long as you can hide your duplicity; you must therefore be \"a great liar and hypocrite. A prince need not possess all the virtues listed in Chapter XV. He need not be giving, merciful, faithful, spirited, humane, chaste, straightforward, gentle, but he needs to seem to possess these virtues. Admittedly, it is good to follow virtues both in appearance and in reality, but a prince must be able to switch to the contrary at a moment's notice if necessary, while maintaining a consistent front", "analysis": "If The Prince is often characterized as a treatise on unscrupulous politics and a manual of ruthless power games, Chapter XV, \"On the Reasons Why Men Are Praised or Blamed - Especially Princes,\" is a particularly crucial chapter. It is here that Machiavelli directly addresses the question that has been bubbling underneath the surface of his book thus far - namely, to what extent does being good matter? Machiavelli's answer: as long as it contributes to holding onto power. The key notion here is that good is a relative concept; surface virtuosity, of the kind often showcased by rulers, is often but a disguise, and the greatest good lies in the end - the all-inclusive goal of maintaining the state and securing the reins of power. In other words, good is good insofar as it is politically expedient. The categorical crumbles in the face of efficiency, for the latter is the only true barometer. The ends justify the means, and utilitarianism  is the dominant mode of reasoning. If a prince needs to indulge a vice to save his state, so be it. \"For if you look at matters carefully,\" Machiavelli writes, \"you will see that something resembling virtue, if you follow it, may be your ruin, while something resembling vice will lead, if you follow it, to your security and well-being.\" One might compare this argument to the thrust of Chapter XIII, \"On Those Who Have Become Princes By Crime,\" which measures when and to what extent a prince's cruelty can be justified. Machiavelli is arguing something far more complex than a call to disregard morality. His example of the generous prince begins as a seemingly hard-lined argument and emerges as a humanist consideration of the faults of man. A prince should not be miserly just for the sake of it; miserliness, by resulting in the safeguarding of funds and greater financial security, winds up helping the people in quite direct ways. It is up to the prince to see beyond short-run desires and superficial appearances and to not give away money he cannot afford to spend just to put on a lovable face and to curry favor, but instead to weather the occasional criticism and plan for the future. It is all about the greater good. Machiavelli sublimates the individualistic treatment of the prince as solitary agent into a larger view of society as contingent on long-term planning and sacrifice. The Prince reads here as less a how-to for the aspiring prince than a social manifesto; Machiavelli puts faith in the people's judgment, arguing that they will come around to loving the miserly prince who saves money out of necessity. As in his earlier distinctions between the common people and the nobles, he emerges as more of a populist and democrat than popular conceptions of The Prince tend to allow for. That said, Chapter XVII, \"On Cruelty and Clemency,\" presents a thoroughly pessimistic view of humanity. Men are inherently \"rotten,\" Machiavelli argues, explaining that they are \"ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain.\" For this reason, it is safer for a prince to be feared than to be loved: \"love is link of obligation which men, because they are rotten, will break any time they think doing so serves their advantage.\" Fear, on the other hand, \"involves dread of punishment, from which they can never escape.\" As always, Machiavelli tempers what seems at first like a thoroughly cynical position, noting that moderation is the key, and that a prince should try to make himself feared in a way that does not make him hated. More specifically, he should only shed blood when he has good reason to, he should not confiscate property, and he should keep his hands off his subjects' women. Certain lines cannot be crossed. As Machiavelli writes a few pages later, a prince \"should be ready to enter on evil if he has to,\" but he must have to.  In any case, virtues are often difficult to define; they are only virtuous insofar as they help people. Virtue for its own sake can be harmful, and for a prince to possess and exercise all virtues at all times is a mistake. Appearances are a different matter: the masses are impressed by the superficial appearance of things so long as the prince's ends are achieved. It matters little, therefore, who the prince really is. Machiavelli closes Chapter XVIII with a reference that deserves mention. \"A certain prince of our own time,\" he writes, \"whom it's just as well not to name, preaches nothing but peace and mutual trust, yet he is the determined enemy of both.\" This seems to be a condemnation, but Machiavelli continues: \"if on several different occasions he had observed either, he would have lost both his reputation and his throne.\" The prince in question is Ferdinand of Spain, and the passage is something of a swipe at him. The first line suggests untempered scorn, while the second modifies this position and recasts Ferdinand as an example of how hypocrisy can be useful. These last few words are perhaps the veil Machiavelli uses to hide a more acute criticism of Ferdinand, who secured his power through often bloodthirsty tactics, expelling the Muslims and Jews from Spain, waging war, and persecuting the masses. These repellent maneuvers, Machiavelli is forced to admit, did work. We can sense here the writer having reached a sort of theoretical impasse: how to both condemn and praise? How to reconcile a need for human goodness  with the demands of power and the vicissitudes of international relations? Ferdinand provides a particularly difficult case, since Machiavelli, writing of him as a \"determined enemy\" of peace and trust, seems to disapprove of him, while his own writings provide a framework whereby Ferdinand's actions are thoroughly justifiable. What is perhaps most important is that Machiavelli faces Ferdinand head-on. Contradictions may abound as Machiavelli maps out his philosophy, but he seems to implicitly acknowledge this. The Prince is more than a simplistic argument for cold-heartedness in politics, and these chapters reflect Machiavelli's efforts to grapple with the various problems his more cynical positions engender."}
text: Coming now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every
  prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel.
  Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency. Cesare
  Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the
  Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this
  be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful
  than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty,
  permitted Pistoia to be destroyed.(*) Therefore a prince, so long as he
  keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of
  cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those
  who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow
  murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people,
  whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the
  individual only.
  
       (*) During the rioting between the Cancellieri and
       Panciatichi factions in 1502 and 1503.
  
  And of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the
  imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers. Hence
  Virgil, through the mouth of Dido, excuses the inhumanity of her reign
  owing to its being new, saying:
  
       "Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt
       Moliri, et late fines custode tueri."(*)
  
  Nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he
  himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and
  humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and
  too much distrust render him intolerable.
  
       (*) . . . against my will, my fate
       A throne unsettled, and an infant state,
       Bid me defend my realms with all my pow'rs,
       And guard with these severities my shores.
  
       Christopher Pitt.
  
  Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
  feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
  be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
  is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
  dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that
  they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as
  you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood,
  property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far
  distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that
  prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other
  precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by
  payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be
  earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied
  upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one
  who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which,
  owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their
  advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never
  fails.
  
  Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he
  does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well
  being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he
  abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their
  women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of
  someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause,
  but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others,
  because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss
  of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are
  never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always
  find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking
  life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But
  when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of
  soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation
  of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or
  disposed to its duties.
  
  Among the wonderful deeds of Hannibal this one is enumerated: that
  having led an enormous army, composed of many various races of men,
  to fight in foreign lands, no dissensions arose either among them or
  against the prince, whether in his bad or in his good fortune. This
  arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his
  boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of
  his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not
  sufficient to produce this effect. And short-sighted writers admire
  his deeds from one point of view and from another condemn the principal
  cause of them. That it is true his other virtues would not have been
  sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most
  excellent man, not only of his own times but within the memory of man,
  against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from
  nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more
  license than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was
  upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of
  the Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a legate of Scipio,
  yet they were not avenged by him, nor was the insolence of the legate
  punished, owing entirely to his easy nature. Insomuch that someone in
  the Senate, wishing to excuse him, said there were many men who knew
  much better how not to err than to correct the errors of others.
  This disposition, if he had been continued in the command, would have
  destroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he being under the
  control of the Senate, this injurious characteristic not only concealed
  itself, but contributed to his glory.
  
  Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the
  conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing
  according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself
  on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must
  endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.
  
  
  
feat_summary_name: Chapter XVII
target: "On Cruelty and Clemency: Whether It Is Better To Be Loved or Feared," posits the seemingly simple argument that, though it is ideally better to be merciful than cruel, clemency should be handled in moderation. Again, Machiavelli complicates the notion of good as purely subordinate to power, invoking utilitarian reasoning to argue that an excess of "good" can actually lead to harm. this case, too much clemency can lead to uprisings and civil war. Machiavelli cites the example of Florence, which was afraid to intervene with the required force in Pistoia and was in turn destroyed through civil conflict. If a prince needs to be cruel to keep his subjects united and loyal, so be it. Cruelty can serve the greater good. There are two ways of fighting, Machiavelli asserts in the following chapter, "The Way Princes Should Keep Their Word": with laws, and with force. The first is the human method, and the second belongs in theory to the beasts. That said, there are times when the first method does not suffice, in which case a prince needs to rely on force. Therefore, a prince should study the art of both laws and war, the methods of both man and beasts. When it comes to beasts, two models exist: the lion, which represents brute force and strength, and the fox, which represents wiliness. A prince needs both, for one without the other will lead only to ruin. Machiavelli, as might be expected, proceeds to focus on the fox: "a prudent prince cannot and should not keep his word when to do so would go against his interest. To be crafty and to be able to deceive, the mythical hallmarks of the fox, are key skills for any ruler. You can break promises and treaties as long as you can hide your duplicity; you must therefore be "a great liar and hypocrite. A prince need not possess all the virtues listed in Chapter XV. He need not be giving, merciful, faithful, spirited, humane, chaste, straightforward, gentle, but he needs to seem to possess these virtues. Admittedly, it is good to follow virtues both in appearance and in reality, but a prince must be able to switch to the contrary at a moment's notice if necessary, while maintaining a consistent front
feat_summary_analysis: If The Prince is often characterized as a treatise on unscrupulous politics and a manual of ruthless power games, Chapter XV, "On the Reasons Why Men Are Praised or Blamed - Especially Princes," is a particularly crucial chapter. It is here that Machiavelli directly addresses the question that has been bubbling underneath the surface of his book thus far - namely, to what extent does being good matter? Machiavelli's answer: as long as it contributes to holding onto power. The key notion here is that good is a relative concept; surface virtuosity, of the kind often showcased by rulers, is often but a disguise, and the greatest good lies in the end - the all-inclusive goal of maintaining the state and securing the reins of power. In other words, good is good insofar as it is politically expedient. The categorical crumbles in the face of efficiency, for the latter is the only true barometer. The ends justify the means, and utilitarianism  is the dominant mode of reasoning. If a prince needs to indulge a vice to save his state, so be it. "For if you look at matters carefully," Machiavelli writes, "you will see that something resembling virtue, if you follow it, may be your ruin, while something resembling vice will lead, if you follow it, to your security and well-being." One might compare this argument to the thrust of Chapter XIII, "On Those Who Have Become Princes By Crime," which measures when and to what extent a prince's cruelty can be justified. Machiavelli is arguing something far more complex than a call to disregard morality. His example of the generous prince begins as a seemingly hard-lined argument and emerges as a humanist consideration of the faults of man. A prince should not be miserly just for the sake of it; miserliness, by resulting in the safeguarding of funds and greater financial security, winds up helping the people in quite direct ways. It is up to the prince to see beyond short-run desires and superficial appearances and to not give away money he cannot afford to spend just to put on a lovable face and to curry favor, but instead to weather the occasional criticism and plan for the future. It is all about the greater good. Machiavelli sublimates the individualistic treatment of the prince as solitary agent into a larger view of society as contingent on long-term planning and sacrifice. The Prince reads here as less a how-to for the aspiring prince than a social manifesto; Machiavelli puts faith in the people's judgment, arguing that they will come around to loving the miserly prince who saves money out of necessity. As in his earlier distinctions between the common people and the nobles, he emerges as more of a populist and democrat than popular conceptions of The Prince tend to allow for. That said, Chapter XVII, "On Cruelty and Clemency," presents a thoroughly pessimistic view of humanity. Men are inherently "rotten," Machiavelli argues, explaining that they are "ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain." For this reason, it is safer for a prince to be feared than to be loved: "love is link of obligation which men, because they are rotten, will break any time they think doing so serves their advantage." Fear, on the other hand, "involves dread of punishment, from which they can never escape." As always, Machiavelli tempers what seems at first like a thoroughly cynical position, noting that moderation is the key, and that a prince should try to make himself feared in a way that does not make him hated. More specifically, he should only shed blood when he has good reason to, he should not confiscate property, and he should keep his hands off his subjects' women. Certain lines cannot be crossed. As Machiavelli writes a few pages later, a prince "should be ready to enter on evil if he has to," but he must have to.  In any case, virtues are often difficult to define; they are only virtuous insofar as they help people. Virtue for its own sake can be harmful, and for a prince to possess and exercise all virtues at all times is a mistake. Appearances are a different matter: the masses are impressed by the superficial appearance of things so long as the prince's ends are achieved. It matters little, therefore, who the prince really is. Machiavelli closes Chapter XVIII with a reference that deserves mention. "A certain prince of our own time," he writes, "whom it's just as well not to name, preaches nothing but peace and mutual trust, yet he is the determined enemy of both." This seems to be a condemnation, but Machiavelli continues: "if on several different occasions he had observed either, he would have lost both his reputation and his throne." The prince in question is Ferdinand of Spain, and the passage is something of a swipe at him. The first line suggests untempered scorn, while the second modifies this position and recasts Ferdinand as an example of how hypocrisy can be useful. These last few words are perhaps the veil Machiavelli uses to hide a more acute criticism of Ferdinand, who secured his power through often bloodthirsty tactics, expelling the Muslims and Jews from Spain, waging war, and persecuting the masses. These repellent maneuvers, Machiavelli is forced to admit, did work. We can sense here the writer having reached a sort of theoretical impasse: how to both condemn and praise? How to reconcile a need for human goodness  with the demands of power and the vicissitudes of international relations? Ferdinand provides a particularly difficult case, since Machiavelli, writing of him as a "determined enemy" of peace and trust, seems to disapprove of him, while his own writings provide a framework whereby Ferdinand's actions are thoroughly justifiable. What is perhaps most important is that Machiavelli faces Ferdinand head-on. Contradictions may abound as Machiavelli maps out his philosophy, but he seems to implicitly acknowledge this. The Prince is more than a simplistic argument for cold-heartedness in politics, and these chapters reflect Machiavelli's efforts to grapple with the various problems his more cynical positions engender.