Prince VI (Redux)
A ride through the countryside, as opposed to the march of plundering soldiers
At this point we are going to speed up a bit and gallop through the next few chapters, highlighting some of the most interesting features of the discussion as we pass them by.
In Chapter 4, Machiavelli talks about the Turks, but not the Italians, which begs the question as to why the chapter is even here. The Turks stand in for Islam. So why speak of the Turks but not the Italians? Think about it. If you were in the Soviet Union reading a book about the Soviet Union and you got to a chapter where the Soviet Union is never mentioned, but where the author discussed an ancient tyrant, what would you think? You would likely conclude that the chapter was really about the Soviet Union, it is really about those of whom one is afraid to speak, say Stalin. Machiavelli is scared to speak of the Church, so when re-reading you should ponder what the implication of this is.
Briefly to sketch out just one of them: Machiavelli says there are two kinds of governing structure: there are states ruled by one prince where all the subordinate ranks depend upon the prince, and there are states where the prince rules with the barons whose rank depends upon heredity. In other words, you have centralized government and dispersed government. Italy is both, because of the church, which permeates everything. To invade Italy one must not only commit papicide, that is, kill the Pope, but also ecclesiasticide, one must kill the entire church, that is, all religious authority must be killed off. To conquer and hold Italy one must solve two problems: the church and the confederate nature of the city states. Either you have to kill all the princes and keep the customs the same, or you have to take the nationalist road, to show them they can be part of something bigger and therefore greater, while also being freer than before. One should bear this teaching in mind when one reads over the last chapter of the book.
At the outset of The Prince, Machiavelli said he would set aside the subject of republics because he had discussed them in another place, and yet here in Chapter 5 we have a discussion of republics, so why is this here?
Notice the title: “How cities or principalities which lived by their own laws before they were occupied should be administered.”
The subject is what to do to hold a conquered republic. In other words, the chapter is written from the perspective of one who would want to conquer and hold a republic, not one who would seek to order and maintain one.
In Chapter 6, Machiavelli discusses the four great founders: Moses, Theseus, Romulus, and Cyrus. He speaks of imitating the actions of great men, of armed prophets, and of the opportunities given by fortune.
These are the individuals who obtained their principalities through their own arms and virtue. Machiavelli says one should not reason about Moses, because he simply executed what God ordered. And yet, Machiavelli also says that if you were to reason about him, you would see that he was no different from the other three. From this we can conclude, at the very least, that Machiavelli has reasoned about Moses.
Taking a quick look at the opportunities offered by fortune, we see that Moses found the Israelites enslaved, Romulus was exposed at birth, Cyrus found the Persians malcontent and the Medes soft and effeminate, and Theseus found the Athenians dispersed.
Speaking specifically about the opportunities given to Romulus and Theseus:
Romulus was exposed at birth along with his brother Remus. They were raised by a she-wolf, and he ends up killing his brother, but he founds Rome. He commits fratricide.
As for Theseus, he was the son of the King of Athens, and was tasked with killing the Minotaur. On his return voyage he ‘mistakenly’ raised the sail that was to indicate that he died in the attempt. As a result, his father thought he was dead and committed suicide out of grief. Theseus then becomes king. In a sense he commits patricide.
These are the examples we are supposed to emulate.
Machiavelli tells us that if we acquire it with difficulty, then we will keep it with ease. To hold it one must introduce new modes and orders, which will have for enemies, all those who benefit from the old modes and orders and have only half-hearted support as they are as yet unproven.
Begging others for support is to rely upon others; using force is to rely upon oneself.
Machiavelli tells us that all armed prophets were successful, while the unarmed prophets fail. But, how do we imitate a prophet, an individual who speaks to God?
To get an idea, we can look at Exodus, to the story of Moses and the Israelites. Specifically, let’s look at Exodus 32, where the golden calf makes an appearance.
1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.
4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the Lord.
6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.
7 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:
8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
11 And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.
16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.
17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.
18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.
19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.
20 And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.
21 And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them?
22 And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief.
23 For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
24 And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.
25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)
26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
Here we see what it means to be an armed prophet: Moses had someone else to blame things on – God.
The greatest founders recognize that there are limits to existing regimes, that you have to rule under the rules of another. Very often the greatest political question is the religious one, because the character of one’s religion serves to color everything else. It matters greatly whether one is a Christian country, or a Muslim country, or a Buddhist country, etc.
How do we go about imitating these great founders? First, we have to notice that there is a completely human explanation of Moses’s success, that there is a lesson here in how to read the Bible. How does Machiavelli know Moses is just like Romulus, Cyrus, and Theseus? He read the Bible, he read the Bible in such a way as to read God out of it.
Ask yourself, what is the Bible? Is it divine revelation? Is it a myth? A story? A lie? In any case, how do you know you have the correct interpretation of it or of any other book? Usually you look to the intention of the author, you ask what did the author intend to communicate? Well, who wrote the first five books of the Bible? Moses.