PSCpaper-westernpolthoughtclassic
- 2.
In chapter six of The Prince, Machiavelli names four past founders to be the most
excellent: Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus. The definition of a “founder” for Machiavelli is
someone who makes himself the source and basis of praise; these founders were all godlike in
this way because there was no higher entity by which to judge the newly introduced orders.
There was only the prince and his ways after each founded their kingdoms, and this was the only
way by which justice would be served.
The founders are exemplary for Machiavelli because they each introduced new order via
new modes. They all implemented new orders or laws of the region, replacing the old orders,
which is key. Reinstating old orders, as Cesare Borgia did, is not the correct path a prince should
take in seizing a princedom as Machiavelli explains in chapter VII and chapter XI. By way of
new modes means by way of a newly introduced militia under the prince, or arms of his own.
These founders are exemplary for Machiavelli because they introduce new laws using their own
arms, and are otherwise known as the armed prophets; their prophecy being their new orders, and
their arms being the new orders.
They all implemented new orders; this is what sets them apart as exemplary founders. In
order for their own new modes to work, because those who benefited from the old orders will be
zealous enemies and those defending the new ones will be but lukewarm defenders, these
founders had to implement their own new armies (24). In chapter XIII, Machiavelli lays out the
recipe for success when raising an army: the prince must destroy the existing army, and
implement his own troops. These troops should not be mercenaries because mercenaries are only
concerned with their pay, not the cause, so they can be easily bribed. One should also not rely on
- 3. auxiliary soldiers because their alliance is to their ruler, not the aspiring prince. If auxiliary
soldiers win the war, they have won it for the country which they belong, not the country which
they have helped in battle. Machiavelli explains that one’s own arms should be made up of one’s
own “soldiers, citizens, or creatures” (57). This means those followers which a prince has
created, or those who have conformed to his cause. Support for the cause can be done by the
citizens own accord, or they can be made to believe by use of arms.
Each of the founders named by Machiavelli as exemplary came to rule by way of their
own virtue; they did not depend on fortune to rise to power. The only thing these princes were
given from fortune was opportunity. Fortune posed each of the four founders the opportunity to
discover the people they would rule in discontent with their current regime. This was a
necessary condition for these founders’ success (23). This is because a people unhappy with their
current ruler can be easily swayed to fight on the side of an invader; they fight for liberation
against their oppressive ruler, but are only strong enough to do so with the help of the invading
army. A people that is happy with their current state of affairs will not support the invading
army, but stand strong with their fatherland. Without the exemplary founders’ virtue of spirit, the
opportunity posed would have been in vain, and without the opportunity, their virtue of spirit
would have been eliminated (23). In chapter XV, Machiavelli explains what he means by virtue.
He says it is necessary for a prince, if he wants to maintain himself, to learn to be able to not be
good, and to use this and not use it according to necessity (61). In short, Machiavelli’s definition
of virtue is knowing when to act on necessity, but appearing to always support the good.
One encounters much resistance when acquiring a princedom with virtue, but will hold
their state more securely. Those who depend on fortune acquire the princedom easily, because it
- 4. is taken almost without any effort at all, but they encounter great difficulty in securing the state
because they have not relied solely on their own capability; relying on others, for Machiavelli, is
foolish as he explains in chapter III, chapter VI and throughout his critique of Cesare Borgia.
Machiavelli explains, “Those like these men, who become princes by virtue, acquire their
principality with difficulty, but hold it with ease; and the difficulties they have in acquiring their
principalities arise in part from the new orders and modes they are forced to introduce so as to
found their state and their security”(23). Although the new orders are a difficult task in acquiring
a princedom, they are the necessary condition for a secure state in which the prince is honored
and loved. New orders are crucial for aspiring princes because by wiping the slate clean of any
other competing order, the people have nothing to compare or asses the prince to; the prince is
the peak of his new order, and so he is godlike.
Machiavelli does say he will leave out Moses during the discussion because Moses
depended on God; Moses was but an instrument of a higher power, not a prince by his own
virtue. However, because Machiavelli chooses to discuss him further, this would suggest that
Machiavelli actually praises Moses for using his own merit, but attributing it to God.
For the careful reader of The Prince, Moses is the greatest of the four exemplary founders
because he attributes his work to God, but actually acted out of his own selfinterest. Moses did
everything of his own accord, but increased his credentials by attributing it to God. He names
Moses the founder of Christianity; Moses implemented God as a higher law than that of
humanity. This implementation of a law higher than that of humanity gives the prince the
godlike power
- 5. Moses is different from the other three in that he is the most lofty of the founders, and his
orders have persevered with time. Moses’s kingdom, Christianity, is the largest and longest
lasting kingdom in the world.
His implementation of religion is the reason Machiavelli chooses Moses as one of the
great, if not the greatest, founders. This implementation of a power higher than that of human
law gives Moses all the power he could possibly have from the believers of Christianity, the law
higher than human law. Moses is the epitome of Machiavellian virtue in The Prince because he
appears to act for the souls of his people, and for their ultimate happiness, but in reality he
simply implemented law in the most absolute and necessary way possible so that he could
acquire and secure his kingdom. To compare, Moses acted correctly by making the church his
instrument, and Cesare Borgia acted incorrectly by allowing himself to be made an instrument by
the church.
For Machiavelli, fear is belief. Belief, however, is not making someone act as you wish
them to. Belief is wholehearted faith in a cause, which can be obtained through the use of fear;
fear can make a people forget their old gods. This fear can only be implemented through military
force, and so the prophet must not only have prophecy, but a means by which to make people
believe his prophecy: military arms. Machiavelli explains that those who pray (the unarmed), or
beg, for their deed to be implemented fall to ruin, while those who are able to do it alone always
prevail. Machiavelli explains that things must be ordered in such a mode that when they no
longer believe, one can make them believe by force (24). Once the romance of the revolution has
receded, one needs arms to ensure the people keep hold of their beliefs so that the prince may
hold his people securely and happily.
- 6. The arms of the armed prophet are their military and their laws. Their laws, Machiavelli
believes, are just or good if the arms enforce them. This also means that any law that is enforced
is good, and arms, or a military, can make any law good. This is where the careful reader
understands that Moses’s laws and arms were so powerful because he had divine arms to
implement his laws, or so it appeared. Moses’s arms threatened to punish the souls of people,
making the punishment worse than any punishment one could endure on earth. Moses founded a
religion, while the other three exemplaries founded secular cities or states.
The teaching of this chapter is to act on necessity and rely on one’s own virtue and arms,
do not rely on anything or anyone else. By enduring hardship through acquiring a princedom, the
prince can avoid hardships while maintaining it. Unsavory measures are desirable in the
beginning of the acquisition so that when one has finally conquered, they can maintain their land
securely. A prince should always act on necessity, or what should be done in order to secure his
kingdom. The other teaching of chapter VI is that laws without arms are no good, but laws can
be made good by arms as well. A law is good, for Machiavelli, if it is obeyed. This is also
Machiavelli’s major rift between him and classical political philosophers because this means
justice is left out of the equation. The question is no longer about what laws are just in a
kingdom; the question is how does one make their people obey the laws, therefore securing one’s
kingdom.
