The Courtier & the Prince

Niccolo Machiavelli

At the crossroads of the Renaissance and Reformation, two great works emerged--The Courtier, by Baldassare Castiglione, and The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli--in which are displayed contrasting ideas regarding morals and what makes a good prince.

Machiavelli: For Reputation’s Sake
In attempt to become a governmental advisor, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a treatise, "The Prince," to the governor, including what he labeled the “rules of conduct” for a prince. He proceeds to outline the characteristics a prince should adopt if he is to be successful in his station, and he begins with the claim, “a prince who wishes to survive must know how to do wrong, and how to do or not do wrong according to necessity.” The prince should strive to be kind, religious, faithful, and sincere but should likewise employ the counter-characteristics lest one becomes used to and expects generosity and mercy. For if generosity was all the ruler was known for, then one misdeed would label the prince as mean.

However, a reputation of meanness isn’t what concerns Machiavelli; he considers this approach a form of protection—a guard against being despised and hated. He illustrates his point with an example of a generous prince: one act of generosity will lead to more and more acts of generosity, until the prince has expended all his assets; at this point, he’ll have to raise taxes so he can gain the money back which will disrupt the peace of many and the prince “runs at once into the criticism of being mean.” Therefore, do whatever is necessary to have the advantage in the end—for reputation’s sake.

Castiglione: Virtue & Vice
The ideas in Castiglione’s The Courtier present a striking contrast to those of Machiavelli. Through an after-dinner conversation, characters express their ideal vision of a prince is one who is virtuous and abandons all things evil; they believe the courtier should “win over the mind of his prince” so he can teach him virtue. Thus ensues a debate as to why people succumb to or resist evil:

Pietro Bembo, a neoplatanist, suggests that man recognizes when he desires evil, but his appetite defeats reason after a vicious battle. But the fact that there’s a battle at all suggests he knows what he’s doing is evil. Ottaviano, another guest who participates in this after-dinner conversation, claims that ignorance is what causes desire to overcome emotion, but if one possesses “true knowledge,” emotion will never defeat reason. A third viewpoint is presented by the Magnifico Giuliano who stands by the idea that self-mastery should be the goal; when there’s conflict between reason and desire, self-mastery is the virtue that can cause one to conquer.

After studying The Courtier, one pauses to consider where Machiavelli and his philosophy fall: did his desire for evil outweigh his reason? Was he ignorant as to where choosing evil would lead him? Or was it all deliberate and intentional?



Image source: "Niccolo Machiavelli" (public domain images via Wikimedia Commons)