The True Champion Of Justice In Shakespeare's The Prince

Socrates would view Machiavelli’s concept of a prince as ignorant and built upon falsehoods as seen through Machiavelli’s explanations of holding new principalities. From the very start of “The Prince” Machiavelli explains that hereditary principalities are always easier to rule, because of the fact that “it is sufficient only for the prince to maintain the customs of those who ruled before him” (Machiavelli, Ch. 2). In contrast Socrates in the “Apology” passionately fights against the status quo. He likens himself to that as a gadfly of the Athenian state stinging the large horse “great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life” (Apology, 30e). Socrates finds that a leader who grows content and maintains customs as those before him is foolish as he does not think for himself. A truly enlightened prince would question and challenge everything that comes his way. An enlightened prince would

Machiavelli and Socrates agree on very little. While an initial reading of the two may elicit some comparisons, the goals of their respective philosophies rely on different foundations, and would therefore culminate in very different political results for society. Socrates would likely see in the Prince a selfish ruler, while Machiavelli would see in Socrates a dangerous idealist whose ideas would lead to instability and the death of the state in which these ideas were implemented. Machiavelli’s philosophy of the Prince would not satisfy Socrates because instead of focusing on right action, the Prince is encouraged to put political expediency and self-preservation above all else. In addition, the type of political system that Machiavelli’s

While Socrates and Machiavelli lived over 1900 years apart, the dilemmas their societies faced draw many parallels. In Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, he demonstrates a wide-ranging set of rules and principles to be followed by a leader to ensure the steady maintenance of authority and stability in a state or principality. Not only would Socrates be opposed to many of the espoused views in “The Prince” on what creates a successful ruler, thereby society, but had he lived in Machiavelli’s “ideal” state, he would openly question and rebel against the cogs that maintain its stability, possibly even advocating its upheaval. Socrates would most ardently disagree with Machiavelli’s depiction of the supremacy of the prince and state over its

Machiavelli acknowledges this ideal, but calls on his knowledge of the other successful princes to disprove its feasibility and add in other factors, such as confusing others and taking advantage of loyalty, to achieve his means, rather than relying on Socrates’ moral simplicity. Socrates’ absolutism in this manner is fundamental to his line of questioning, and thus treats it as fact, meaning that if he were to come to blows with Machiavelli over the nature of such a prince that would disavow this basic principle, he would not support it. His commitment to moral righteousness is further displayed by his assertion that he owes a greater obedience to God than to the people, to the extent that “so long as [he] draw[s] breath and [has] his faculties, [he] shall never stop practicing philosophy and exhorting [them] and indicating the truth” (Plato, 55-56).

Throughout history, there have been a variety of leaders. These leaders have varied greatly on their view point of what make a good leader. Some people prefer that one ruler is superior to others, while others tend to believe that all people are on equivalent levels. In addition, some people feel that everyone should have an equal amount of knowledge, while others feel that some people are superior to others. This essay will explore how Socrates and Machiavelli would have compared themselves and their beliefs. Socrates would not have appreciated Machiavelli’s concept of “The Prince”. Socrates also would not have supported a political system that “The Prince” would be willing to go along with.

Socrates and Machiavelli both aspire to the same end of accomplishing certain political goals. Machiavelli, in the Prince, speaks of his desire to end political conflict through the institution of order while Socrates, as described by Plato, seemingly wishes for the government of his time to be replaced with a more just system. Though the two historical figures are both very relevant to the concepts of power and how to attain it, they are polar opposites when it comes to the means by which they hope to accomplish their personal ends. In The Prince, Machiavelli gives an essential guide of how a Prince must appear and how he must interact with his subject in order to make sure that they are complacent and subordinate. On the other hand,

Diverging from the classical and Christian interpretations of morality which emphasize being good and doing no harm, Machiavelli sees man as incapable of this mission and instead, supports a different sense of morality. In this, the idea of power is at the forefront of discussion. While Greek philosophers like Socrates view the quest for power as a corrupt act, Machiavelli sees it as natural. Thus, in order to analyze The Prince, we have to alter our perspectives to see that for

Machiavelli attempted to quell the political instability characteristic of his time by creating a political system that stressed tranquility. He believed in the power of the leader to make difficult choices to maintain their regime by any means necessary. Machiavelli entrusted leaders to make decisions that benefitted the masses and believed that strategic use of lies, cruelty and violence were necessary in order to preserve order. On the contrary, Socrates believed in a political system where people were able to challenge leadership through their personal beliefs and stressed the importance of humility. Socrates would argue that Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince is too self-interested and that this Prince would lead to a corrupt political system of which he would not support.

Niccolo Machiavelli lived in Italy during a time of great change and political conflict and war. Similarly, Socrates lived in Greece, which was also experiencing political unrest. Both of these philosophers wrote about what they believed to be a successful political system and its leadership, or the Prince. Although both lived during similar societal unrest, each had different perspectives on what it is a fit Prince would be. Socrates believed that a Prince should be one who motivated the pursuit of wisdom and held some of their own, as well as one who valued morality in their rule. Machiavelli believed that a Prince would be one who had the right to manipulate their people as well as one who could separate morality from their rule. Socrates would not agree with Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince because of their differing views on how wisdom and morality should be applied to an effective Prince’s rule however, would have to support the political system that comes from the Prince’s rule because of Socrates’ belief on obeying law, whether it is just or unjust.

because he believes this is how (political) insight is sought. In fact, he spends the entirety of

Machiavelli and Socrates both represent groundbreaking, radical, thinkers who contributed greatly to contemporary political theory and dialogue. Although both Machiavelli and Socrates were groundbreaking statesmen, their ideas clash fundamentally. Socrates’ expectation of a leader radically differs from that of Machiavelli. Socrates expects an ideal leader to always challenge the status quo, never accepting the ruling establishment, or the old way of going about governing. Most of all, Socrates would expect a leader to always challenge corruption, decadence, and moral decay of society. Such expectations are seen in both Socrates’ teachings and the actions he took throughout his life. Socrates actively fomented dissent against the nobility of Athens, casting himself as a necessary agitator purging Athenian society of its decadent proclivities. Machiavelli has a near completely opposite view of the virtues a ruler should hold close. Machiavelli’s aim in “The Prince” is to guide potential rulers on how to grow, and later maintain, their grip on power, by any means necessary. Such means may include corruption, the abandoning of one’s moral compass, principles, and just about any other defining characteristic. Machiavelli gives leaders a full license, in a sense, to commit any act that promotes their self-interest. It is clear that Machiavelli and Socrates diverge substantively on what constitutes an ideal leader, which, in turn, signifies that they

Socrates would have been skeptical of Machiavelli’s assertions on how a prince should rule his kingdom. Socrates preferred to question people to understand what should the right thing and philosophy, rather than just studying the actions of past people. From his studying of human behavior, Machiavelli concludes that prince should make decisions with his self- interests in mind, rather than working within what morality and law. As a philosopher who spent his time talking to people, Socrates would disagree with Machiavelli because his advice would lead the prince astray. A prince who follows Machiavelli’s advice is one who is only focused on his reign and longevity of his state, not the best strategies for the people.

Machiavelli’s Prince was written as a prescription for taking and maintaining power through calculated decisions and prudency. Socrates was the founder of the western world’s notion of philosophy, and a man who valued personal examination above all else. Both men had the goal of seeking knowledge but went about their task through different methods. If followed in its entirety, Machiavelli’s Price would have been an all-powerful ruler only focused on the control of his state which is not the type of ruler Socrates would be fond of. Despite this it is very possible that Socrates would be supportive of the system this prince ruled over.

Socrates and Machiavelli both lived during a period of nefarious governmental practices and political instability. However, these two men possessed dichotomous beliefs on how to achieve their ends, the means with which to achieve them, and the temperament a ruler must possess in order to be successful. Due to this stark contrast in their sentiments, Socrates would view Machiavelli’s concept of a prince as repugnant due to its absence of morality. Socrates would also disapprove of the political system that said prince would induce because it is one that would curtail the spread of truth, knowledge, and wisdom.

Modern politics did not just spring into existence, but was built upon foundations set hundreds of years before. Foundations that have been set by Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates have proven to withstand the test of time, continuing to be influential and poignant in today’s world. Despite their prevalence, these men advocate and believe in starkly different principles in government. Machiavelli’s concept of the ruling figure, or prince, is one based strictly on the concept of power and its furtherance, which can best be seen based on the Prince’s moral code. Socrates’ concept of the ideal prince is one that advocates for the rule of law and is enlightened by the sense that he knows nothing. Prior to examining the Socratic view of a Machiavellian prince and whether Socrates would support a Machiavellian political system, it is necessary to carefully examine the two different perspectives on the ideal ruler. It is likely that Socrates would have viewed Machiavelli’s ideal prince with contempt due to differences in the two men’s ideas regarding originality of thought, the influence of a moral code on a leader’s rule, and the need to keep agreements. Furthermore Socrates would likely disagree with the foundations that Machiavelli’s political system was grounded upon, such as a stark and true disagreement on the importance of rule of law in a society and whether soulcraft or statecraft should