IN the following instalments of this series I will undertake a detailed breakdown of Il Principe itself, examining those points which were so heavily disputed by Frederick II in Anti-Machiavel and attempting to establish the political, historical, moral and philosophical views that shape their arguments. For the sake of convenience, I shall employ the same chapter headings as Machiavelli. Frederick the Great, as we have seen, refers to the Italian as ‘Machiavel’.

* * *

I: How many kinds of principalities there are and by what means they are acquired

In his opening chapter, Machiavelli contends that there

are only two kinds of states, republics or principalities.

This was certainly the case in his own time, prior to the eighteenth-century French Revolution and the various political offshoots that arrived during the nineteenth century, but whilst the term ‘republic’ is fairly self-explanatory Machiavelli’s use of the term ‘principalities’ relates to those regions which are controlled by hereditary families. These territories may be added to existing principalities elsewhere, or created anew. Once acquired, he argues, such states are

either accustomed to live under a prince, or to live in freedom. They are acquired either by the military power of the prince himself or of others, or else by fortune or by ability.

Frederick, questioning why free men would ever choose to live under the rule of a prince, accuses Machiavelli of having failed to do the necessary research and that the glorification of ruthless behaviour that one finds later on in his work is a contradiction. The reason being, that people always chose those

whom they believed to be the wisest, most equitable and most disinterested, the most valiant and the most human, to control them.

It is, of course, debatable whether ordinary people really have any say in such matters, but the crux of Frederick’s entire argument is that the best form of rule is applied by a sovereign who fully understands his own responsibilities. The king, in other words, is said to be the servant of the people and not a perpetual schemer who will do anything to heighten his own perception of power. Frederick continues:

It is not only his violence; he shows utter contempt for the people that he rules, and treats them like animals: the usurper will sacrifice, both all the goods of “his” people and their very lives, to appease his tyrant’s whims and avarice.

Unlike Machiavelli, Frederick suggests there are three ways in which to become master of a country:

(a) succession,

(b) choice of the people, or

(c) conquest through war.

The first method, by way of the Hohenstollern dynasty, is the manner in which he obtained his own position, whilst the second – given the absence of democracy – is extremely unrealistic. The third, far less so, and certainly favoured by Machiavelli’s ambitious prince. The comments in this first chapter form the very basis of Frederick’s opposition.

TO BE CONTINUED…