feat_summary_path: finished_summaries/shmoop/The Prince/section_17_part_0.txt
feat_book_id: The Prince.chapter 17
feat_summary_id: chapter 17
feat_summary: {"name": "Chapter 17", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210420060055/https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/literature/prince-machiavelli/summary/chapter-17", "summary": "So generosity was a no-go. And compassion? Well, you guessed it: compassion isn't really conducive to the sort of warlike ruler Machiavelli advocates and might actually destroy a nation. Just like it's better to be a little mean than nice for the sake of the nation, it's better to be feared than loved because people seem to react better to punishment than love. Again, Machiavelli keeps telling us not to become hated, which is easy enough if you lay off people's families and lands. In Machiavelli's example section, he tells us how Hannibal was super awesome because he was insanely cruel. We mean, there's a reason why that scary dude from Silence of the Lambs was named Hannibal. Guess who almost wasn't awesome? This guy called Scipio who was all mushy touchy feely and didn't want to punish people. Lucky for him, other people covered up his namby-pamby nature. But everyone is not so lucky. Anyway, in the end, since the people choose if they like you or not, don't worry about it. Just make sure that they don't hate you.", "analysis": ""}
text: Coming now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every
  prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel.
  Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency. Cesare
  Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the
  Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this
  be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful
  than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty,
  permitted Pistoia to be destroyed.(*) Therefore a prince, so long as he
  keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of
  cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those
  who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow
  murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people,
  whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the
  individual only.
  
       (*) During the rioting between the Cancellieri and
       Panciatichi factions in 1502 and 1503.
  
  And of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the
  imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers. Hence
  Virgil, through the mouth of Dido, excuses the inhumanity of her reign
  owing to its being new, saying:
  
       "Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt
       Moliri, et late fines custode tueri."(*)
  
  Nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he
  himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and
  humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and
  too much distrust render him intolerable.
  
       (*) . . . against my will, my fate
       A throne unsettled, and an infant state,
       Bid me defend my realms with all my pow'rs,
       And guard with these severities my shores.
  
       Christopher Pitt.
  
  Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
  feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
  be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
  is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
  dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that
  they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as
  you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood,
  property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far
  distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that
  prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other
  precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by
  payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be
  earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied
  upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one
  who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which,
  owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their
  advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never
  fails.
  
  Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he
  does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well
  being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he
  abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their
  women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of
  someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause,
  but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others,
  because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss
  of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are
  never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always
  find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking
  life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But
  when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of
  soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation
  of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or
  disposed to its duties.
  
  Among the wonderful deeds of Hannibal this one is enumerated: that
  having led an enormous army, composed of many various races of men,
  to fight in foreign lands, no dissensions arose either among them or
  against the prince, whether in his bad or in his good fortune. This
  arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his
  boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of
  his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not
  sufficient to produce this effect. And short-sighted writers admire
  his deeds from one point of view and from another condemn the principal
  cause of them. That it is true his other virtues would not have been
  sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most
  excellent man, not only of his own times but within the memory of man,
  against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from
  nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more
  license than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was
  upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of
  the Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a legate of Scipio,
  yet they were not avenged by him, nor was the insolence of the legate
  punished, owing entirely to his easy nature. Insomuch that someone in
  the Senate, wishing to excuse him, said there were many men who knew
  much better how not to err than to correct the errors of others.
  This disposition, if he had been continued in the command, would have
  destroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he being under the
  control of the Senate, this injurious characteristic not only concealed
  itself, but contributed to his glory.
  
  Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the
  conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing
  according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself
  on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must
  endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.
  
  
  
feat_summary_name: Chapter 17
target: So generosity was a no-go. And compassion? Well, you guessed it: compassion isn't really conducive to the sort of warlike ruler Machiavelli advocates and might actually destroy a nation. Just like it's better to be a little mean than nice for the sake of the nation, it's better to be feared than loved because people seem to react better to punishment than love. Again, Machiavelli keeps telling us not to become hated, which is easy enough if you lay off people's families and lands. In Machiavelli's example section, he tells us how Hannibal was super awesome because he was insanely cruel. We mean, there's a reason why that scary dude from Silence of the Lambs was named Hannibal. Guess who almost wasn't awesome? This guy called Scipio who was all mushy touchy feely and didn't want to punish people. Lucky for him, other people covered up his namby-pamby nature. But everyone is not so lucky. Anyway, in the end, since the people choose if they like you or not, don't worry about it. Just make sure that they don't hate you.