The Prince Exegetical Commentary

Tristan Tate

HON 101

Dr. Schrum

September 9 2016

The Prince Exegetical Commentary

        In Machiavelli’s The Prince, the theme of leadership arises consistently. What is leadership? Leadership is defined as someone charged with the responsibility of leading a group of people.  In The Prince, Machiavelli states that there are two styles of leadership, remote, and local (12)^[1].  Machiavelli describes the certain actions that should be taken when using either of these styles, in order to maintain power. Some are cruel, and the others, responsible and loving.  In either situation, Machiavelli has his theories on how to maintain absolute power in any situation.

        One of the two styles that Machiavelli suggests throughout The Prince, is that of a personable and local manner. Living among the people, being open and available, and having the appearance of being personal and inviting are some of the characteristics associated with Machiavelli’s “Local Leadership Style”. He states that this style should be used when maintaining power in an annexed or conquered territory (6). Using this style of leadership allows for a more amiable and personable relationship with the people of the territory. You are able to build a stronger relationship with the people as a leader, and able to gain the respect of the people quickly.

        The other leadership style Machiavelli suggests is that of the remote nature. This style is recommended for those born into the nobility. The common people will be accustomed to the nobility and monarchy being placed “on a hill” so to speak (4). The people will not be surprised or in dismay at the ruler’s disconnection from the people. The king or the ruler of this territory does not have to be directly involved with the lower class. He is able to become the puppet master in this situation, moving his nobles and landowners to do as he pleases. The characteristics associated with this “Remote Leadership Style” are: tyrannical, controlling, carefree, and disconnected. The king is not interacting directly with the people, so the people do not respect him willingly, but rather out of the fear of the power he holds.

        These styles of leadership differ greatly, but have a few things in common. In both situations, if war arises, you go to war. In both situations, if crime arises in the land, you punish the evildoers. Good is still good, and bad is still bad. Both situations will be dealt with accordingly, regardless of the style of leadership used.

        The differences between these two styles of leadership, although, are quite significant. The local leader must maintain a respectable reputation, as he is living among the common folk. The remote leader does not necessarily need to maintain such a reputation, as he does not rule the people as a result of the people’s love, but rather of their fear (13). As long the remote ruler is able to keep the nobles and commoners under wraps, he stays in power. Although, that is not to say that an uprising cannot arise from his territory (13). The people may become fed up with the disconnection between them and the ruler. A revolt could only be combated by that state’s military, which, if also discontent with the state of living, may join with the uprising, and overthrow the ruling family. The local leader does not have to worry about such an uprising, as he has gained the love and respect of the people. If any such thought were to begin circulating among the people, it would be quickly snuffed out, as the ruler would have many supporters, and they would put the thoughts to rest (15). The local leader has less to worry about in terms of losing power, whereas the remote ruler may have a fear of sorts as a result of his disconnection from the people of his territory.

...