Month: October 2023

Introduction to Common People in Prince

Generally, Machiavelli is considered the pioneer in suggesting pragmatic pieces of advice to dictators that is why it seems interesting to see common people in The Prince. He has also shed light on the character of the common people who are the ultimate subjects, and play an important role in the formation of governments and consolidation of the powers of the princes and dictators. His views are drastically opposed to the humanists of the Renaissance era who gave more importance to the general public, but his views are contained within the powers and authorities a prince wields, exploiting the common people. His comprehension of the character of the common people is devoid of any religious values or morality prevailing at that time. It is because he, in fact, is a political theorist and not a literary writer like Chaucer who has pointed out idiosyncrasies and flaws in the general dealings of his characters in his famous “The Canterbury Tales”. Most of his views are generalities based on his own observation of the people as a crowd to be governed and brought under the authority of law. According to him, human beings or common people are both good and unruly based on their circumstances whether it is peace or chaos. He has used the specific term “plebe” for the common people and the role of the prince is to exploit his plebe to serve his own interests, not theirs. In fact, the welfare and attitude or behavior of the people are to be manipulated for good governance to keep the prince in power. In order to understand the plebs better, Machiavelli has divided the plebs into two distinct groups; the nobles and the common people in The Prince. However, he has counted the nobles within the common people as slightly different and observed the role and character of the commoners as a political entity with some drawbacks and qualities based on circumstantial necessities.  

Sections of Common People in The Prince

Machiavelli’s’ common people comprises of a division of the society into two distinct sections; the nobles and the plebs or general populace. He sheds light on the interaction which is between the nobles and their own local subjects that is that “each [noble] acknowledge and loved by his own subjects” (Chapter 4) by which he means that the nobles should be controlled first by the prince to control the common people. He also points out that there is always a difference within this social structure in which the character of the common people is very important. It is because “common people don’t want to be ruled or ordered around by nobles” (Chapter-9) which means that if there is dissatisfaction among the common people against the nobles, this means there is a way for the prince to exploit this character of the common people to his own end.  The advice for the prince is from the point of view of the common people because it is hard to satisfy the nobles but it is easy for the prince because he “can satisfy the people without harming anyone” (Chapter-9) the reason which he says is that because “what the nobles want is to oppress the people” (Chapter-9). In this connection, he goes in the favor of the people due to their having few desires. He also warns the prince against these nobles, as they are more prone to harming and attacking him. However, practically, he can secure his position among them easily, but when it comes to the common people, as they are multitudes, they are “of a threat than the nobles” (Chapter-9). It is also that in this conflict between the nobles and the common people in the Prince, the common people are always winders because of their numbers and the real stability of the state lies within them not in the nobles. Therefore, the sane advice for both is that if the state is to be stable, the character of both of these sections should be understood. It means wise princes “have taken every care not to drive the nobles to desperation and to keep the common people satisfied and contented” (Chapter-9) which means understanding each one of these sections is vital.  Although as a section of the same people, nobles are easy to gather around, Machiavelli demonstrates his disgust for this section. He is of the view that they are always greedy for positions, eager to oppress and seek their own interests instead of the prince. His comments on this section, actually, make his views about the character of the common people clear that if you “arm your people, you man those arms yours” (Chapter-11) which means that it is the empowerment of the common people in The Prince instead of the upper strata that he wishes to propound.

Political Common People in The Prince

However, as a political entity, he has also presented his acute understanding of the inherent good and bad qualities of the common people. These common qualities are generally considered within the framework of the principality, as to how these contribute to its stability and how these make a person unstable and weak.  As for his opinion about the character of the common people, he refers to men saying “they are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, cowardly and greedy” (Chapter-17) adding that they only seek their own interests “as long as you are doing them good, they are entirely yours; they will offer you their blood, their property, their lives, and their children” (Chapter-17). However, this entirely depends on the prince how to make the people show this good side of their character. He means that as they are inherently good, they also want something good in return for these offerings. However, if there is none, they turn against the prince and the ruler. Again it depends on their position and the role of the people. If the common people have been taken as mercenaries, he says, “they are disunited, ambitious, undisciplined and disloyal” (Chapter-12) when they see that there is danger. However, when they see that there is some gain, the same lot is courageous and friendly. It is up to the prince or the ruler to keep them united by showing them what they are impressed by the most, as he states that the common people are “always impressed by appearances and outcomes, and the world contained only common people” (Chapter-18). The best course in this connection is to bring a parliament to win their favor. Hence, the role and character of the common people as a political entity are very important, and a good and sagacious prince knows how to manipulate this major power entity in order to consolidate his own power by offering appearances by constituting a parliament and making them see their own good.

Understanding of Common People in The Prince

However, what his understanding of the common people shows is that in his views they are simpletons and easy to be deceived, as he advises his prince to be a deceptive person as well. His view is that it is the nature of the common people to be “impressed by appearances and outcomes” (Chapter-18). He means that they are easy to be misled by the false appearances of the good things to come. This means that they are unable to discern what lies ahead for them. Therefore, they cannot be entrusted to be advisors, nobles, or ministers. However, some of them are intelligent and the prince can choose them with care and precaution. This does not mean that the character of the common people has changed. Their role as the harbinger of stable and solid governance is a sure way to become a good and powerful prince. A popular prince, according to Machiavelli, just knows the character of the common people and should know how to lead them, how to show them bravery, how to show courage and boldness, and how to encourage them. It is because ultimately, it is they who are to solidify his power, and their character judgment in this connection is manipulated by him. He states that “a prince must have the friendly people” (Chapter-9), and it is the role of the prince to mold their character into a friendly one through his actions toward them as shown through common people in The Prince.

Simplicity of Common People in The Prince

Despite being simpletons and easily led astray, Machiavelli has also listed several qualities of the people that can prove an asset for the stability of the state. This shows his in-depth understanding of the character of the common people in The Prince during those eras. He is of the view that the common people are more prudent in having sound judgment. They want peace and the status quo in order to flourish. When there is discontent, their role is prominent but during peace times, they want to enjoy life. Therefore, there are two things dear to them; their property and their women.  People often forget some injury or cruelty against them, but they never forget these two wounds. He states that a ruler must “keeps his hands off people’s property, because a man forgets the death of his father sooner than he would forget the loss of property his father left to him” (Chapter-17). If this is done, then the people start becoming discontented and this changes their overall character and role. They become hostile toward the prince and the state. He also states that freedom is very important to the common people. If they are habitual of living in servitude, then it does not matter. However, once they have tasted the freedom, they will never “forget their former freedom” (Chapter-5) in which case their character has been hardened, and they will prove a grave danger.

Conclusion

In short, his proposition in suggesting such a diverse role and character of the common people in The Prince is that he wants his prince to solidify the foundations of his state, and none else could replace the role of the common people. Hence he has put the common people in contrast to the nobles who are, though of sound judgment and generally shrewd, highly dangerous for a state. Therefore, his logic about the role of the people by analyzing their character is suitable for the princes and their stable governments. If they are given a good leader, who is the prince, they are irresistible and prove assets during foreign onslaughts or any adverse circumstances. These common people often prove stronger and fearless in the defense of the state than the nobles as they have more at stake. In addition, they love peace and calmness more than general instability as they have more at stake than the nobles do even in these circumstances. Therefore, to keep the government and the state stable, their temperament and behavior count very much, and a sagacious prince needs to understand this temperament in changing circumstances. It is also that if the people are satisfied and there is perfect peace, it serves the interests of the price and consolidates the establishment of laws, statutes, and institutions. More peace and prosperity bring more people into governance, which further strengthens the institutions and leads to the power of the prince. Therefore, the character of the people in consolidating the power of the prince as a political entity is a very important one. They do not demand much as opposed to lords and nobles but very little that is the absence of oppression and promises of a good future.

Works Cited

1. Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince (1513). Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions, 1993.

Relevant Questions about Common People in The Prince by Machiavelli

1. How does Machiavelli characterize the relationship between a ruler and the Common People in The Prince?
2. What specific strategies does Machiavelli advocate in The Prince for securing the support or control of the Common People in The Prince, and what are the implications of these strategies?
3. In The Prince, how does Machiavelli’s guidance on handling Common People in The Prince reflect the broader themes of political realism and pragmatism in his philosophy of leadership?

Introduction to Values and Characters in The Odyssey

Characters in The Odyssey by Homer have a strong influence not only on the Western literary canon but also on Western cultural values that the Western nations cherish. From the Anglo-Saxon period to the present modern period, Odyssey, his wife Penelope and their son Telemachus have been used to create epithets, similes, and metaphors that embody the Western values that the intellectuals intend to inculcate among their people. Therefore, most of the heroes of Western literature have been termed after these names. However, despite this, to evaluate or judge the characters of Odyssey on the canons of Western morality is not only unjustifiable but also very difficult on account of the wider gap of time and place. Also, there is a huge gap between that period in which some other values were cherished but according to the modern moral standards, those are not appreciable. It seems a dubious supposition to impose the modern canons on the classic mythical heroes but to prove that most of the Western values derived from those characters is not only easy but also correct. It is because, after all, it is Greek literature and philosophy that has laid the foundation of modern Western civilization.  Most of the Western values have been derived from the Greek and Roman civilization. Therefore, these three characters in The Odyssey embody the Western values that are still cherished in the world such as courage, leadership style, patience, mental ingenuity, faithfulness, and claim to a rightful position.

Odysseus and Other Characters in The Odyssey

As far as Odysseus is concerned, though he has been presented as a military hero in the Iliad, most of his qualities emerge in The Odyssey. Not only he is articulate, but also brave with innate leadership qualities. His intelligence and compassion have come to the forefront. His intelligence comes into play when he faces Calypso, Cyclopes, and other adventures in which he leads his men from the front.  His mental sharpness comes out as a leader when he faces that one-eyed monster. He says, “Cyclops, you asked about my famous name. / I’ll tell you” (Book VI  662), asserting his leadership role that nobody else is there to do. Not only he loves his wife but also leaves everything else to come home for her. This is the compassionate side of his characters that the Western culture has borrowed. He also is not less courageous, which has been shown in several other heroes in  Western literature. Terming him “brave, glory seeking, articulate and resourceful” Beardsley has stated in his book, The Ideal of “The Odyssey” that Odysseus could be called “conscience” which is the most modern concept of the Western values due to which the whole charter of human rights have been created (Beardsley). The modern concept of critical decision-making has also been borrowed from Odysseus and other characters in The Odyssey.

Penelope and Other Characters in The Odyssey

Whereas the case of his wife Penelope is concerned, she is the name of a faithful woman, who can do everything to preserve her chastity. Her strong determination to remain true to her husband wins the hearts of modern readers. At some moments, it appears that she is almost accepting the claims and hands of the suitors, but at the right moment, she again makes them wait for her. This concept of being a faithful wife still holds great importance in the Western world. She is not only herself faithful, but Odysseus also trusts her on account of which he says that “I myself know very well Penelope” (Book V 268). In their book, Culture and Values: A Survey of the Western Humanities, “Cunningham et. al. have termed her as “circumspect and discreet” because she holds back the aggressive suitors for such a long time that it wins her love of no less than a man, Odysseus (Cunningham et al 2014). However, her faithfulness lies in the fact that she does not utters any word to complain to Odysseus about how she suffers in his long absence. This shows the traits of all characters in The Odyssey.

Telemachus and Other Characters in The Odyssey

Telemachus is the son of Odysseus. He is quite young when his father leaves for Troy and does not return for the next twenty years. As he is not able to guard his mother, he plays his role as a son of the king of Ithaca and claims his rightful position when his father returns. He embodies the spirit of a son of a true hero who is to return someday and if not, he is ready to claim his rightful place. He shows leadership qualities from the very start – the reason that even Odysseus trusts his son at the end. He discloses his identity to Telemachus and not Eumaios who is quite loyal to him. When Telemachus considers him one of the gods, he clearly states, “Why you compare me to immortals? / But I am your father?” (Book XVI 235) which shows how much he trust his son who is trust worthy. Then he joins his father to cause the downfall of the vicious suitors who have been sitting in the lawn of their home. There are other characters who also embody great qualities such as Eumaios who is a faithful servant of Odysseus. He stays with his wife until he returns. However, these three characters in The Odyssey are considered embodiment of the values that the Western civilization still upholds.

In short, Odysseus, Penelope, and Telemachus, the main characters in The Odyssey,  have now become household names due to their qualities. Several pieces have been written on and around their characters. Several heroes have been created, imitating them and several adjectives have been created to appreciate or depreciate other characters. But the qualities that they displayed in this long epic are still considered bedrock of the Western values. Therefore, to say that they are symbols of the values that the West cherishes and feels proud to hold is not wrong, for almost all the Western values owe a great deal for their derivation from the Greek civilization. The characters created by the Greeks still are role models for great and immortal values.

Works Cited

1. Homer. The Odyssey. Trans. Ian Johnston. Second. Arlington: Richer Resources Publications. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
2. Beardsley, David A. The Ideal of “The Odyssey.” The Ideal in the West. 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2015
3. Cunningham, Lawrence & John Reich, Lois Fichner-Rathus. Culture and Values: A Survey of the Western Humanities. 8. Vol. 1. Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.

Relevant Questions about Characters in The Odyssey Symbolizing Western Values

1. How does Odysseus embody the value of cunning intelligence and heroism?
2. What role do the gods and goddesses play in the characters’ lives and their adherence to moral values in The Odyssey?
3. How do characters like Telemachus and Penelope exemplify the values of loyalty and perseverance in the face of adversity?