Comment: “The prince must be fox and the lion at the same time.” (Machiavelli) (1998)
The image comes from Chapter XVIII of Niccolò Machiavelli‘s The Prince (written 1513, published 1532), on whether rulers must keep faith. It inverts Marcus Tullius Cicero, for whom force (the lion) and fraud (the fox) were both bestial (De Officiis, I.41); Machiavelli turns the reproach into a job description: effective rule needs force and cunning together. As an account of statecraft the claim holds; as a doctrine it lacks any limit.
The Argument of Chapter XVIII
- Two ways of contending. By the law, proper to men, and by force, proper to beasts; since law often fails, the prince must know the beast.
- The centaur. Achilles was reared by Chiron, half man and half beast: the prince must use both natures, since the one without the other is not durable.
- Why both beasts. The lion cannot see traps; the fox cannot beat off wolves. He must be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves; those who rely on the lion alone misunderstand the craft.
- The fox’s lessons. A prudent ruler breaks his word once it works against him, because men are bad and will not keep theirs. He must be a great dissembler, seeming merciful, faithful, humane, upright and, above all, religious. Pope Alexander VI is the model deceiver. In Chapter XIX Septimius Severus, a fierce lion and a cunning fox, held an empire that gentler emperors lost.
The Strongest Case
- Realism of method. Having chosen the effectual truth over imagined republics (Chapter XV), he cannot counsel pure honesty to a ruler among predators.
- Virtù as adaptability. The lion–fox pair is virtù in miniature: the capacity to switch registers as fortuna changes. Force answers open enemies; cunning detects conspiracy.
- Lasting relevance. Antonio Gramsci read the centaur as the dual perspective of force and consent, coercion and hegemony. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, fronted by soldiers without insignia, joined lion and fox in one operation.
The Indian Parallel
Kautilya systematised both beasts centuries earlier. The Arthashastra orders four expedients, sama, dana, bheda, danda, with force last, and distinguishes open war from concealed and silent war. Yet his king stays inside rajadharma; the fox serves a dharmic order rather than replacing it.
Critique
- No stopping rule. Necessity is certified by the ruler it benefits, so the doctrine cannot tell real necessity from convenient necessity.
- The fox destroys credit. Immanuel Kant‘s Perpetual Peace (1795) forbids stratagems that make mutual confidence impossible in a later peace.
- Moral objection. For Mohandas K. Gandhi means and ends are seed and tree (Hind Swaraj, 1909): trickery corrupts its end.
- Feminist reading. Hanna Fenichel Pitkin (Fortune Is a Woman, 1984) shows that manly, bestial virtù leaves no room for politics built on trust.
- Constitutional answer. India’s Constitution refuses to let law be insufficient: after Maneka Gandhi (1978), Article 21 requires fair, just and reasonable procedure.
Conclusion
Machiavelli is right that a ruler who is only honest or only strong will fail; statecraft needs both force and foresight. His error is to leave the centaur without a rider. Kautilya’s dharma and modern constitutionalism supply one: law must govern both beasts.