Machiavellian Glory Hierarchy

What Machiavelli Thinks Is Worth Doing

Before giving tactical advice, Machiavelli states what he thinks worthy objectives look like. This is one of the few places in The Prince where the supposedly value-neutral political scientist makes an explicit normative claim. He ranks what kinds of human achievement deserve praise — and it is a strict hierarchy, not a flat list.

From The Prince, Wilson reads: "among all men who are praised the most highly praised are those who have been leaders and founders of religions." [PLAUSIBLE — consistent with historical record, read aloud by Wilson]¹

Close behind: "those who have founded either republics or kingdoms."

Then: "those who placed at the head of armies have enlarged either their own realm or that of their native country."

Then: "men of letters who being of many types are each celebrated according to his level of accomplishment."

Then: everyone else — "infinite in number" — praised according to their profession and its practice. [PLAUSIBLE — consistent with historical record, read aloud by Wilson]¹

Why It Matters

The hierarchy reveals that the descriptive, ostensibly amoral Machiavelli has normative commitments. He doesn't think all paths are equally worth taking. Founding a new political order — a republic, a kingdom, a religion — is the highest thing. Military glory falls behind it. Letters are respectable but not at the top.

This is the context for why he wrote The Prince as a job application to the Medici rather than a philosophical work for posterity: he believed the Medici were positioned to do the second-highest thing (found a unified Italy on the Roman model), and he wanted to be part of it. The tactical advice in the rest of the book is in service of an aspiration that is, by his own hierarchy, among the highest things a human being can accomplish. [PARAPHRASED — Wilson]¹

It also clarifies what is actually alarming about Machiavelli. The standard reading is that he is cynical — that he doesn't care about virtue, only power. The glory hierarchy contradicts this. He cares deeply about what power is for. Everything pragmatic in his writing is in service of a genuine project: the restoration of something like Rome, a state that can stand on its own arms and give Italy a political form worth having. The biologist who watches the lion hunt also has a view about which lion's hunt is worth watching.

Cross-Domain Handshakes

History — History as Strategic Resource: The hierarchy implies that the founders of religions have the deepest pool of relevant exemplars, since they occupy the highest tier of what is praiseworthy. Machiavelli's own exemplar-imitation principle — aim at Caesar to reach your ceiling — applies most powerfully within the correct tier: founders imitate founders, military leaders imitate military leaders. The hierarchy tells you which class of exemplar to study if you want to know what you're actually aiming for.

History — Machiavellian Realpolitik: The standard reading of Machiavelli is that he is a pure descriptive realist with no normative commitments — just a biologist watching the lion. The glory hierarchy is the strongest evidence against that reading. He has a view of the good. He thinks founding a republic is more praiseworthy than military conquest, and both are more praiseworthy than being a skilled professional. The biologist has preferences about what the lion should be hunting.

Tensions

The hierarchy is stated, not argued. Machiavelli gives no philosophical justification for why founding a religion ranks above founding a republic, or why both rank above military glory. It reads as an assumed cultural consensus of Renaissance Florence, not a defended position. Whether the ranking reflects his genuine view or is strategic framing — placing "founders of republics" near the top to appeal to his republican intellectual audience — cannot be determined from The Prince alone. [GAP IN SOURCE]¹

Connected Concepts