2012년 1월 17일 화요일

12. The Prince, On the Art of Power – Niccolo Machivelli (군주론 - 니콜로 마키아벨리)




오늘은 영어로 독후감을 썼습니다. 요즘 영어로 작문을 안한지 너무 오래되서 연습해야겠다는 생각을 계속했는데 이 책을 '빌미'로 재밌게 글 썼습니다. 한국어로 서두를 좀 쓰자면, 이책 정말 재밌습니다. 중세시대에 써졌다곤 믿기힘들 정도로 현실적입니다. 제가 생각하기에 책이 강조하는 것은 군주로써의 '실력'인데, 이 실력을 몇가지 단어로 정리하자면 (밑에 영문으로 쓴 것처럼) honour, self-sufficiency, consistency & autonomy. 입니다.

Honour, 명예, 의 경우는 한국말로는 대의정도로 해석되겠죠. 솔직히 말하면 명분이구요. 즉, 왕의 자리를 가질 수 있는 권리, 세상에 비쳐지는 내모습이 그자리를 탐하는 것이 아닌 당연한 군주의 소유로 보이게 하는 실력이겠죠. Self-sufficiency는 자급자족입니다. 군주로써 누구에게 신하의 격으로 떨어질 수 없죠. 그렇기에 그 누구에게도 빚을 지지않고 자신의 어려움을 스스로 극복할 수 있는 힘 - 돈과 군대 - 가 있어야합니다. Consistency는 인간을 대할때나 정치를 할 때 꼭 필요한 일관성입니다. 이것은 다른 것들 처럼 설명하기가 조금 힘든 데, 이 일관성은 외교관계, 신하와의 관계, 백성과의 관계를 어떻게 할 것인가를 정하고 이것을 일관되게 추진한다는 얘기입니다. 일관성이 있어야만 존경과 사랑을 받거나, 혹은 두려움을 느낀다고 마키아벨리는 말합니다. 마지막으로 autonomy 는 누구에게 휘둘리지 않는 (써놓고보니 자급자족과 일맥상통하군요) 독립력입니다. 다른 나라에 의지하지 않고, 신하에게 의지하지 않고 그들의 도움조차 자신이 지배해야한다는 것입니다. 

요즘 제가 니체에 대한 리뷰를 몇번 올렸는데, 마키아벨리가 니체를 좀 좋아했을 것 같더군요. 마키아벨리는 군주가 진정으로 착하고, 유순하고, 도덕적이고, 옳다른 것은 백성들한테 그렇게 "보이는 것" 만큼은 중요하지 않다고 합니다. 오묘하지 않습니까 ㅋㅋ니체와 일맥상통하게 마키아벨리는 강한 자의 도덕을 쓰고 있는 것 같습니다. 힘을 잃지 않는 법, 힘을 사용하는 법은 힘을 도덕적으로 사용하는 법과는 많이 다를 수 밖에 없겠지요. 하여간 다 읽은 후 오랜만에 다시 읽어보겠노라 다짐하게 된 책이였습니다. 

The book introduces a reader to pretty much everything there is to know about principality - a state run by a prince. What really struck me throughout reading the book was its practicality, and extensive use of both contemporary and ancient examples. The author stands on a fine line between an orthodox-religious gentleman and a critical political scientist and this gave me the feel of what it was like to be one of the enlightened when others were, as the book says, swayed by fortune and the God as if everything is inevitable by their binds. Here is a little summary of the first few chapters of the book. After this, I shall talk further about general rule of thumb of the book.
The book starts with the section on how two kinds of principalities – hereditary and new– are to be ruled and preserved. In this section, the key qualities a prince must possess are honour and self-sufficiency (In fact, these two qualities are two of a few that the book will repeatedly come back to). Honour allows the prince to be perceived as a chosen one, as opposed to other nobles or people of the state. This is due to the inertia of political power that makes the prince’s upholding of the principality the law of nature. 
New principality, on the other hand, may arise either by a prince of another state or a plebeian. Machiavelli talks first about the former. New principalities, however, lack the honour – the birthright, or the inertia of hereditary power – to gain respect and dominion. If a prince gains a state through help of others, the prince is inevitably bound to them, such that their political influence and the concomitant pressure on the prince are also inevitable. Therefore, a prince must be self-sufficient that he owes no one. Also, Machiavelli stresses on the extinction of the previous power, and the taming of a new state in general. Just as the previous royal family should be exterminated such that honour is due to no one, a new state should be tamed in such a way that the prince becomes the only power. This is done via the prince’s presence. Machiavelli believes, though, that garrisoning the city may not be the best option because it costs too much and the matched danger is negligible as a conquered state. He presents the idea of colonization as to gain economic benefit upon the conquest. This conquest must not be made through others’ power, says Machiavelli, nor should there be a change in conventional laws to keep a prince unbound and loved respectively.
The concept of new principality evolves into that of gaining a state. Founding a state takes two forms: founding a new state, or conquering one. Machiavelli believes that a monarchy is harder to conquer because of its unity, but also easier to reign due to its unity once the conquest is done. A republic, on the other hand, is easier to conquer due to its division, but also harder to reign. A former monarchy can be easily ruled upon the extermination of the royal family, but a former republic cannot be ruled in such a way. Citizens of the republic remember the freedom and the hatred will last as long as the memory of the republic does. Machiavelli suggests that a republic must be razed and destroyed, or reigned physically by the prince’s presence. Gaining of a principality may take either of two methods – by one’s own arms and abilities, or by others’. If the former, the honour is on the prince’s side but the sustaining the principality is met with infinite hardship. This is because the new principality needs new laws and arms. If latter, there is no honour because the person is left with nothing if the borrowed arms and abilities are gone. In order for the latter case to become sustainable, one must deliver the authentication of his abilities to truly rule.
I wrote in detail about the first few chapters of the book in order to show what kind of text Machiavelli’s The Prince is. It’s a chain of logic that is well backed up by historical examples. In the aforementioned part of the book, the key qualities are honour, and self-sufficiency. A prince must have its right, and power to both gain and sustain a state. The book then goes on to talk about war, counsel, royal qualities. What I felt deeply throughout digesting the text was establishing the demand of the reign – make the prince’s ownership of the principality necessary for the people (and for the nobles, too, if they exist). Whether this is done through gambits or true qualities is on important. But Machiavelli may agree with me when I say, if a prince behaves in such a way that his fabricated qualities that are acted out are good enough for the people to be construed as genuine, the difference between gambits and true qualities become hazy. More important are consistency, honour, self-sufficiency, and autonomy in every aspect of the leadership. These are the qualities that transcend different realms of politics. Through these qualities the prince becomes dependable for the people, and feared and respected by the nobles and other states. When these qualities work as such, the demand for the prince’s leadership naturally exists, and his ownership of the state is ever stronger.
Machiavelli writes that it is not as important to be righteous, pious, or merciful as it is to look such a way. This I feel sums up how Machiavelli believes the prince should treat the public. This is only half the job as a prince, though -how he is perceived. The general rule of thumb stems from the true qualities of a prince as stated above – consistency, honour, self-sufficiency, and autonomy. This will allow the prince to avoid hatred, and disloyalty. With such qualities the prince must strengthen the principalities with good laws, good arms, good allies, and with good examples. In short, good qualities are neither good or evil, as Nietzsche would say; they are merely the devices that allow the prince to become indispensable.

ps. Actually I'd rather put self-sufficiency and autonomy put together and put in another quality: reality. A prince should always see the reality in people, or situations. If people are rapacious or ambitious for their own design. They must be shunned or exterminated. A prince must also read situations well - but treating situations is not much different from treating people. 

댓글 없음:

댓글 쓰기