After beginning to read Watership Down by Richard Adams I quickly realized that meant the novel and Italy would be forever bound together in my mind. However, I was delighted when a strong tie emerged between one of the texts in our class and the novel. In Watership Down there is a character named Woundwort; he is the chief rabbit of Efrafa, a rival warren of the main characters. He is, in my opinion, a fantastic example of a good prince. He manages his warren quite well and employs a few of characteristics, skills and practices Machiavelli describes as necessary to be successful in The Prince.
“A prince, first of all, should have no other object or thought in mind than war and how to wage it. … The chief cause of losing power is neglect of the art of war.” (The Prince 279). “In peace time he ought to pay more attention to it than even in time of war. He can do this in two ways: first, with action; the second with study. As to action, besides keeping his forces well trained and disciplined, he ought to go hunting often and thus keep his body used to hardship. He will also in this way learn the nature of the land …” (The Prince 280-281).
“Woundwort was ready to fight anything except a fox. One evening he attacked and drove off a foraging Aberdeen puppy. … and hoped someday to kill a weasel, if not a stoat. … If a man was coming Woundwort spotted him half a mile away. He fought rats, magpies, gray squirrels and, once, a crow.” (Watership Down 309). “When he had explored the limits of his own strength, he set to work to satisfy his longing for still more power in the only possible way – by increasing the power of the rabbits around him.” (Watership Down 309). And he did this in multiple ways, one being setting out on wide patrols. “Wide patrols began as mere forays or raids … On the first occasion they were lucky enough to find and kill a sick owl that had eaten a mouse that had eaten poison-dressed seed corn. On the next, they came upon two hlessil (wandering homeless bucks) they compelled to return with them to the warren.” (Watership Down 310). But, wide patrols began to have purpose. “Woundwort would give them [the rabbits on the wide patrols] tasks – to search for hlessil in a certain direction or to find out whether or a particular ditch or barn contained rats which could later be attacked by force and driven out.” And then became more militarily oriented. “One of these patrols led by a certain Captain Orchis, discovered a small warren … The General [Woundwort] led an expedition against it and broke it up”. (Watership Down 310-311).
In reference to Philopoemen (prince of the Archaens c. 1450CE) Machiavelli says “’He listened to their opinions and gave his own with supporting arguments, so that because of his constant discussion nothing could happen when he was leading his army for which he did not have an answer.’” (The Prince 280-281).
In summation, Woundwort was a warlord as Machiavelli suggests. He fully submerged himself and his Owsla (closest military council) in the art of war: fighting, staying fit and at an unsurpassed level of skill (in tracking, fighting, obeying orders, scouting, etc.). Although the rabbits do not hunt, as they are herbivores, they fight with all types of elil (or predators) and other rabbits. Also, in the same way that Philopoemen sat at the top of a hill and spoke with his soldiers about strategies, Woundwort used wide patrols to be familiar with the land and to be prepared for any type of conflict (offensive or defensive).
“Is it better to be loved than feared, or the reverse? The answer is that the prince should be both feared and loved, if possible. But since it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved … the prince should make himself feared in such a way that if he does not gain love, he at least avoids hatred. … but fear, maintained by dread of punishment, never fails.” (The Prince 285).
“Soon had become chief rabbit, having killed both chief rabbit and a rival named Fiorin. In combat he was terrifying, fighting entirely to kill, indifferent to any wounds he received himself and closing with his adversaries until his weight overbore and exhausted them. Those who had no heart to oppose him were not long in feeling that here was a leader indeed.” (Watership Down 308).
“Woundwort watched over them with a tireless zeal that won their loyalty even while they feared him.” (Watership Down 309) “Woundwort was no mere bully. He knew how to encourage and fill them with a spirit of emulation.” (Watership Down 310).
“To feel that rabbits were competing to risk their lives at his orders gratified Woundwort, although he believed – so did his Council and Owsla – that he was giving the warren peace and security at a price which was modest enough.” (Watership Down 311).
Woundwort was surely feared and that is how he kept his power. In Watership Down it is obvious that there is a lot of unrest. The residents of Efrafa are unhappy with Woundwort’s authority but the only reason they remain in the warren is because of the great fear they have for Woundwort and his Owsla. Any member of the warren that tries to escape – or something else disapproved of – is made an example to the others. For example: Blackavar, a buck who tried to escape, was tracked down and brought back to the warren, after attending “trial” with the council his ears were ripped to shreds, and he was kept around for a short time so all the members of the warren could see him (and then he was scheduled to be killed). Woundwort is not a “prince” that is loved, he kept his power through fear.
Although there is a point in Watership Down that Woundwort’s authority begins to be questioned, even this is compatible with The Prince.
“Nevertheless, the prince should make himself feared in such a way that if he does not gain love, he at least avoids hatred.” (The Prince 285).
Although Macchiavelli says the greatest way to become hated is to steal a man’s stuff or a man’s woman and Woundwort didn’t do that, he did become hated, partially because his punishments were just too great, partially because his pride and the fear he generated within his warren were too great that they transformed into hatred and partially because he became unsuccessful in war.
Macchiavelli says “… he should chose the natures of the fox and lion; for the lion cannot defend himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. A prince needs to be a fox to know about traps, and a lion to terrify the wolves . Those who only behave like a lion do not understand this.” (The Prince287). This is how Woundwort became undone. “When the punt floated down the river in the rain, part of General Woundwort’s authority went with it. … they had suddenly shown their own cunning greater his, and left him bewildered on the bank. … He had tried to stop them and he had conspicuously failed.” (Watership Down 415-416). Woundwort had been previously unrivaled; all of his other endeavors had been successful because he was cunning (like a fox) and powerful (like a lion), until he was outsmarted and thus undone.
Overall, do I agree with Machiavelli’s picture of the ideal leader? No, not really. I prefer Castiglione’s picture of The Courtier a Renaissance man that is well educated, versatile and an overall good leader. Do I agree that Machiavelli’s prince would be able to successfully rule a country? Most assuredly; some of the world’s most powerful leaders have followed in the path that Machiavelli draws. But, families that stay in a monarchy for a long time (like the current monarchy in Great Britain) I believe are a more accurate expression of Castiglione’s courtier (but then, is that family truly the reigning government or just a figurehead?).
No comments:
Post a Comment