Machiavelli's use of Moses as a model leader in The Prince is brief and ambiguous. Considering that the author is fearless in his analysis of other leaders throughout the book, his insistence that "we should not discuss Moses' skill, for he was a mere agent, following the instructions given him by God" (19) is strange, indeed. However, Machiavelli brings up Moses in the first place as one of the leaders "who through their own skill [virtu], and not merely through chance, [became] rulers" (18).
His apparent deference to a religious figure here is rare if not unprecedented in the book. One assumes that he is being entirely serious and not ironic when he refers to Moses' "grace that made him worthy to talk with God" (19). If he is indeed fully in earnest, then he is also ambiguous if not contradictory in his assessment of Moses as a model leader.
If Moses does have the skill of an effective leader, then why say that his skill is beyond analysis? If he was merely an agent who was doing what he was told to do by God, then why claim that he had the skill of a highly effective leader?
Throughout the book, Machiavelli paints the picture of an effective leader as one who is skilled in discerning what military and psychological tactics and strategies are most applicable and effective in any given situation, from persuasion to force, from kindness to swift brutality. How can Moses be included as such a leader if he is merely passing along what he hears from God?
This reader believes that Machiavelli himself accepts that Moses does indeed have open communications with God, or with the voice of the force which Machiavelli considers the source of good leadership, whether it is God in Moses' case or the inner voice of a non-religious leader. In that sense, then, Moses is like the others as an active leader, and not merely a passive agent parroting what he hears. Machiavelli sees God as a "teacher" (19) guiding Moses, perhaps (not ...