How “Machiavellian” Is Machiavelli? Essay, Research Paper

Throughout the history of the world, mankind has endured countless revolutions, wars of varying magnitudes, and great shifts in political thought. The great minds that bring about these changes in political thought have been coined political philosophers. The political philosophers of the past such as Hobbes, Locke, Morgenthau and Machiavelli have aided in the structuring of modern political thought, and our contemporary political minds generally conform to the standards set out by the philosophers of the past. This can be a difficult task, especially when some people are so controversial in nature particularly Niccolo Machiavelli. In order to analyze Machiavelli, one must consider a universal meaning of the term Machiavellian. This term has generally become accepted as one who prescribes lies, treachery, and cruelty (Sonnino, 22) to exact or acquire that which they desire. Despite Machiavelli s reputation as the author of the Prince, he is not as Machiavellian as many would incur; rather, he was a tenacious teacher of political freedom, and a supporter of liberty. Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence in May of 1469. In November of 1481, he began to attend Paolo da Ronciglione s School, and in June, 1498 he was confirmed by the Great Council as the second chancellor of the Florentine republic. In July of the same year, Machiavelli was elected as secretary to the Ten of War. In November of 1498, he undertook a mission to the ruler of Piombino that was the first of a series of diplomatic ventures undertaken on the behalf of the Ten. In the year of 1501, Machiavelli married Marietta Corsini, in which he became the father of six children. In 1503, Machiavelli undertook a wide range of tasks. Beginning in April was his mission to Pandolfo Petrucci, the ruler of Sienna. From October to December was his mission to papal court at Rome to report on the election of Julius II. In December of 1505, Machiavelli proposed a scheme for a revived Florentine militia which was provisionally accepted. January of 1506, he helped to recruit for the militia in the Mugello, north of Florence. August to October, he undertook his second mission to papal court. In December of 1506, the Great Council established a new committee titled the Nine of the Militia, with Machiavelli as secretary. In December of 1507, he was sent on a mission to the Emperor Maximilian s court and returned from the imperial court in June of 1508. In August of 1512, Spanish troops attacked Florentine territory and sack Prato. In September of the same year, Florence surrendered and with the dissolution of the republic, the Medici family was reinstated. In November of 1512, Machiavelli was dismissed from the Chancery and was sentenced to confinement within Florentine territory for a year. In February of 1513, Machiavelli was accused of taking part in anti-Medicean conspiracy where he was tried, tortured and imprisoned. The next month he was released from prison. In April of 1513, he retired to his farm at Sant Andrea in Percussina, located seven miles south of Florence. It was sometime between the dates of July and December of 1513 that Machiavelli wrote the draft to the Prince. Two years later, he begins to frequent a discussion-group presided over by Cosimo Rucellai in the Orti Oricellari, Florence. He dedicated his Discorsi to Rucellai and he implied that the book was written at Rucellai s behest and that it was discussed at these meetings. In 1518, Machiavelli wrote Mandragola. It is not known whether the Discorsi was completed in 1518, or 1519; however, The Art of War and La vita di Castruccio Castracani da Lucca were written in 1520. In November of 1520, Machiavelli received commission from Cardinal Giulio de Medici (Later Pope Clement VII) to write the history of Florence. In 1521, The Art of War was published. In May of 1525, Machiavelli visited Rome to present his completed Istorie Fiorentine to Pope Clement VII, and ultimately he died on the 21st day of June, 1527. Four years after his death, the Discorsi was published, and in 1532, the Prince and the Istorie Fiorentine were published. The purpose of this history is to give the reader an understanding into the historical events that shaped Machiavelli as what many would consider an authority in political theory. It is evident that Machiavelli was an authority, particularly considering that he accomplished more in his fifty-eight years that most people could ever accomplish in four lifetimes. After the Prince was published, people began to attach the Machiavellian stereotype to Machiavelli. Many would agree with this; however, evidence to the contrary is astounding and suggests that his work has not been regarded with the required impartiality to justly jump to such a conclusion. The Prince probably remains as Machiavelli s most misinterpreted literary work. As John Dunn, a fellow of King s College and a professor of political theory at the University of Cambridge wrote, The Prince must have been misunderstood by its readers. Either it wished to expose the need for brutal ruthlessness on the part of an absolute prince in order to warn the people against tyrants; or Machiavelli wanted to tempt the Medici on to a career of crimes (Dunn, Harris, 2). It can be concurred that the Prince does contain some elements that serve to thwart my thesis; however, many elements exist to strengthen it as well. Lets us examine some elements that some scholars believe make Machiavelli assume a more Machiavellian role. Machiavelli s Prince is to morality what the works of Spinoza is to faith: Spinoza sapped the foundations of faith and aimed at no less than to overthrow the edifice of religion; Machiavelli corrupted politics and undertook to destroy the precepts of sound morality (Sonnino, 31). This analogy may be true in the case of Spinoza, but the relation to Machiavelli could not be further from the truth. Machiavelli does not attempt to destroy the precepts of sound morality. His intention was to implicitly inform a prince not to deviate from good, as he mentions in the Prince. We all know that there are many different types of personalities, but essentially those personalities are reduced to good and evil. Machiavelli recognizes that because the prince holds high status and a position of power, it is difficult for anyone to challenge his supremacy. Therefore, the Prince is Machiavelli s way to demonstrate actions and consequences of a prince that is essentially evil in nature. I have always considered Machiavelli s Prince as one of the most dangerous works ever to be disseminated in the world. It is a book which falls naturally into the hands of princes and of those with a taste for politics. Since it is very easy for an ambitious young man, whose heart and judgement are not sufficiently developed to distinguish clearly between good and evil, to be corrupted by maxims which flatter the impetuosity of his passions, any book which can contribute to this must be regarded as absolutely pernicious and contrary to the good of mankind (Sonnino, 31). Given the goals and political situation of Machiavelli s time, perhaps the above quote is nothing but pernicious itself. It is more credible to accept that perhaps Machiavelli was despairing of the liberty of Florence, and was therefore inclined to support any government which might preserve her independence (Macaulay, 75). Baring this mind, one would assume that the initiative to preserve that independence is opposite of contrary to the good of mankind. Another extremely perplexing notion is that the term Machiavellian holds such negative stigmas because of the Prince. As I have concurred that, the Prince may not be completely exempt of precepts to sound morality. One question still lingers how is it that despite the Discourses Machiavelli is still ordained by society to be Machiavellian ? Although Machiavelli was a Republican, scholars of his own time such as Giovanni Battista Busini, an anti-Medici Republican, writing about the middle of the sixteenth century deemed Machiavelli as a most extraordinary lover of liberty (Dunn, Harris, 1).He then goes on to describe that the sole purpose of the Prince was to teach Duke Lorenzo de Medici how to rob the rich of their wealth and ordinary citizens of their freedom Dunn, Harris, 1). One can not draw much sense from these contradictory quotes. Which is it? Was Machiavelli a lover of liberty, or was his intent to rob ordinary citizens of their freedom? Perhaps neither of these questions can be answered, which brings us to the next point. It has previously been mentioned that there are two alternative approaches to the Prince; however, there is a third possibility: A possibility put forth by Luigi Russo, who was a leading literary historian. He proposed this: Machiavelli was interested not in monarch or republic, in liberty or authority, but merely in the technique of politics (Russo, 214). If this is the case, which it may very well be, then Machiavelli has sincerely proven himself to be not only interested in the technique of politics. He has also veritably demonstrated that he had a thorough knowledge of the politics as well. Machiavelli has many areas in the Prince which corroborate this idea. A good example of this is in his reflection to Achilles, and other princes of the past, and how Chiron, the centaur, had educated them. Machiavelli has certainly observed specific events of the past, from which his knowledge stems. He refers to how a prince is obliged to act as both a lion and a fox. The lion possesses great strength whereas the fox is very cunning and more apt to sense traps. It is completely conceivable that Machiavelli s intention may have strictly been to demonstrate his political wisdom.

It is not strange that ordinary readers of the Prince should regard Machiavelli as the most depraved and shameless of human beings. However, wise men have always been inclined to look with a greater suspicion on the angles and demons of the multitude: and in the present instance, several circumstances have led even superficial observers to question the justice of the vulgar decision (Dunn, Harris, 2). It is well known that through his life, Machiavelli was a zealous republican. Nevertheless, during the same year that he wrote his manual on King-craft, Machiavelli suffered imprisonment and torture all in the cause of public liberty (Dunn, Harris, 2). It seems inconceivable that the martyr of freedom is generally considered as the apostle of tyranny in the minds of many people. Machiavelli was concerned with some specific aspects of political life based on freedom and the pursuit of the common good depends to a large extent on the prevention and control of corruption and factions: to prevent and control corruption and factions it is essential to establish good laws and institutions and, if necessary, to resort to force to implement them. Machiavelli s doctrine has been repeatedly condemned on this ground namely the use of force. But such a condemnation appears to be unjustified, for the means advocated by Machiavelli were only ones suitable for the political and social conditions of His time (Mosca, 119). When Machiavelli suggested an immoral action, he explained it by pointing out that men are essentially wicked, and the implication is that, supposing mankind were essentially good in nature, no such action would be necessary. This remains true even today some countries and peoples therein are so corrupt and ambivalent that drastic measures are required to correct such problems. Therefore, who is to say that exactly what Machiavelli prescribed in the Prince is not in fact a remedy to a potentially threatening situation, rather than the cause? Machiavelli lived at a time when the crisis in Italy s history was at its height, and in reviewing and basing theories upon the outcomes of two hundred years of that history he exalted the virtue of an individual, the virtue of a prince, to the dignity of the supreme controlling factor of life. As a result, he attributed Italy s ruin wholly to the sins of her princes (Chabod, 137).It seems here as well that Machiavelli attaches a more pessimistic stigma to the princes that have been responsible for the years of demise in Italy. Machiavelli notes that the people have not been responsible for their suffering. Hence, it is deducted that the princes of Italy s history are to assume responsibility. It seems highly unlikely that one who realizes the political and historical forces that have denied Italy its freedom would adopt a Machiavellian tone. It serves no purpose, and becomes superfluous to insinuate that one who fought for Italy s political freedom should eventually go against his strongest of convictions and ultimately act as antagonist to all that he stands for. In absolute contrast, the Prince can only be reduced to a manual that was initiated prevent further demise in Italy. As previously mentioned, I would like to stress again the absolute possibility that there exists some concealed meaning in the Prince, something that is more consistent with the character and conduct of Machiavelli than that which appears at first glance. One hypothesis that has been proposed is that Machiavelli intended to practice on the young Lorenzo de Medici that he urged his pupil to violent and perfidious measures, to the surest means of accelerating the moment of deliverance (Dunn, Harris, 2-3). It is easy to show that this solution is not consistent with many of the passages in the Prince itself, however, the most decisive refutation is that which is furnished by the other works that Machiavelli has written. In the course of three centuries, editors have discovered many works that Machiavelli has done. Of these works, Machiavelli completed many comedies that were designed for entertainment for the people of Florence. This is slight evidence to the contrary of his Machiavellian stigma. It would appear superfluous to say that a man that is thought by many to be so callous, and cold in nature would even consider applying his skill to maintaining a content people in Florence. Was Machiavelli s motive to win the citizens vote of confidence by appealing to their emotions? In retrospect, it is easy to deduct that the answer to this is no . Most of Machiavelli s comedies preceded the Prince. Therefore, it is difficult to say that he attempted to undo any potentially harmful situation that he may have caused as a result of his later publication the Prince. The Discourses on Livy was another publication that preceded the Prince. This particular work of Machiavelli seems to be far less controversial though.His comments on Livy were intended for the perusal of the most enthusiastic patriots of Florence in History, incribed to one of the most amiable and estimable of the Popes (Dunn, Harris, 3).The Discourse on Livy are anything but autonomous with the universal meaning of the term Machiavellian. Although it is true that the extension of the rules and maxims of the Prince to the life of republics is one of the basic features of the Discourses, it is a different world of values to which the teachings of Machiavellianism is here applied.. (Dunn, Harris, 7). Machiavelli portrays his feelings for the citizens, and his respect for them as well when he makes the claim that a republic has more vitality and enjoys good fortune for a longer time than a principate, since owing to the diversity found amongst its citizens, it is better able than a prince to adapt itself to varying circumstances . Therefore, despite the knowledge granted in the Prince, he has a more optimistic view of the citizens than that of the prince. The Discourses should be used as a bibliographical document like a diary that reflects successive changes in a writer s outlook and evaluations. In the first half of the book, we meet a strong republican confidence, the conviction that a vigorous state must be built on collective action by all its citizens (Chabod, 117). The connotation associated with this is anything opposite to the stereotype proposed by the term Machiavellian. In this quote, the reader gets the general idea that the Discourse is not the work of a malicious man, and especially not a man that prescribes lies, treachery, and cruelty. Some have argued contrary to this opinion. Many believe that in the eighteenth chapter of the Discourses, we can see the emergence of the Prince. This argument is based on the fact that after discussing Rome s foundation and the rise and fall of her civic energies, Machiavelli, when reaching the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters, remembers the conditions of his own day and states than in a phase of full corruption of civic virtue it would be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to maintain or restore any republic. Whoever in such a phase wants to rebuild the state must by necessity resort to extraordinary methods, such as the use of force and an appeal to arms; before he can achieve anything, he must become a prince in the state (Chabod, 117). There is a rather large hole in this argument. Previously, Machiavelli has mentioned the necessity of the citizens to work together, and like any morally correct individual, the assumption is Machiavelli is correct. However, when the citizens are no longer able or willing to fulfill their obligations to their state, it is in any case (even today) necessary for some form of intervention to occur. In effect, necessary changes for the liberty of the people to be able to thrive may be exacted. Hence, it is obvious that Machiavelli s intentions even in the Discourses are explicitly for the good of the citizens political freedom. In essence, we have viewed several antagonist approaches to Machiavelli, and the work that he has accomplished throughout the course of his lifetime. Despite the trials and tribulations that he endured in his life, many scholars believed Machiavelli s intentions were not for the good of the people among whom he resided. We have taken into perspective a host of opinions, some of which supported the claim that Machiavelli was not in fact as Machiavellian as many presume and some to the contrary. We have also inspected a wide range of opinions that dispute whether Machiavelli was a supporter of liberty among his fellow citizens. Considering the complexity and diversity of Machiavelli s writing technique, it would be far too easy to conclude that there is not more than meets the eye in the Prince. Moreover, with the apparent contradiction in the Discourses, one can only conclude that Machiavelli s intentions were pure, and in the best interest of the people and their political freedom. I love my native city (patria) more than my soul. (letter to Vettori, dated 16 April, 1527) -Machiavelli