A Question of Machiavelli

Authoress's Note:  This a formal research paper and thus very lengthy - 2,398 words to be exact.  Please do not complain this paper is "too long."  You've been warned.  Yes, I know the formatting is a little strange - this is for  your ease of reading.


A Question of Machiavelli: Political Product or Political Tyrant?

    “The ends justify the means.”  “It is far safer to be feared then loved.”  These quotes have become infamous, as well as the man who penned them.  Niccolo Machiavelli and his famous political work Il Principe, or The Prince, have escaped the realm of literature and made it into both Renaissance and pop cultures by being featured in movies and plays.  They have also become an important part of the political fabric of nations.  Both have been largely demonized throughout history – Machiavelli for being cold-hearted and cruel and The Prince as being a handbook for tyrants, advocating cruelty over human dignity.  This demonization even evolved into a political ideology called “Machiavellianism” that was notorious for its use of brutality and deceit in order to justify any action by a ruler, no matter how cruel.

         But what if, for almost 500 years, we have gotten it all wrong?  What if everything we have thought and been taught about Machiavelli and The Prince has been wrong, or at the very least, been taken out of its intended context?  What if the concepts presented in The Prince were the most realistic for the time?  So many opinions have developed surrounding Machiavelli and The Prince that it can be hard to separate fact from fiction.  In order to accomplish this monumental task and begin to understand Machiavelli, one must first look at the myriad of opinions surrounding this famous political figure before secondly taking into account how his experiences have affected his words, and then finally understanding how his words have been manipulated and taken out of context.

         The first step in this colossal task is to examine the turbulent history of 15th-century Florence in order to get a better understanding of the political and religious conflicts before and during Machiavelli’s time.  The powerful Medici family first established control of Florence in 1434, making it an important center for banking and commerce.  By the time of Lorenzo de Medici, called “the Magnificent,” in 1469, the family had gained a reputation for supporting the arts.  However, many accused Lorenzo of being a tyrannical leader.  At the same time, a monk named Girolamo Savonarola preached actively in Florence against the Catholic Church as well as the Medici for what he called vice and greed.  Upon Lorenzo’s death in 1492, Savonarola called for Florence to turn from its sinful ways and become a Christian republic.  He believed that under the Medici, Florence had become a center for worldliness, allowing such things as gambling and scandalous dress.  The Medicis were driven out and the Florentine Republic was founded in December 1494.  From 1494-1498, Savonarola was Florence’s de facto ruler though his regime was extremely unpopular, especially with the nobility who identified more with the Medicis.  Despite his political power, his attacks on the Church did not abate.  Pope Alexander VI grew increasingly angry over Savonarola’s attacks on the papacy and finally excommunicated him in 1497.  This action highlighted the fact that the Pope’s religious and political power was stronger than Savanarola’s.  In May 1498, Savonarola was arrested, tortured into confessing he was a fake, named a heretic and hanged.  The government was then taken over by the powerful Soderini family, rivals to the Medicis.  Piero Soderini was established as ruler in 1501, who ruled until he was overthrown by the Florentine people and replaced with the Medici again in 1512.  The Medici remained in control of Florence until 1527, when they were ousted in the Sack of Rome, only to be reinstated once more in 1530.  While the political history of Florence at this time is very complex, full of leaders pretending to be pious for political reasons, it is important to understand it because it ultimately set the stage for Machiavelli and The Prince.

    To begin to understand The Prince, it is also important to examine Machiavelli’s life and see how he fits in to the turbulence of Florence’s history.  Niccolo Machiavelli was born in 1469 in Florence, Italy during the time of Lorenzo the Magnificent to Bernardo and Bartolomea Machiavelli.  Very little is known about his early years or his education, and what little information exists often conflicts heavily.    He may or may not have received a formal education, but it is almost certain that from an early age Machiavelli loved books.  He mastered Italian and Latin classics, but was never able to master the Greek language.  He possibly worked as a cashier and apprentice in a Roman bank after 1489.  Records of Machiavelli’s life become much more detailed and concrete with his first appointment to the Florentine Chancery, a government council, in 1498 under Piero Soderini, then the ruler of Florence.  Machiavelli apparently adapted well to his new role, receiving much freedom for his service to the Soderini master.  In 1505, Soderini gave him full diplomatic powers on a legation to Mantua.  It is with his 1498 appointment to the Chancery, lasting 14 years, that the line between Machiavelli’s public and private life blurs and sometimes disappears altogether.

         Because he was in the service of the controversial Soderini, Machiavelli became very unpopular and was largely disliked.  Two incidents can illustrate this:  in May 1510, allegations of committing a sex crime with a courtesan were brought against him, and in March 1511, accusations of Machiavelli illegally obtaining a letter from a Florentine magistrate relevant to a judicial investigation were made public.  Although both accusations were later dismissed as unproven, they show how even Machiavelli’s private life had become political.  A December 1509 attempt to have Machiavelli sacked was greeted with many voices in its favor.

         In 1502, against his will, Machiavelli was sent to Cesare Borgia’s camp as an envoy.  Cesare Borgia was the illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VI and in charge of the Pope’s troops, who he used to seize territory after territory.  While he was in Borgia’s camp Machiavelli observed, and became a great admirer of, Borgia’s diplomatic prudence, self-reliance, employment of native troops and avoidance of half-measures.  Most of all, he admired Borgia’s skillful use of fraud and cruelty to effectively manage the territories he conquered.  He became convinced that this was the most advantageous way to rule.  When Machiavelli returned to Florence in 1503, he set about creating a citizen militia based on Cesare Borgia’s.  The militia finally came into existence in 1506 with the approval of the signoria, the highest executive council of Florence, but not without opposition from those who feared it would be used to create a tyrant state.  Upon the plan’s approval, Machiavelli was made secretary of a special ministry, the nova di ordinanza e milizia.  His greatest success in the project was the militia’s 1509 victory over Pisa.

         Renewed war broke out in 1512 between Florence and France.  In terror, Piero Soderini surrendered and was promptly deposed by the Florentines, who then allowed the Medici back in as their rulers.  Machiavelli was dismissed from his public service employment on November 7 of that same year, and on November 17 he was further banned from the Palazzo Publico.  His troubles with the Medici did not end there; in February 1513 he was implicated in a plot against the Medici.  The leaders of the plot were Pietro Paolo Boscoli, Agonisto Capponi, Niccolo Valori and Giovanni Folchi.  Machiavelli was implicated when one of the conspirators dropped a piece of paper with the names of those who might be sympathetic to their cause.  Machiavelli’s name was one of them.  Although he was guilty of muttering no more than a few ill-chosen words and completely innocent, he was arrested on charges of conspiracy, imprisoned and placed on the rack.  (Boscoli and Capponi were executed, while Valori and Folchi merely imprisoned.)  His release came with the election of Giovanni de Medici as Pope Leo X in March 1513.  These events are a prime example of the complex politics of the day involving Popes, individuals and families. 

    Once more a free man, Machiavelli retired to a farm near San Casciano.  His work The Prince was finished that same year and dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici in an attempt to be allowed back into civil service.  It failed, and Machiavelli was resigned to his writings.  A short return to civil service came in 1520, when Cardinal Giulio de Medici commissioned him to write a history of Florence for an annual allowance of 100 florins while he completed the work.  It was to become a project he worked on for the rest of his life.  In 1521 he was briefly sent to Carpi on a petty diplomatic mission to settle a loan, and in 1525 Machiavelli was dispatched on a more important mission to Venice.  His last civil service employment came in 1526 when Clement VII ordered him to inspect Florence’s fortifications and present a report on the subject.  He died in 1527 without having finished his history of Florence.

         Scholars and philosophers have been quick to discuss The Prince.  One of the most notable was Rene Descartes.  Even without a direct rebuttal, we can still get a glimpse into Descartes’ opinion on the subject through two letters he wrote to a German princess.

         Descartes’ first letter in September 1646 states that The Prince holds several good ideas.  The most notable ones are that the prince should avoid arousing the people’s hatred and that the love of his subjects is worth more than fortresses.  Descartes does not elaborate, and “leaves open the possibility that the book…contains other good precepts” (Sumberg).

         Descartes’ reluctance to elaborate on his approval was well founded.  At this time in Europe, The Prince was considered to be the work of Satan himself, and many people said Machiavelli “wrote with the finger of the Devil” (Sumberg).  Descartes was also in a difficult position because the Catholic Church had placed the book on its Index of Prohibited Books in 1522.  He justifies his reading by noting in the first letter that he was ordered to read the book and is careful not to mention the book’s title or its author.  Descartes himself states, “There are few people who want to say all they believe,” especially in turbulent times.  He certainly was not one of them, and wisely kept silent his sympathy for Machiavelli.  At the time, some people were licensed by the church or state to severely punish writers of damaging works.  In other words, Descartes could have been persecuted just for reading The Prince.

         The first letter also contains disapproval of other precepts in The Prince, though it should be noted that this disapproval is very limited in its scope while the rest of the book is left untouched.  The first criticism put forth is the idea that the book in question is full of extremism and contains no justice.  He also makes note of the fact that justice is different for every group.  In addition, Descartes criticizes Machiavelli for not distinguishing clearly enough the differences between princes who acquire states by just means and princes who acquire states by unjust means.  Descartes claims that Machiavelli’s advice is only suitable for the latter and that princes who start out committing crimes will continue to commit them.

         The second letter is much more varied in its subject matter and does not concentrate solely on Machiavelli like the first.  Descartes claims that the chief intent of The Prince was to praise Cesare Borgia, but quickly Descartes accepts a respectable opinion by stating that Machiavelli’s admiration of Cesare Borgia “led him [Machiavelli] to suggest actions that can only be excused with difficulty” (Sumberg).

         Even with Descartes’ letters and all the information we can derive from them, we still cannot know for sure how Descartes feels about Machiavelli.  It is a fair claim, though, to say that he probably quietly and personally sympathized with Machiavelli but because of the political atmosphere of Europe at the time it would have been dangerous to say so.

         Although Descartes is by no means the only philosopher to comment on the subject, his reaction is by far the best documented.  Others include Rousseau, Montesquieu, Diderot and Voltaire, though their opinions are sometimes only a sentence or two.  Of these four, Rousseau is the most creative.  One can see he carries out a debate with Machiavelli all through his work The Social Contract.  Montesquieu did not associate Machiavelli with Machiavellianism, but he never bothered to defend Machiavelli. Voltaire helped Fredrick of Prussia with his Anti-Machiavel but later stated, “such a repudiation of Machiavelli would be the first step of any tyrant” (McKenzie).  Diderot, in his "Encyclopédie," pleaded for Machiavelli’s rehabilitation while at the same time insisting the work was a satire.

         Some modern scholars, such as Mary G. Dietz, also have their own very interesting theories about Machiavelli and his famous work.  Dietz claims Machiavelli follows his own advice by using strategy and deception to undo his enemy – the Medici.  She believes Machiavelli was a sworn enemy of the Medici because of how he had been treated at their hand, and that The Prince was actually a list of suggestions that he believed would, if followed by the Medici, result in their angering the people and being removed from office. 

         Not all scholars are this radical.  Maurizo Viroli is more moderate in his approach, claiming that Machiavelli was a realist, but not in terms of politics.  He claims his realism came from his observations of human behavior, especially of princes, and knowledge of history.  He also says Machiavelli’s realism is unique in that he believes “rare and marvelous men” (Viroli) appear and accomplish great things.  He insists that The Prince is actually a harsh critique of the Medici and their methods of preserving power, particularly by disarming their subjects.

         Machiavelli and The Prince are two of the most recognizable and controversial members of history.  Many theories about the intent of the work and its author have been developed, refined, shot down and reborn in the wake of dispute, opinion and new research.    However, there is one question about Machiavelli that remains unanswered: considering his situation, what else was he supposed to advocate?  The moral and virtuous politics that were considered acceptable at the time were clearly ineffective in Florence and survival required good fortune, cunning and a cutthroat sense of reality and politics.  Machiavelli was far ahead of his time in realizing this and unfortunately was ostracized and condemned for his ideas, which have become commonplace in today’s world.

Bibliography (has been edited ONLY to remove information about my location - all other info has been left untouched)

"Cesare Borgia." Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Encyclopedia.com. 20 Feb.
2009
<http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Borgia-C.html>.

Dietz, Mary G. "Trapping The Prince: Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception."
JSTOR. 5 Jan. 2009
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/1960538>.

Hörnqvist, Mikael. "Civic Humanism: Rotation in office." Uppsala Universitet. 21 Feb.
2009
<http://www.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/Ren/civic-rot-print.htm>.

McKenzie, Lionel A. "Rousseau's Debate with Machiavelli in the Social Contract."
JSTOR. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709200>.

Muhlberger, Steve. "Italy in the Time of Machiavelli." Nipissing University. 7 Feb.
2009
<http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/2155/MACH.HTM>.

"Niccolò Machiavelli." NNDB. 3 Feb. 2009
<http://www.nndb.com/people/654/000034552/>.

"Niccolò Machiavelli Biography." Notablebiographies.com. 7 Jan. 2009
<http://notablebiographies.com/Lo-Ma/Machiavelli-Niccol.html>.

Sumberg, Theodore A. "Descartes on Machiavelli." Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.
8 Jan. 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com.vortex3.[my school's name here].edu:2050/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9604173797&site=ehost-live>.

Stephens, J.N., and H.C. Butters. "New Light on Machiavelli." JSTOR. 7 Feb. 2009
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/568493>.

Whitney, Craig. "Machiavelli and The Prince." Debbie Twyman & Craig Whitney.
North Kansas City High School. 1 Feb. 2009
<http://www.twyman-whitney.com/apgovpol/readings/
MachiavelliandThePrince.pdf>.

Viroli, Maurizio. "Machiavelli's Realism." Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.
7 Feb. 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com.vortex3.[my school's name here].edu:2050/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27743728&site=ehost-live>.