A Tale of Two Machiavellis

[Written May 2008]

No political theorist is more misunderstood than Niccolo Machiavelli. Nearly five centuries after his death, the enigmatic Florentine and his controversial portfolio of political doctrines compels both fascination and admonition. Indeed, so infamous is this man that the corrupt and the manipulative, the sly and the shrewd, the cunning and the ruthless are indiscriminately labeled “Machiavellian.” His last name has been forever married to the most detestable and destructive of human qualities, but rarely do those invoking the name of Machiavelli in such circumstances comprehend the complex nature of the man. For upon examining the life and work of Machiavelli beyond the simplistic caricature that pervades the common perception of him, one would find that perhaps this reputation is undeserved, for beneath the surface rests a web of contradictions that demand serious examination. Machiavelli and his works are not conducive to quick and clean conclusions, for there are two Machiavellis: the man and the myth; the believer in the human capacity for rationality and the loudest doubter of human goodness; the passionate defender of liberty and the unscrupulous justifier of tyranny; the fierce advocate for republicanism and the compelling apologist for monarchy. In studying Machiavelli, one must discern his true intent to fully absorb his true meaning; fact must be distinguished from myth; wisdom from hyperbole; the scholarly from the satiric. It is surpassingly evident that Machiavelli was hardly Machiavellian.

Niccolo Machiavelli was born on May 3, 1469 in Florence, Italy. Born into a family of distinguished public servants, Machiavelli quickly developed a strong interest in politics and an assiduous appetite for literary classics. He began his government service in 1494 and from 1498 to 1512 served as secretary to the second chancery of the commune of Florence, which handled the internal and military affairs of the Florentine state (De Alvarez). Over his decade and a half of service, Machiavelli became intimately familiar with the institutional nuances of government, acquiring admirable skill as a diplomat and making acquaintances with and observations of powerful individuals including Cesare Borgia, who in many respects epitomized the prescription for political effectiveness and survival that Machiavelli would later offer in his most famous work, The Prince (1513). During this time, Machiavelli also formed a strong and studious belief in republicanism which led to his arrest, torture and eventual exile upon the ascension of the dictatorial Medici regime. During his exile, Machiavelli composed his most famous works, with Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy and The Prince encompassing the bulk of his contribution to political philosophy (Tarlton). Of the two, The Prince is surpassingly more notorious and in the centuries since its publication has become, along with the various interpretations and distortions that have crept into the intellectual arena, the basis of contemporary views of Machiavelli.

In The Prince, Machiavelli advanced a view of politics and political leadership which is abhorrent to modern western thought. Politics need not, according to Machiavelli, concern itself with the rights of citizens, the dispensing of justice or the assurance of equality, and must ignore virtue altogether. According to Machiavelli, the only legitimate aim of politics is to preserve and enhance political power. Indeed, The Prince is not a work offering an ideal political arrangement assuring the greatest possible freedom, equality and justice for its people, but rather a blueprint for the maintaining of political rule regardless of what actions are required to achieve this. Indeed, Machiavelli explicitly warns of the dangers freedom presents to the prince: “whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it” (Machiavelli 18). The unlimited suppression of human freedom is, in Machiavelli’s view, fully permissible if it is necessary to assure the preservation of political power. Contemptuous and manipulative tactics are endorsed by Machiavelli to ensure this end. It is unnecessary for a prince, according to Machiavelli, to possess ethical and moral principles, but only necessary to appear to possess them. A prince “ought to be both feared and loved,” but “it is much safer to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli 61). Politics then, according to this work, is not a means to an end but it is an end in itself, existing to ensure the advancement of the ruler rather than the ruled.

The Prince leads many to believe that Machiavelli was something of a madman, advocating whatever means necessary, even the most barbaric, to preserve and strengthen political power. Yet one needs only to look at his life experience to discern that Machiavelli could not possibly have believed this given the strongly republican views he developed in his youth and the unjust and horrific treatment inflicted upon him by the Medici regime. In The Prince, Machiavelli legitimizes the very tyrannical barbarity of which he was a victim. His prescription for ruthless governance was clearly a farce. This is evident from both the tone and the substance of his more scholarly Discourses, and the occasional emergence, whether intentional or not, of his republican convictions in his most anti-republican writing (De Alvarez 98). It is essential, thus, to explore the true meaning of The Prince and Machiavelli’s intention in writing it. One common view is that Machiavelli was attempting to satisfy a personal desire to return to political prominence and wrote The Prince as an attempt to flatter the Medici rulers by lending eloquent praise to their brutal tactics (Gomez). Eighteenth century historian William Enfield theorized that The Prince was satirizing the barbaric and self-serving actions of despots, declaring that the purpose of The Prince was ‘to pull off the mask from the face of tyranny.’ (Barnett). However, as Vincent Barnett succinctly observes, if intended as satire “then [The Prince] has to be the driest, most bitter and most convincing satire ever written” (Barnett).

The Prince may not have been a formulaic satire, but it is entirely plausible that in composing it, Machiavelli had two objectives in mind: in the short-term, ending his exile and returning to the arena of power, but in the long-run ensuring public understanding (Fleisher 76). It is clear that Machiavelli desired and sought the favor of the prince, but the totality of his work conclusively reveals that Machiavelli favored no prince. The Prince itself is a collection of contradictions which so brilliant a man could hardly have composed accidentally, touting the political efficiency of tyranny while simultaneously revealing its moral repugnance. Perhaps The Prince was less a guide for effective political rulership than for perceptive citizenship, enlightening the ruled about the true nature of the ruler. The Prince is not a guidebook, but rather an exposition. Regardless of its intent, this is its effect, for its most central tenets brilliantly serve to stroke the ego of the tyrant and stir the fury of the masses simultaneously.

At the heart of these Machiavellian contradictions rests the vastly conflicting views of human nature upon which The Prince and Discourses are based. Machiavelli in The Prince labeled men as selfish and petty individuals who need only to be placated with the illusion of security and the flattery of mock benevolence, but in Discourses his entire argument is based upon the rationality of the individual and his right to the liberty offered through a constitutional republic. Machiavelli certainly never adopts the view that humans are by nature angels, but he certainly does not regard them as devils, as The Prince would suggest. He recognizes the extent of humanity’s flaws, but “ascribes to the masses a quite extensive competence to judge and act for the public good in various settings, explicating contrasting the ‘prudence and stability’ of ordinary citizens with the unsound discretion of the prince” (Gomez). Machiavelli even went so far as to proclaim that “the people were vastly superior in all that was good and glorious when compared to princes, and that the faults of the people sprang from the faults of their rulers” (Barnett). By contrast, in The Prince, Machiavelli labels men as “ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers,” unworthy of trust and incapable of good deed (Machiavelli 68). Machiavelli posited in The Prince that ‘a ruler ought not to keep faith when by so doing it would be against his interest … as all [men] are bad, and would not observe their faith with you, you are not bound to keep faith with them” (Machiavelli 64). Yet in Discourses, Machiavelli advocates a constitutional republic, and the honor in adhering to agreement is the foundation upon which a constitutional republic is based. People must adhere to the letter of the law and remain faithful to the legal order in order for constitutional institutions to endure. The directive to disregard one’s existing obligation when that obligation becomes inconvenient directly contradicts Machiavelli’s entire doctrine in Discourses, for the survival of a republic depends upon each citizen keeping faith with their individual and collective obligations.

One of Machiavelli’s most famous statements from The Prince underlies his approach to political theory: the ends justify the means. However, for too long Machiavelli’s desired end has been distorted. The breadth of Machiavelli’s life experience and the scholarly nature of his writings in defense of republicanism, as well as the weakness of his argument in The Prince, suggest that Machiavelli believed a constitutional republic to be the most supreme of institutional arrangement for the governance of society. However, in his times, such arrangements were nonexistent, and Machiavelli adopted the Aristotelian view that one must focus on the most practical, rather than the most ideal, political arrangement. Machiavelli was above all a pragmatist and, preferring a constitutional order most conducive to liberty, regarded constitutional monarchy as the most practical available means of achieving this end. In this regard, Machiavelli utilizes one of his most famous declarations, but without its ethical drawbacks, for Machiavelli’s end was liberty and the most practical means, a constitutional monarchy, was not inconsistent with that end. He believed constitutional monarchy with a carefully devised system of checks and balances, while inferior to the then-impractical constitutional republic, was far superior to a monarch possessing unlimited and unchecked power (Fischer 811).

Machiavelli believed that the French kingdom embodied this moderate and practical political arrangement. “The kingdom of France is moderated more by laws than any other kingdom of which at our time we have knowledge,” Machiavelli wrote in Discourses. “These laws and orders are maintained by Parlements [sic], notably that of Paris; by it they are renewed any time it acts against a prince of the kingdom or in its sentences condemns the kings” (Machiavelli 141). Within these passages rests a clear admiration for the French constitutional arrangement and Machiavelli’s evident fear of unchecked monarchial power and concern for the liberty of the citizenry (Tarlton 15). Through a constitutional monarch with an adequate system of checks and balances, the chances for unrestrained tyrannical excess and injustice are low, tempering the worst inclinations of the monarch while maintaining a civil and orderly society.

“To comprehend the nature of the people, one must be a prince,” wrote Machiavelli, “and to comprehend fully the nature of princes one must be an ordinary citizen” (Barnett). Perhaps no other passage more effectively exposes the weakness of his argument in The Prince, for it contradicts Machiavelli’s glorification of deception on the part of princes. It logically follows from this statement that if deviousness and manipulation and the public’s ignorance are the foundation of the prince’s power, then Machiavelli’s prescriptions for the effective preservation of power will fail. If the statement that ordinary citizens “comprehend fully the nature of princes” is true, then would not ordinary citizens perceive fully perceive the lies of the prince and not fall victim to his manipulative tactics? Such a glaring logical fallacy could hardly have been committed without intention by a man of Machiavelli’s intellect and diligence, so it is highly probable that The Prince was indeed an attempt to satisfy two masters: Machiavelli’s own personal interest and the welfare of the masses.

Machiavelli, contrary to common mythology, believed in personal liberty, which in turn necessitates a surpassing faith in human rationality. The arguments made in Discourses, favoring republicanism, are unquestionably stronger than those of The Prince. Most of his arguments in Discourses directly contradict those of The Prince, in which he prescribes not only that men must be manipulated by their rulers but glorifies this deceit as necessary for the preservation of political power, which ostensibly is necessary for the preservation of civil order. Further, in Discourses, Machiavelli argues that liberty must assume precedence over all other considerations. Machiavelli trusted the masses with the burden and responsibility of liberty. However, in The Prince, Machiavelli argues just the opposite; that people must be skillfully controlled by an unscrupulous and deceitful master. It seems a baffling contradiction that Machiavelli viewed man as sufficiently rational to live freely and peacefully in a constitutional republic, but inadequately capable of recognizing or challenging the malicious workings of a self-serving monarch. How can man possibly be trusted to live in a constitutional republic, the survival of which depends upon human rationality, yet be so ignorant as to fall for the manipulations of a cunning ruler? It is absurd to claim that one man is brilliant enough to make unquestioning fools of a thousand. Men who tolerate tyranny can hardly be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of liberty, so it is incomprehensible to suggest that unfettered monarchy is superior to republicanism. Further, is not credible to believe that Machiavelli, given the available evidence, held the view that the wisdom of one exceeded the wisdom of many. Indeed, Machiavelli loved politics, not its study, but the mere practice of it, the beautiful process of various personalities with competing interests coming together and debating, studying and deciding. To accept the supremacy of one monarch in determining the course of human events would transform politics from a fulfilling, unifying process to the blunt instrument of a ruthless ruler. Politics would become a devious means to a dreary end -- a permanent stalemate in the affairs of men and an unflinching obstacle to the progression of civil society. Machiavelli, as one of the great students and lovers of politics in human history, could hardly have wished for so depressing an end to so beautiful an art.

Bibliography

Barnett, Vincent. “Niccolo Machiavelli – The Cunning Critic of Political Reason.”
History Review (2006).

De Alvarez, Leo Paul. A Commentary on The Prince. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1999.

Fischer, Markus. “Machiavelli’s Political Psychology.” The Review of Politics 59.4, (1997): 789-829.

Fleisher, Martin. Machiavelli and the Nature of Political Thought. New York: McClelland and Stewart Ltd., 1972.

Gomez, Tatiana and Cary J. Nederman. “Between Republic and Monarchy? Liberty, Security and the Kingdom of France in Machiavelli.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XXVI (2002): 82-94.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince and the Discourses. New York: Random House,
1950.

Tarlton, Charles. “Machiavelli’s The Prince as a Memoir.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 45.1, (Spring 2004): 1-17.