Niccolo Machiavelli, the Florentine statesman and political thinker, was born in 1469. Yet over five hundred years on, Machiavelli’s name is intrinsically tied to modern political thought, ideology, and analysis; synonymous with amorality, deceit, and cunning. Quentin Skinner describes how Machiavelli has played a prominent role in political life since the fifteenth century, detailing how Shakespeare referred to “The murderous Machiavel”, Edmund Burke described the “odious maxims of Machiavellian policy” and Marx and Engels berated such policies as “paralysing democratic energies” (Skinner, 1981, p1).
For many years politicians, and active participants in the world in which they operate, countered any links with Machiavelli or his workings. Henry Kissinger, Presidential advisor to Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford in the 1970’s famously refuted any comparison with Machiavelli, despite the continued association. Other politicians have not shied away from such judgement; Peter Mandelson, a key founder of Britain’s New Labour party appeared to revel in his moniker of ‘Dark Prince’, inspired by Machiavelli’s most famous work. However, his shady reputation in the upper echelons of government, power-brokering in the shadows of Westminster, earned him few admirers outside his power-circle centred at the top of government.
So with much of the negativity of modern twenty-first century politics neatly tied in a range of terms under one man’s name, Machiavelli seemingly plays the role of perpetrator for man’s governmental sins. But why so? How have the works of Machiavelli resulted in such an infamous legacy, and more importantly, is it an accurate one?
In order to understand Machiavelli, his works, and his legacy, we must first look at the life he led. Born the son of a civil lawyer in fifteenth century Florence, Machiavelli was from modest stock but received a classical education, at the time deemed essential for political men.
The city of Florence in northern Italy had always considered itself a Republic, however for much of the fifteenth century Florence had been an oligarchy dominated by the rule of one banking family, the Medici. The collapse of Medici rule, the reestablishment of the Republic under Savonarola in 1494, and the continuation of this by Soderini in 1498 eventually led to Machiavelli’s introduction to politics (Anglo, 1984).
He was first appointed in to civil service at the age of twenty-nine, fulfilling the role of Chancellor to the Second Chancery with special responsibilities in the fields of militia and foreign affairs. This diplomatic role saw him dispatched across Europe during a period of time in which Sydney Anglo, describes Italy as “hapless” and “playing the battle-ground for European nation-states” (Anglo, 1984, p73). This, Anglo suggests, was a humiliating experience for Machiavelli, but it was also the most rigorous political training he could have undertaken. However, for all his endeavours, Machiavelli’s diplomatic career was circumstantially doomed by his comparatively lowly social status to that of his peers, preventing him from appointment as a full ambassador of the Republic.
Machiavelli’s involvement in military affairs had rather different results. The small town of Pisa had become an increasing embarrassment to the Florentine Republic, as they failed at it’s capture, despite numerous attempts. Soderini thus empowered Machiavelli to create a new militia with a mind to it’s capture. By December 1506 Machiavelli published Discourse on Florentine Military Preperation, calling upon his experience of European embattlement witnessed upon his travels. Within a month a new magistracy was created; the Nine of the Militia, and Machiavelli appointed it’s Chancellor. Eventually, in 1509 Pisa succumbed to Machiavelli’s infantry, and his military career reached optimum status. As such he was entrusted with further military responsibilities on behalf of the Florentine Republic, increasing his influence and power (Anglo, 1984).
However, Machiavelli’s public endearment was short lived. By 1512, the Republic surrendered to a Spanish army supported by Pope Julius II; Soderini fled, Republican institutions were banished and Machiavelli found himself out of work. The Medici once again returned to oligarch status, and the former Chancellor to the Nine of the Militia was wrongly accused of a plot to rid them of their recouped power. Tortured, Machiavelli was eventually released without charge, but remained under suspicion for several years (Skinner, 1981).
Following his trial, Machiavelli retired from public life for fourteen years, a period in which much of his most acclaimed work was created. But in 1526, he again found himself eligible for office and his longing for employment led to election as the Chancellor responsible for the city’s fortifications, albeit it under Medici rule. The small pleasure Machiavelli received from a return to office was short lived; one year after returning to Florentine politics, the Medici administration collapsed. The Republic was re-established and Machiavelli was once again overlooked. One year later, on 21 June 1527, Niccolo Machiavelli died from a long term illness (Niccolo Machiavelli 1469-1527, 2011).
His lifetime in politics had been famous in varied moments, the capture of Pisa most notably, but ultimately Machiavelli can be seen to have been overlooked and at times underestimated in office. It was many years later, when much of the work completed during his enforced retirement from public life was released that he would become most eminent. Through the release of The Prince, The Discourses, The Art of War and The Florentine History, Machiavelli would live on; receiving much greater acknowledgment, both good and bad, posthumously.
The first piece Machiavelli worked on during his exile was to become his most famous. The Prince, although published many years after his death, was written around 1513 and was to be an advisory to the new Medici Prince on how to “gain, hold, and increase political power” (Anglo, 1984, p77). Unlike many of the political thinkers of his era, Machiavelli set out within The Prince to separate political morality from Christian ethics, divorcing practicality from ethics in an early establishment of what we now understand as ‘realpolitik’. Inspired by historical examples such as that of Cesare Borgia, whom he had known personally, Machiavelli detailed how he believed a successful prince should be ruthless, as it is more advantageous to be feared rather than loved, he writes:
“This leads to the debate: Is it better to be loved than feared, or the reverse? The answer is that it is desirable to be both, but because it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer for a prince to be feared than loved, if he is to fail in one of the two.”
(Knowles, 2004, p502)
Machiavelli goes on to explain how the prince should only keep his word for as long as it is of use to him, and no longer, such acts of ruthlessness can be justified he suggests when he writes:
“in the actions of men, and especially princes… the end justifies the means”.
(Knowles, 2004, p502)
The themes of cunning and duplicity are perhaps best analysed within The Prince through the explanation of the lion and the fox. Machiavelli describes both animals’ shortcomings: the lion does not protect himself from traps and the fox does not protect himself from wolves. In order for the prince to succeed he must take on the role of both creatures simultaneously: the lion to frighten the wolves, and the fox to recognize the traps (Lukes, 2001).
Machiavelli also discussed Man’s, and indeed the prince’s, power to mould his own destiny. He referred to two polarities throughout his works which first came to prominence in The Prince, known as fortuna and virtu. These two opposing forces according to Machiavelli determine whether affairs are dominated by chance or whether they can be influenced by human skill or effort. Fortuna, Machiavelli describes as what he believes is manifest in most men’s lives, as they appear nothing more than subject to circumstance. Conversely, virtu he could see in only a few men; the power to control their own paths, and more specifically their political objectives. In summary he writes “while mankind in general remains subject to the whims of fortuna, it is possible for some men, at least, to control a part of their fate” (Anglo, 1984).
From this brief overview we begin to understand how Machiavelli believed that the virtu of one man alone would be enough to re-establish Florence, and create a strong stable society; however we understand the measures by which Machiavelli would have the prince act, albeit interim, would be violent, and not least cut-throat.
Following The Prince, Machiavelli went to work on The Discourses between 1513 and 1519. The examination of Rome’s political and military institutions was based largely upon Livy’s account of Roman history. Throughout this work Machiavelli once again assessed his views on the nature of man, discussing the deep lying corruption throughout all Italian states and republics. He goes onto explain that corruption cannot forever be held at bay, not even within the great Roman Empire, as all men have their downfalls. Once again he expels how the fortuna of the many must be overcome by the virtu of “an almost royal hand” (Anglo, 1984, p81). This had already been discussed in principle in The Prince, but in The Discourses Machiavelli goes on to develop his thoughts on the prince’s virtu in to detailed explanations of the importance military expertise, revealing that in order for the prince to triumph his focus must be largely upon battle (Machiavelli, 2003).
The Art of War, written between 1519 and 1520 was Machiavelli’s next focus and the only piece of work published during his lifetime. Following on from the reiterated importance of military expertise in The Discourse, Machiavelli sets out what he believes to be ideal military practice. Although he details exact information on what he believes to be the best forms of recruitment, technique, movement, and organisation, the explicit focus of The Art of War is one of promoting good citizenship through military discipline, reiterating his work in both The Prince and The Discourses that strong laws are controlled by strong arms (Paret, 1986).
Machiavelli’s final work, The Florentine History, written between 1520 and the year of his death 1527, told the story of Florence’s Republic up until 1492. In the broader Italian context Machiavelli details how corruption, explicitly in Florence, had crept into political life as a result of lacking military prowess. This account furthered his initial explanation of corruption stemming from weak militia in The Discourses and provided historical basis for much of the theory already detailed in The Prince and The Art of War.
It has been argued by many that the works of Machiavelli can be difficult to tie down; that the historical basis of one of his theories, can just as easily act as an opponent to another of his concepts. In The Prince Machiavelli details how the virtu of a prince can be the saviour of the Florentine Republic, and then in both The Discourses and The Art of War he describes the degeneration of the Roman Empire by way of imperial corruption as a result of republican virtu. This has been the cause of criticism for some, but Machiavelli’s intent is clear however contradictory his theories may or may not be; the establishment of a solid republic for the people of Florence was his ultimate goal.
In order to understand whether Niccolo Machiavelli is misrepresented in the twenty-first century we must appreciate not only the content of his work, but the core values and beliefs which he hoped would be extracted from them.
Machiavelli clearly calls upon his views of human nature within his workings. Through the phenomenon of fortuna he explains how he believes most men are not in control of their own destiny, and as such are more inclined to the evils of corruption and fickle behaviour, within The Prince he writes:
“Let no one oppose this belief of mine with that well-worn proverb: ‘He who builds on the people, builds on mud.’”
(Knowles, 2004, p502)
This quotation expresses Machiavelli’s preference for a strong single leader. However, it is also clear that he believes human shortcomings can be remedied. Sydney Anglo writes:
“It is, he feels, possible both to devise and to teach rules for effective political behaviour, to persuade men to eschew wickedness; to inspire them to selflessness; and to awaken a civic spirit. This is why he writes at all.”
(Anglo, 1984, p78)
These two quotations in tandem exemplify the contrasting nature of Machiavelli’s writing vividly, and yet when placed in context of The Prince we clearly comprehend, if not agree with, his stance on human nature. He believed that whilst the people of the Florentine Republic were often undesirably stricken to selfish actions, they could be, with the right leadership, a selfless and successful people.
One very apparent reasoning for the longevity of Machiavelli’s presence in political thought since the fifteenth century is clearly the foundation of his works in his opinion of human nature. Anthony D’Amato writes:
“Despite the atomic bomb, we have a high degree of sameness of man today with the human model analysed by Machiavelli”
(D’Amato, 1972 ,p210)
Jonathan Powell, former Chief of Staff to Tony Blair and author of The Modern Machiavelli agrees:
“If you look back at Machiavelli’s The Prince, the lessons still on the hole apply, even though it is five hundred years later. I think it’s because Machiavelli got to human nature; instead of trying to base things on theology or utopias, he looked at what was real.”
(Today, 2010)
These two explanations of Machiavelli’s relevance go a long way to explaining why we are familiar with his work in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries respectively, but they do not give answer to why the connotations associated with his name exist.
From the analysis of his work, most notably The Prince, we have come to understand that Machiavelli believed only a ruthless leader would return Florence to a stable republic. Through the cunning of the fox and the strength of the lion, he alleged the end would justify the means, as one man’s virtu remedied the fortuna of the many.
With this in mind we must understand the context of Machiavelli’s work. During a blood soaked period of European and indeed Italian history, The Prince was to be seen as a guide to the new Medici ruler on how to establish order in Florence. But, Machiavelli only believed these measures to be temporary; necessary to stabilise the Florentine state and lead to an eventual re-establishment of republican rule (Niccolo Machiavelli 1469-1527, 2003).
When beginning to draw a conclusion, Niccolo Machiavelli’s most intellectual work; the separation of theology from political practice and leadership, should be seen as the very foundation of much of our modern world and the phenomenon of realpolitik. He can be viewed as one of the first realist political thinkers, and as such should be held in high regard. However, his preference for cunning and deceit, in the form of recommendation to the new prince of Florence in 1513, appears to have overshadowed much of his work, controlling his legacy as an evil, dark figure.
Placing Machiavelli’s political thoughts in context is paramount when analysing the intent of his work; and whilst human nature has changed little over five hundred years, circumstance has. And so, if to be Machiavellian is to believe in the use of immoral behaviour in order to achieve gain, then Niccolo Machiavelli is not so. However, if to believe in the implementation of realpolitik alongside strong leadership and strong law is Machiavellianism, then Machiavelli is as Machiavellian as they come. Unfortunately, in the twenty-first century, as in every century following his death, the former appears to supersede the latter.
Bibliography
ANGLO, Sydney (1984). Niccolo Machiavelli: the anatomy of political and military decadence. In: D’AMATO, Anthony (1972). The relevance of Machiavelli to contemporary world politics. In: PAREL, Anthony (ed). The Political Calculus. Totonto, University of Toronto Press.
HEYWOOD, Andrew (2000). Key Concepts in Politics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
HEYWOOD, Andrew (2007). Politics, 3rd Edition. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
JONES, Jonathan (2005). How to win at politics. [online]. The Guardian, 12 January. Last accessed 18 November at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jan/12/arts.politicsphilosophyandsociety
KNOWLES, Elizabeth (ed) (2004). Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. 6th ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press.
LUKES, Timothy (2001). Lionizing Machiavelli. ProQuest Education Journals, 95(3), 561- 575.
MACHIAVELLI, Niccolo (2003). Discourses on Livy. Translated by Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
MANDELSON, Peter (2010). The Third Man. Harper Press, London.
Niccolo Machiavelli 1469-1527 (2011). [online]. Last accessed 19 November 2011 at: http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199231331/01student/keythinkers/machiavelli/
PAREL, Anthony (ed). The Political Calculus. Totonto, University of Toronto Press.
PARET, Peter (ed) (1986). Makers of Modern Strategy. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
REDHEAD, Brian, et al. Plato to Nato. London, BBC, 73-84.
SKINNER, Quentin (1981). Machiavelli. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Today. The modern Machiavelli. (2010) [radio broadcast]. BBC Radio 4. 14 October.
WILDE, Norman (1928). Machiavelli. International Journal of Ethics, 38(2), 212-225.
