Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli[a] (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) was aFlorentine[4][5] diplomat, author, philosopher, and historian who lived during theItalian Renaissance. He is best known for his political treatiseThe Prince (Il Principe), written around 1513 but not published until 1532, five years after his death.[6] He has often been called the father of modernpolitical philosophy andpolitical science.[7]
For many years he served as a senior official in theFlorentine Republic with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He wrote comedies, carnival songs, and poetry. His personal correspondence is also important to historians and scholars of Italian correspondence.[8] He worked assecretary to the secondchancery of the Republic of Florence from 1498 to 1512, when theMedici were out of power.
After his death Machiavelli's name cameto evoke unscrupulous acts of the sort he advised most famously in his work,The Prince.[9] He claimed that his experience and reading of history showed him that politics has always involved deception, treachery, and crime.[10] He advised rulers to engage in evil when political necessity requires it, and argued specifically that successful reformers of states should not be blamed for killing other leaders who could block change.[11][12][13] Machiavelli'sPrince has been surrounded by controversy since it was published. Some consider it to be a straightforward description of political reality. Others viewThe Prince as a manual, teaching would-be tyrants how they should seize and maintain power.[14] Even into recent times, some scholars, such asLeo Strauss, have restated the traditional opinion that Machiavelli was a "teacher of evil".[15]
Machiavelli was born inFlorence, Italy, the third child and first son of attorneyBernardo di Niccolò Machiavelli and his wife, Bartolomea di Stefano Nelli, on 3 May 1469.[19] The Machiavelli family is believed to be descended from the oldmarquesses of Tuscany and to have produced thirteen FlorentineGonfalonieres of Justice,[20] one of the offices of a group of nine citizens selected by drawing lots every two months and who formed the government, orSignoria; he was never, though, a full citizen of Florence because of the nature of Florentine citizenship in that time even under the republican regime. Machiavelli married MariettaCorsini in 1501. They had seven children, five sons and two daughters: Primerana, Bernardo, Lodovico, Guido,Piero [it], Baccina and Totto.[21][22]
Machiavelli was born in a tumultuous era. The Italiancity-states, and the families and individuals who ran them could rise and fall suddenly, as popes and the kings of France, Spain, and theHoly Roman Empire waged acquisitive wars for regional influence and control. Political-military alliances continually changed, featuringcondottieri (mercenary leaders), who changed sides without warning, and the rise and fall of many short-lived governments.[23]
Machiavelli was taught grammar, rhetoric, and Latin by his teacher, Paolo da Ronciglione.[24] It is unknown whether Machiavelli knew Greek; Florence was at the time one of the centres of Greek scholarship in Europe.[25] In 1494 Florence restoredthe republic, expelling theMedici family that had ruled Florence for some sixty years. Shortly after the execution ofSavonarola, Machiavelli was appointed to an office of the second chancery, a medieval writing office that put Machiavelli in charge of the production of official Florentine government documents.[26] Shortly thereafter, he was also made the secretary of theDieci di Libertà e Pace.
In the first decade of the sixteenth century, he carried out several diplomatic missions, most notably to the papacy in Rome. Florence sent him toPistoia to pacify the leaders of two opposing factions which had broken into riots in 1501 and 1502; when this failed, the leaders were banished from the city, a strategy which Machiavelli had favoured from the outset.[27] From 1502 to 1503, he witnessed the brutal reality of the state-building methods ofCesare Borgia (1475–1507) and his father,Pope Alexander VI, who were then engaged in the process of trying to bring a large part of central Italy under their possession.[28] The pretext of defending Church interests was used as a partial justification by the Borgias. Other excursions to the court ofLouis XII and the Spanish court influenced his writings such asThe Prince.
At the start of the 16th century, Machiavelli conceived of a militia for Florence, and he then began recruiting and creating it.[29] He distrusted mercenaries (a distrust that he explained in his official reports and then later in his theoretical works for their unpatriotic and uninvested nature in the war that makes their allegiance fickle and often unreliable when most needed),[30] and instead staffed his army with citizens, a policy that yielded some positive results. By February 1506 he was able to have four hundred farmers marching on parade, suited (including iron breastplates), and armed with lances and small firearms.[29] Under his command, Florentine citizen-soldiers conqueredPisa in 1509.[31]
Machiavelli's success was short-lived. In August 1512, the Medici, backed byPope Julius II, used Spanish troops to defeat the Florentines atPrato.[32] In the wake of the siege,Piero Soderini resigned as Florentine head of state and fled into exile. The experience would, like Machiavelli's time in foreign courts and with the Borgia, heavily influence his political writings. The Florentine city-state and the republic were dissolved, with Machiavelli then being removed from office and banished from the city for a year.[33] In 1513, the Medici accused him of conspiracy against them and had him imprisoned.[34] Despite being subjected to torture[33] ("with the rope", in which the prisoner is hanged from his bound wrists from the back, forcing the arms to bear the body's weight and dislocating the shoulders), he denied involvement and was released after three weeks.
Machiavelli then retired to his farm estate atSant'Andrea in Percussina, nearSan Casciano in Val di Pesa, where he devoted himself to studying and writing political treatises. During this period, he represented the Florentine Republic on diplomatic visits to France, Germany, and elsewhere in Italy.[33] Despairing of the opportunity to remain directly involved in political matters, after a time he began to participate in intellectual groups in Florence and wrote several plays that (unlike his works on political theory) were both popular and widely known in his lifetime. Politics remained his main passion, and to satisfy this interest, he maintained a well-known correspondence with more politically connected friends, attempting to become involved once again in political life.[35] In a letter toFrancesco Vettori, he described his experience:
When evening comes, I go back home, and go to my study. On the threshold, I take off my work clothes, covered in mud and filth, and I put on the clothes an ambassador would wear. Decently dressed, I enter the ancient courts of rulers who have long since died. There, I am warmly welcomed, and I feed on the only food I find nourishing and was born to savour. I am not ashamed to talk to them and ask them to explain their actions and they, out of kindness, answer me. Four hours go by without my feeling any anxiety. I forget every worry. I am no longer afraid of poverty or frightened of death. I live entirely through them.[36]
Machiavelli's best-known bookIl Principe contains several maxims concerning politics. Instead of the more traditional target audience of a hereditary prince, it concentrates on the possibility of a "new prince". To retain power, the hereditary prince must carefully balance the interests of a variety of institutions to which the people are accustomed.[41] By contrast, a new prince has the more difficult task in ruling: He must first stabilise his newfound power in order to build an enduring political structure. Machiavelli suggests that the political benefits of stability and security can be achieved in the face of moral corruption. Machiavelli believed that public and private morality had to be understood as two different things in order to rule well.[42] As a result, a ruler must be concerned not only with reputation, but also must be positively willing to act unscrupulously at the right times. Machiavelli believed that, for a ruler, it was better to be widely feared than to be greatly loved; a loved ruler retains authority by obligation, while a feared leader rules by fear of punishment.[43] As a political theorist, Machiavelli emphasized the "necessity" for the methodical exercise of brute force or deceit, including extermination of entire noble families, to head off any chance of a challenge to the prince's authority.[44]
Scholars often note that Machiavelli glorifies instrumentality in state building, an approach embodied by the saying, often attributed to interpretations ofThe Prince, "The ends justify the means".[45] Fraud and deceit are held by Machiavelli as necessary for a prince to use.[46] Violence may be necessary for the successful stabilization of power and introduction of new political institutions. Force may be used to eliminate political rivals, destroy resistant populations, and purge the community of other men strong enough of a character to rule, who will inevitably attempt to replace the ruler.[47] In one passage, Machiavelli subverts the advice given byCicero to avoid duplicity and violence, by saying that the prince should "be the fox to avoid the snares, and a lion to overwhelm the wolves". It would become one of Machiavelli's most famous maxims.[48] Machiavelli's view that acquiring a state and maintaining it requiresevil means has been noted as the chief theme of the treatise.[49] Machiavelli has become infamous for such political advice, ensuring that he would be remembered in history through the adjective "Machiavellian".[50]
Concerning the differences and similarities in Machiavelli's advice to ruthless and tyrannical princes inThe Prince and his more republican exhortations inDiscourses on Livy, a few commentators assert thatThe Prince, although written as advice for a monarchical prince, contains arguments for the superiority of republican regimes, similar to those found in theDiscourses. In the 18th century, the work was even called asatire, for example byJean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778).[53][54]
Scholars such asLeo Strauss (1899–1973) andHarvey Mansfield (b. 1932) have stated that sections ofThe Prince and his other works have deliberately esoteric statements throughout them.[55] However, Mansfield states that this is the result of Machiavelli's seeing grave and serious things as humorous because they are "manipulable by men", and sees them as grave because they "answer human necessities".[56]
The Marxist theoristAntonio Gramsci (1891–1937) argued that Machiavelli's audience was the common people, as opposed to the ruling class, who were already made aware of the methods described through their education.[57]
TheDiscourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, written around 1517, and published in 1531, often referred to simply as theDiscourses orDiscorsi, is nominally a discussion regarding the classical history of earlyAncient Rome, although it strays far from this subject matter and also uses contemporary political examples to illustrate points. Machiavelli presents it as a series of lessons on how a republic should be started and structured. It is a larger work thanThe Prince, and while it more openly explains the advantages of republics, it also contains many similar themes from his other works.[58] For example, Machiavelli has noted that to save a republic from corruption, it is necessary to return it to a "kingly state" using violent means.[59] He excuses Romulus for murdering his brotherRemus and co-rulerTitus Tatius to gain absolute power for himself in that he established a "civil way of life".[60] Commentators disagree about how much the two works agree with each other, as Machiavelli frequently refers to leaders of republics as "princes".[61] Machiavelli even sometimes acts as an advisor totyrants.[62][63] Other scholars have pointed out the aggrandizing and imperialistic features of Machiavelli's republic.[64] Nevertheless, it became one of the central texts of modernrepublicanism, and has often been argued to be a more comprehensive work thanThe Prince.[65]
Engraved portrait of Machiavelli, from the Peace Palace Library'sIl Principe, published in 1769
Major commentary on Machiavelli's work has focused on two issues: how unified and philosophical his work is and how innovative or traditional it is.[66]
There is some disagreement concerning how best to describe the unifying themes, if there are any, that can be found in Machiavelli's works, especially in the two major political works,The Prince andDiscourses. Some commentators have described him as inconsistent, and perhaps as not even putting a high priority on consistency.[66][67] Others such asHans Baron have argued that his ideas must have changed dramatically over time. Some have argued that his conclusions are best understood as a product of his times, experiences and education. Others, such asLeo Strauss andHarvey Mansfield, have argued strongly that there is a strong and deliberate consistency and distinctness, even arguing that this extends to all of Machiavelli's works including his comedies and letters.[66][68]
Commentators such as Leo Strauss have gone so far as to name Machiavelli as the deliberate originator ofmodernity itself. Others have argued that Machiavelli is only a particularly interesting example of trends which were happening around him. In any case, Machiavelli presented himself at various times as someone reminding Italians of the old virtues of the Romans and Greeks, and other times as someone promoting a completely new approach to politics.[66] Machiavelli emphasizes the originality of his endeavor in several instances. Many scholars note that Machiavelli seems particularly original and that he frequently seems to act without any regard for his predecessors.[69][70]
That Machiavelli had a wide range of influences is in itself not controversial. Their relative importance is however a subject of ongoing discussion. It is possible to summarize some of the main influences emphasized by different commentators.
The Mirror of Princes genre
Gilbert (1938) summarized the similarities betweenThe Prince and the genre it imitates, the so-called "Mirror of Princes" style. This was a classically influenced genre, with models at least as far back asXenophon andIsocrates. While Gilbert emphasized the similarities, however, he agreed with all other commentators that Machiavelli was particularly novel in the way he used this genre, even when compared to his contemporaries such asBaldassare Castiglione andErasmus. One of the major innovations Gilbert noted was that Machiavelli focused on the "deliberate purpose of dealing with a new ruler who will need to establish himself in defiance of custom". Normally, these types of works were addressed only to hereditary princes. (Xenophon is also an exception in this regard.)
Classical republicanism
Commentators such asQuentin Skinner andJ.G.A. Pocock, in the so-called "Cambridge School" of interpretation, have asserted that some of the republican themes in Machiavelli's political works, particularly theDiscourses on Livy, can be found in medieval Italian literature which was influenced by classical authors such asSallust.[71][72]
Classical political philosophy: Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle
The Socratic school of classical political philosophy, especiallyAristotle, had become a major influence upon European political thinking in the lateMiddle Ages. It existed both in the Catholicised form presented byThomas Aquinas, and in the more controversial "Averroist" form of authors likeMarsilius of Padua. Machiavelli was critical of Catholic political thinking and may have been influenced by Averroism. But he rarely cites Plato and Aristotle, and most likely did not approve of them.Leo Strauss argued that the strong influence ofXenophon, a student of Socrates more known as a historian, rhetorician and soldier, was a major source of Socratic ideas for Machiavelli, sometimes not in line with Aristotle. While interest inPlato was increasing in Florence during Machiavelli's lifetime, Machiavelli does not show particular interest in him, but was indirectly influenced by his readings of authors such asPolybius,Plutarch andCicero.
The major difference between Machiavelli and the Socratics, according to Strauss, is Machiavelli's materialism, and therefore his rejection of both a teleological view of nature and of the view that philosophy is higher than politics. With theirteleological understanding of things, Socratics argued that by nature, everything that acts, acts towards some end, as if nature desired them, but Machiavelli claimed that such things happen by blind chance or human action.[73]
Classical materialism
Strauss argued that Machiavelli may have seen himself as influenced by some ideas from classical materialists such asDemocritus,Epicurus andLucretius. Strauss however sees this also as a sign of major innovation in Machiavelli, because classical materialists did not share the Socratic regard for political life, while Machiavelli clearly did.[73]
Thucydides
Some scholars note the similarity between Machiavelli and the Greek historianThucydides, since both emphasizedpower politics.[74][75] Strauss argued that Machiavelli may indeed have been influenced bypre-Socratic philosophers, but he felt it was a new combination:
...contemporary readers are reminded by Machiavelli's teaching of Thucydides; they find in both authors the same "realism", i.e., the same denial of the power of the gods or of justice and the same sensitivity to harsh necessity and elusive chance. Yet Thucydides never calls in question the intrinsic superiority of nobility to baseness, a superiority that shines forth particularly when the noble is destroyed by the base. Therefore Thucydides' History arouses in the reader a sadness which is never aroused by Machiavelli's books. In Machiavelli we find comedies, parodies, and satires but nothing reminding of tragedy. One half of humanity remains outside of his thought. There is no tragedy in Machiavelli because he has no sense of the sacredness of "the common". –Strauss (1958, p. 292)
Machiavelli is sometimes seen as the prototype of a modern empirical scientist, building generalizations from experience and historical facts, and emphasizing the uselessness of theorizing with the imagination.[66]
He emancipated politics from theology and moral philosophy. He undertook to describe simply what rulers actually did and thus anticipated what was later called the scientific spirit in which questions of good and bad are ignored, and the observer attempts to discover only what really happens.
Machiavelli felt that his early schooling along the lines of traditional classical education was essentially useless for the purpose of understanding politics. Nevertheless, he advocated intensive study of the past, particularly regarding the founding of a city, which he felt was a key to understanding its later development.[76] Moreover, he studied the way people lived and aimed to inform leaders how they should rule and even how they themselves should live. Machiavelli denies the classical opinion that living virtuously always leads to happiness. For example, Machiavelli viewed misery as "one of the vices that enables a prince to rule."[77] Machiavelli stated that "it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved."[78] In much of Machiavelli's work, he often states that the ruler must adopt unsavoury policies for the sake of the continuance of his regime. Because cruelty and fraud play such important roles in his politics, it is not unusual for certain issues (such as murder and betrayal) to be commonplace within his works.[79]
A related and more controversial proposal often made is that he described how to do things in politics in a way which seemed neutral concerning who used the advice – tyrants or good rulers.[66] That Machiavelli strove for realism is not doubted, but for four centuries scholars have debated how best to describe his morality.The Prince made the wordMachiavellian a byword for deceit, despotism, and political manipulation.Leo Strauss declared himself inclined toward the traditional view that Machiavelli was self-consciously a "teacher of evil", since he counsels the princes to avoid the values of justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom, and love of their people in preference to the use of cruelty, violence, fear, and deception.[80] Strauss takes up this opinion because he asserted that failure to accept the traditional opinion misses the "intrepidity of his thought" and "the graceful subtlety of his speech".[81] Italiananti-fascist philosopherBenedetto Croce (1925) concludes Machiavelli is simply a "realist" or "pragmatist" who accurately states that moral values, in reality, do not greatly affect the decisions that political leaders make.[82] German philosopherErnst Cassirer (1946) held that Machiavelli simply adopts the stance of a political scientist – aGalileo of politics – in distinguishing between the "facts" of political life and the "values" of moral judgment.[83] On the other hand,Walter Russell Mead has argued thatThe Prince's advice presupposes the importance of ideas likelegitimacy in making changes to the political system.[84]
Machiavelli is generally seen as being critical ofChristianity as it existed in his time, specifically its effect upon politics, and also everyday life.[85] In his opinion, Christianity, along with theteleologicalAristotelianism that the Church had come to accept, allowed practical decisions to be guided too much by imaginaryideals and encouraged people to lazily leave events up toprovidence or, as he would put it, chance, luck or fortune. While Christianity sees modesty as a virtue and pride as sinful, Machiavelli took a more classical position, seeing ambition, spiritedness, and the pursuit of glory as good and natural things, and part of the virtue and prudence that good princes should have. Therefore, while it was traditional to say that leaders should have virtues, especially prudence, Machiavelli's use of the wordsvirtù andprudenza was unusual for his time, implying a spirited and immodest ambition. Mansfield describes his usage ofvirtù as a "compromise with evil".[86] Famously, Machiavelli argued that virtue and prudence can help a man control more of his future, in the place of allowing fortune to do so.
Najemy has argued that this same approach can be found in Machiavelli's approach to love and desire, as seen in his comedies and correspondence. Najemy shows how Machiavelli's friend Vettori argued against Machiavelli and cited a more traditional understanding of fortune.[87]
On the other hand,humanism in Machiavelli's time meant that classical pre-Christian ideas about virtue and prudence, including the possibility of trying to control one's future, were not unique to him. But humanists did not go so far as to promote the extra glory of deliberately aiming to establish a new state, in defiance of traditions and laws.
While Machiavelli's approach had classical precedents, it has been argued that it did more than just bring back old ideas and that Machiavelli was not a typical humanist.Strauss (1958) argues that the way Machiavelli combines classical ideas is new. While Xenophon and Plato also described realistic politics and were closer to Machiavelli than Aristotle was, they, like Aristotle, also saw philosophy as something higher than politics. Machiavelli was apparently amaterialist who objected to explanations involvingformal and final causation, orteleology.
Machiavelli's promotion of ambition among leaders while denying any higher standard meant that he encouraged risk-taking, and innovation, most famously the founding of new modes and orders. His advice to princes was therefore certainly not limited to discussing how to maintain a state. It has been argued that Machiavelli's promotion of innovation led directly to the argument forprogress as an aim ofpolitics andcivilization. But while a belief that humanity can control its own future, control nature, and "progress" has been long-lasting, Machiavelli's followers, starting with his own friendGuicciardini, have tended to prefer peaceful progress through economic development, and not warlike progress. As HarveyMansfield (1995, p. 74) wrote: "In attempting other, more regular and scientific modes of overcoming fortune, Machiavelli's successors formalized and emasculated his notion of virtue."
Machiavelli however, along with some of his classical predecessors, saw ambition and spiritedness, and therefore war, as inevitable and part ofhuman nature.
Strauss concludes his 1958 bookThoughts on Machiavelli by proposing that this promotion of progress leads directly to the advent of new technologies being invented in both good and bad governments. Strauss argued that the unavoidable nature of such arms races, which existed before modern times and led to the collapse of peaceful civilizations, show that classical-minded men "had to admit in other words that in an important respect the good city has to take its bearings by the practice of bad cities or that the bad impose their law on the good".Strauss (1958, pp. 298–299)
Machiavelli shows repeatedly that he saw religion as man-made, and that the value of religion lies in its contribution to social order and the rules of morality must be dispensed with if security requires it.[88][89] InThe Prince, theDiscourses and in theLife of Castruccio Castracani he describes "prophets", as he calls them, likeMoses,Romulus,Cyrus the Great andTheseus (he treated pagan and Christian patriarchs in the same way) as the greatest of new princes, the glorious and brutal founders of the most novel innovations in politics, and men whom Machiavelli assures us have always used a large amount of armed force and murder against their own people.[90] He estimated that these sects last from 1,666 to 3,000 years each time, which, as pointed out by Leo Strauss, would mean that Christianity became due to start finishing about 150 years after Machiavelli.[91] Machiavelli's concern with Christianity as a sect was that it makes men weak and inactive, delivering politics into the hands of cruel and wicked men without a fight.[92] While Machiavelli's own religious allegiance has been debated, it is assumed that he had a low regard of contemporary Christianity.[93]
While fear ofGod can be replaced by fear of the prince, if there is a strong enough prince, Machiavelli felt that having a religion is in any case especially essential to keeping a republic in order.[94] For Machiavelli, a truly great prince can never be conventionally religious himself, but he should make his people religious if he can. According toStrauss (1958, pp. 226–227) he was not the first person to explain religion in this way, but his description of religion was novel because of the way he integrated this into his general account of princes.
Machiavelli's judgment that governments need religion for practical political reasons was widespread among modern proponents of republics until approximately the time of theFrench Revolution. This, therefore, represents a point of disagreement between Machiavelli and late modernity.[95]
Despite the classical precedents, which Machiavelli was not the only one to promote in his time, Machiavelli's realism and willingness to argue that good ends justify bad things, is seen as a critical stimulus towards some of the most important theories of modern politics.
Firstly, particularly in theDiscourses on Livy, Machiavelli is unusual in the positive side to factionalism in republics which he sometimes seems to describe. For example, quite early in theDiscourses, (in Book I, chapter 4), a chapter title announces thatthe disunion of theplebs andsenate in Rome"kept Rome free". That a community has different components whose interests must be balanced in any good regime is an idea with classical precedents, but Machiavelli's particularly extreme presentation is seen as a critical step towards the later political ideas of both adivision of powers orchecks and balances, ideas which lay behind theUS constitution, as well as many other modern state constitutions.
Similarly, the modern economic argument forcapitalism, and most modern forms of economics, was often stated in the form of "public virtue from private vices". Also in this case, even though there are classical precedents, Machiavelli's insistence on being both realistic and ambitious, not only admitting that vice exists but being willing to risk encouraging it, is a critical step on the path to this insight.
Mansfield however argues that Machiavelli's own aims have not been shared by those he influenced. Machiavelli argued against seeing mere peace and economic growth as worthy aims on their own if they would lead to what Mansfield calls the "taming of the prince".[96]
...there were in circulation approximately fifteen editions of thePrince and nineteen of theDiscourses and French translations of each before they were placed onthe Index ofPaul IV in 1559, a measure which nearly stopped publication in Catholic areas except in France. Three principal writers took the field against Machiavelli between the publication of his works and their condemnation in 1559 and again by the Tridentine Index in 1564. These were the English cardinalReginald Pole and the Portuguese bishopJeronymo Osorio, both of whom lived for many years in Italy, and the Italian humanist and later bishop,Ambrogio Caterino Politi.
Machiavelli's ideas had a profound impact on political leaders throughout the modern west, helped by the new technology of the printing press. During the first generations after Machiavelli, his main influence was in non-republican governments. Pole reported thatThe Prince was spoken of highly byThomas Cromwell in England and had influencedHenry VIII in his turn towards Protestantism, and in his tactics, for example during thePilgrimage of Grace.[98] A copy was also possessed by the Catholic king and emperorCharles V.[99] In France, after an initially mixed reaction, Machiavelli came to be associated withCatherine de' Medici and theSt. Bartholomew's Day massacre. AsBireley (1990:17) reports, in the 16th century, Catholic writers "associated Machiavelli with the Protestants, whereas Protestant authors saw him as Italian and Catholic". In fact, he was apparently influencing both Catholic and Protestant kings.[100]
One of the most important early works dedicated to criticism of Machiavelli, especiallyThe Prince, was that of theHuguenot,Innocent Gentillet, whose work commonly referred to asDiscourse against Machiavelli orAnti Machiavel was published inGeneva in 1576.[101] He accused Machiavelli of being an atheist and accused politicians of his time by saying that his works were the "Koran of the courtiers", that "he is of no reputation in the court of France which hath not Machiavel's writings at the fingers ends".[102] Another theme of Gentillet was more in the spirit of Machiavelli himself: he questioned the effectiveness of immoral strategies (just as Machiavelli had himself done, despite also explaining how they could sometimes work). This became the theme of much future political discourse in Europe during the 17th century. This includes the CatholicCounter Reformation writers summarised by Bireley:Giovanni Botero,Justus Lipsius, Carlo Scribani,Adam Contzen,Pedro de Ribadeneira, andDiego de Saavedra Fajardo.[103] These authors criticized Machiavelli, but also followed him in many ways. They accepted the need for a prince to be concerned with reputation, and even a need for cunning and deceit, but compared to Machiavelli, and like later modernist writers, they emphasizedeconomic progress much more than the riskier ventures of war. These authors tended to citeTacitus as their source for realist political advice, rather than Machiavelli, and this pretence came to be known as "Tacitism".[104] "Black tacitism" was in support of princely rule, but "red tacitism" arguing the case for republics, more in the original spirit of Machiavelli himself, became increasingly important. CardinalReginald Pole read The Prince while he was in Italy, and on which he gave his comments.[105]Frederick the Great, king ofPrussia and patron ofVoltaire, wroteAnti-Machiavel, with the aim of rebuttingThe Prince.[106]
Francis Bacon argued the case for what would becomemodern science which would be based more upon real experience and experimentation, free from assumptions about metaphysics, and aimed at increasing control of nature. He named Machiavelli as a predecessor.
Modernmaterialist philosophy developed in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, starting in the generations after Machiavelli. Modern political philosophy tended to be republican, but as with the Catholic authors, Machiavelli's realism and encouragement of innovation to try to control one's own fortune were more accepted than his emphasis upon war and factional violence. Not only was innovative economics and politics a result, but alsomodern science, leading some commentators to say that the 18th centuryEnlightenment involved a "humanitarian" moderating of Machiavellianism.[107]
In the seventeenth century it was in England that Machiavelli's ideas were most substantially developed and adapted, and that republicanism came once more to life; and out of seventeenth-century English republicanism there were to emerge in the next century not only a theme of English political and historical reflection – of the writings of theBolingbroke circle and ofGibbon and of early parliamentary radicals – but a stimulus to theEnlightenment in Scotland, on the Continent, and in America.[119]
John Adams admired Machiavelli's rational description of the realities of statecraft. Adams used Machiavelli's works to argue formixed government.
Scholars have argued that Machiavelli was a major indirect and direct influence upon the political thinking of theFounding Fathers of the United States due to his overwhelming favouritism ofrepublicanism and the republican type of government. According to John McCormick, it is still very much debatable whether or not Machiavelli was "an advisor of tyranny or partisan of liberty."[120]Benjamin Franklin,James Madison andThomas Jefferson followed Machiavelli's republicanism when they opposed what they saw as the emerging aristocracy that they fearedAlexander Hamilton was creating with theFederalist Party.[121] Hamilton learned from Machiavelli about the importance of foreign policy for domestic policy, but may have broken from him regarding how rapacious a republic needed to be in order to survive.[122][123]George Washington was less influenced by Machiavelli.[124]
The Founding Father who perhaps most studied and valued Machiavelli as a political philosopher wasJohn Adams, who profusely commented on the Italian's thought in his work,A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America.[125] In this work, John Adams praised Machiavelli, with Algernon Sidney andMontesquieu, as a philosophic defender of mixed government. For Adams, Machiavelli restored empirical reason to politics, while his analysis of factions was commendable. Adams likewise agreed with the Florentine that human nature was immutable and driven by passions. He also accepted Machiavelli's belief that all societies were subject to cyclical periods of growth and decay. For Adams, Machiavelli lacked only a clear understanding of the institutions necessary for good government.[125]
The 20th-century Italian CommunistAntonio Gramsci drew great inspiration from Machiavelli's writings on ethics, morals, and how they relate to the State and revolution in his writings onPassive Revolution, and how a society can be manipulated by controlling popular notions of morality.[126]
Machiavelli's works are sometimes even said to have contributed to the modern negative connotations of the wordspolitics andpolitician,[129] and it is sometimes thought that it is because of him thatOld Nick became an English term for theDevil.[130] The adjectiveMachiavellian became a term describing a form of politics that is "marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith".[131]Machiavellianism also remains a popular term used casually in political discussions, often as a byword for bare-knuckled political realism.[132][133]
While Machiavellianism is notable in the works of Machiavelli, scholars generally agree that his works are complex and have equally influential themes within them. For example, J. G. A.Pocock (1975) saw him as a major source of therepublicanism that spread throughout England and North America in the 17th and 18th centuries and LeoStrauss (1958), whose view of Machiavelli is quite different in many ways, had similar remarks about Machiavelli's influence on republicanism and argued that even though Machiavelli was a teacher of evil he had a "grandeur of vision" that led him to advocate immoral actions. Whatever his intentions, which are still debated today, he has become associated with any proposal where "the end justifies the means". For example, LeoStrauss (1987, p. 297) wrote:
Machiavelli is the only political thinker whose name has come into common use for designating a kind of politics, which exists and will continue to exist independently of his influence, a politics guided exclusively by considerations of expediency, which uses all means, fair or foul, iron or poison, for achieving its ends – its end being the aggrandizement of one's country or fatherland – but also using the fatherland in the service of the self-aggrandizement of the politician or statesman or one's party.
Due to Machiavelli's popularity, he has been featured in various ways in cultural depictions. InEnglish Renaissance theatre (Elizabethan and Jacobian), the term "Machiavel" (from 'Nicholas Machiavel', an "anglicization" of Machiavelli's name based on French) was used for a stock antagonist that resorted to ruthless means to preserve the power of the state, and is now considered a synonym of "Machiavellian".[134][135][136]
Christopher Marlowe's playThe Jew of Malta (ca. 1589) contains a prologue by a character called Machiavel, aSenecan ghost based on Machiavelli.[137] Machiavel expresses the cynical view that power is amoral, saying:
"I count religion but a childish toy, And hold there is no sin but ignorance."
Istorie Fiorentine (1520–1525) –Florentine Histories, an eight-volume history of the city-state Florence, commissioned by Giulio de' Medici, laterPope Clement VII.
Besides being a statesman and political scientist, Machiavelli also translated classical works, and was a playwright (Clizia,Mandragola), a poet (Sonetti,Canzoni,Ottave,Canti carnascialeschi), and a novelist (Belfagor arcidiavolo).
Della Lingua (Italian for "On the Language") (1514), a dialogue about Italy's language is normally attributed to Machiavelli.
Machiavelli's literary executor, Giuliano de' Ricci, also reported having seen that Machiavelli, his grandfather, made a comedy in the style ofAristophanes which included living Florentines as characters, and to be titledLe Maschere. It has been suggested that due to such things as this and his style of writing to his superiors generally, there was very likely some animosity to Machiavelli even before the return of the Medici.[140]
^The Latin legend reads:TANTO NOMINI NULLUM PAR ELOGIUM ("So great a name (has) no adequate praise" or "Noeulogy (would be) a match for such a great name" or "There is no praise equal to so great a name.")
^Harvey Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov, "Introduction to the Discourses". In their translation of theDiscourses on Livy
^Theodosiadis, Michail (June–August 2021). "From Hobbes and Locke to Machiavelli's virtù in the political context of meliorism: popular eucosmia and the value of moral memory".Polis Revista.11:25–60.
^Niccolò Machiavelli (1996),Machiavelli and his friends: Their personal correspondence, Northern Illinois University Press, translated and edited by James B. Atkinson and David Sices.
^Joshua Kaplan, "Political Theory: The Classic Texts and their Continuing Relevance,"The Modern Scholar (14 lectures in the series; lecture #7 / disc 4), 2005.
^Viroli, M. (2002). Niccolò's Smile: A Biography of Machiavelli. Macmillan. pg.256-259
^"Even such men as Malatesta and Machiavelli, after spending their lives in estrangement from the Church, sought on their deathbeds her assistance and consolations. Both made good confessions and received the Holy Viaticum." – Ludwig von Pastor,History of the Popes, Vol. 5, p. 137.
^Kanzler, Peter (2020).The Prince (1532), The Leviathan (1651), The Two Treatises of Government (1689), The Constitution of Pennsylvania (1776). Peter Kanzler. p. 22.ISBN978-1716844508.
^Landon, W. J. (2005). Politics, Patriotism and Language: Niccolò Machiavelli's" secular Patria" and the Creation of an Italian National Identity (Vol. 57). Peter Lang.
^Paul Anthony Rahe,Against throne and altar: Machiavelli and political theory under the English Republic (2008), p. 282.
^Jack Donnelly,Realism and International Relations (2000), p. 68.
^abJoshua Kaplan (2005). "Political Theory: The Classic Texts and their Continuing Relevance". The Modern Scholar.14 lectures in the series; (lectures #7) – see disc 4
^Leo Strauss, Joseph Cropsey,History of Political Philosophy (1987), p. 300.
^Cassirer, Ernst (10 September 1961).The Myth of the State. New Haven, Connecticut; London, England: Yale University Press. p. 136.ISBN978-0-300-00036-8.
^While Bireley focuses on writers in the Catholic countries,Haitsma Mulier (1999) makes the same observation, writing with more of a focus upon the ProtestantNetherlands.
^The first English edition wasA Discourse upon the meanes of wel governing and maintaining in good peace, a Kingdome, or other principalitie, translated by Simon Patericke.
^Bireley (1990:17): "Jean Bodin's first comments, found in hisMethod for the Easy Comprehension of History, published in 1566, were positive."
^Bacon wrote: "We are much beholden to Machiavelli and other writers of that class who openly and unfeignedly declare or describe what men do, and not what they ought to do.""II.21.9",Of the Advancement of Learning. SeeKennington (2004) Chapter 4.
^Marcia Landy, "Culture and Politics in the work of Antonio Gramsci," 167–188, inAntonio Gramsci: Intellectuals, Culture, and the Party, ed. James Martin (New York: Routledge, 2002).
Machiavelli, Niccolò (1981).The Prince and Selected Discourses. Translated by Daniel Donno. New York: Bantam Classic Books.ISBN0553212273.
Haitsma Mulier, Eco (1999). "A controversial republican". In Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; Viroli, Maurizio (eds.).Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge University Press.
Harper, John Lamberton (2004).American Machiavelli: Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of US Foreign Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0521834858.
Shklar, J. (1999). "Montesquieu and the new republicanism". In Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; Viroli, Maurizio (eds.).Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge University Press.
Worden, Blair (1999). "Milton's republicanism and the tyranny of heaven". In Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; Viroli, Maurizio (eds.).Machiavelli and Republicanism. Cambridge University Press.
Baron, Hans (April 1961). "Machiavelli: The Republican Citizen and the Author of 'the Prince'".The English Historical Review.76 (299):217–253.doi:10.1093/ehr/LXXVI.CCXCIX.217.JSTOR557541.
Black, Robert.Machiavelli: From Radical to Reactionary. London: Reaktion Books (2022)
Burd, L. A., "Florence (II): Machiavelli" inCambridge Modern History (1902), vol. I, ch. vi. pp. 190–218online Google edition
Capponi, Niccolò.An Unlikely Prince: The Life and Times of Machiavelli (Da Capo Press; 2010) 334 pages
Celenza, Christopher S.Machiavelli: A Portrait (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2015) 240 pages.ISBN978-0674416123
Godman, Peter (1998),From Poliziano to Machiavelli: Florentine Humanism in the High Renaissance, Princeton University Press
Baron, Hans.The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny (2 vol 1955), highly influential, deep study of civic humanism (republicanism); 700 pp.excerpts and text search;ACLS E-books; alsovol 2 in ACLS E-books
Baron, Hans.In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism (2 vols. 1988).
Berlin, Isaiah. "The Originality of Machiavelli", in Berlin, Isaiah (1980).Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas. New York: The Viking Press.
Bireley, Robert (1990),The Counter Reformation Prince
Black, Robert (1999), "Machiavelli, servant of the Florentine republic", in Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; Viroli, Maurizio (eds.),Machiavelli and Republicanism, Cambridge University Press
Connell, William J. (2001), "Machiavelli on Growth as an End," in Anthony Grafton and J.H.M. Salmon, eds.,Historians and Ideologues: Essays in Honor of Donald R. Kelley, Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 259–277.
Everdell, William R. "Niccolò Machiavelli: The Florentine Commune" inThe End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Fischer, Markus (2000),Well-ordered License: On the Unity of Machiavelli's Thought, Lexington Book
Frederick II of Prussia (1980) [1740].Anti-Machiavel: The Refutation of Machiavelli s Prince. Translated by Sonnino, Paul. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.ISBN9780821405598.
Guarini, Elena (1999), "Machiavelli and the crisis of the Italian republics", in Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; Viroli, Maurizio (eds.),Machiavelli and Republicanism, Cambridge University Press
Gilbert, Allan (1938),Machiavelli'sPrince and Its Forerunners, Duke University Press
Gilbert, Felix. "Machiavelli: The Renaissance of the Art of War," in Edward Mead Earle, ed.The Makers of Modern Strategy (1944)
Jensen, De Lamar, ed.Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist? (1960) essays by scholarsonline editionArchived 25 April 2010 at theWayback Machine
Jurdjevic, Mark (2014).A Great and Wretched City: Promise and Failure in Machiavelli's Florentine Political Thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.ISBN978-0674725461.
Kennington, Richard (2004),On Modern Origins, Lexington Books
Mansfield, Harvey C. "Machiavelli's Political Science,"The American Political Science Review, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Jun. 1981), pp. 293–305in JSTORArchived 8 August 2016 at theWayback Machine
Mansfield, Harvey (1993),Taming the Prince, The Johns Hopkins University Press
Mansfield, Harvey (1995), "Machiavelli and the Idea of Progress", in Melzer; Weinberger; Zinman (eds.),History and the Idea of Progress, Cornell University Press
Mansfield, Harvey C. Machiavelli's Virtue (1996), 371 pp.
Mattingly, Garrett (Autumn 1958), "Machiavelli's Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?",The American Scholar (27):482–491.
Najemy, John (1993),Between Friends: Discourses of Power and Desire in the Machiavelli-Vettori Letters of 1513–1515, Princeton University Press
Najemy, John M. (1996), "Baron's Machiavelli and Renaissance Republicanism",American Historical Review,101 (1):119–129,doi:10.2307/2169227,JSTOR2169227.
Parel, Anthony (1972), "Introduction: Machiavelli's Method and His Interpreters",The Political Calculus: Essays on Machiavelli's Philosophy, Toronto, pp. 3–28{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Parsons, William B. (2016),Machiavelli's Gospel, University of Rochester Press,ISBN978-1580464918
Pocock, J. G. A. "The Machiavellian Moment Revisited: a Study in History and Ideology.:Journal of Modern History 1981 53(1): 49–72.Fulltext: in JstorArchived 11 September 2018 at theWayback Machine.
Rahe, Paul (1992),Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolutiononline editionArchived 23 September 2009 at theWayback Machine
Rahe, Paul A. (2006),Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy, Cambridge University Press,ISBN978-0521851879 Excerpt, reviews and Text search shows Machiavelli'sDiscourses had a major impact on shaping conservative thought.
Schaefer, David (1990),The Political Philosophy of Montaigne, Cornell University Press.
Scott, John T.; Sullivan, Vickie B. (1994). "Patricide and the Plot of the Prince: Cesare Borgia and Machiavelli's Italy".The American Political Science Review.88 (4):887–900.doi:10.2307/2082714.ISSN0003-0554.JSTOR2082714.S2CID144798597.
Skinner, Quentin.The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, v. I, The Renaissance, (1978)
Soll, Jacob (2005),Publishing The Prince: History, Reading and the Birth of Political Criticism, University of Michigan Press
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Niccolò Machiavelli (2005)
Strauss, Leo (1987), "Niccolò Machiavelli", in Strauss, Leo; Cropsey, Joseph (eds.),History of Political Philosophy (3rd ed.), University of Chicago Press
Whelan, Frederick G. (2004),Hume and Machiavelli: Political Realism and Liberal Thought, Lexington{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Barbuto, Marcelo (2005), "Questa oblivione delle cose. Reflexiones sobre la cosmología de Maquiavelo (1469–1527),"Revista Daimon, 34, Universidad de Murcia, pp. 34–52.
Barbuto, Marcelo (2008), "Discorsi, I, XII, 12–14. La Chiesa romana di fronte alla republica cristiana",Filosofia Politica, 1, Il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 99–116.
Celli, Carlo ( 2009),Il carnevale di Machiavelli, Firenze, L.S. Olschki.
Connell, William J. (2015),Machiavelli nel Rinascimento italiano, Milano, Franco Angeli.
Giuseppe Leone, "Silone e Machiavelli. Una scuola...che non crea prìncipi", pref. di Vittoriano Esposito, Centro Studi Ignazio Silone, Pescina, 2003.
Martelli, Mario (2004), "La Mandragola e il suo prologo",Interpres, XXIII, pp. 106–142.
Martelli, Mario (2003), "Per la definizione della nozione di principe civile",Interpres, XXII.
Martelli, Mario (2001), "I dettagli della filologia",Interpres XX, pp. 212–271.
Martelli, Mario (1999a), "Note su Machiavelli",Interpres XVIII, pp. 91–145.
Martelli, Mario (1999b),Saggio sul Principe, Salerno Editrice, Roma.
Martelli, Mario (1999c), "Machiavelli e Savonarola: valutazione politica e valutazione religiosa", Girolamo Savonarola. L´uomo e il frate". Atti del xxxv Convegno storico internazionale (Todi, II-14 ottobre 1998), CISAM, Spoleto, pp. 139–153.
Martelli, Mario (1998a),Machiavelli e gli storici antichi, osservazioni su alcuni luoghi dei discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, Quaderni di Filologia e critica, 13, Salerno Editrice, Roma.
Martelli, Mario (1998b), "Machiavelli politico amante poeta",Interpres XVII, pp. 211–256.
Martelli, Mario (1998c), "Machiavelli e Savonarola",Savonarola. Democrazia, tirannide, profezia, a cura di G.C. Garfagnini, Florencia, Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzo, pp. 67–89.
Martelli, Mario and Bausi, Francesco (1997), "Politica, storia e letteratura: Machiavelli e Guicciardini",Storia della letteratura italiana, E. Malato (ed.), vol. IV. Il primo Cinquecento, Salerno Editrice, Roma, pp. 251–320.
Martelli, Mario (1985–1986), "Schede sulla cultura di Machiavelli",Interpres VI, pp. 283–330.
Martelli, Mario (1982) "La logica provvidenzialistica e il capitolo XXVI del Principe",Interpres IV, pp. 262–384.
Martelli, Mario (1974), "L´altro Niccolò di Bernardo Machiavelli",Rinascimento, XIV, pp. 39–100.
Sasso, Gennaro (1993),Machiavelli: storia del suo pensiero politico, II vol., Bologna, Il Mulino,
Sasso, Gennaro (1987–1997)Machiavelli e gli antichi e altri saggi, 4 vols., Milano, R. Ricciardi
Machiavelli, Niccolò (1992),The Prince, New York: W.W. Norton & Company,ISBN0393962202. Translated byRobert M. Adams (Norton Critical Edition, 2nd ed., with "Backgrounds, Interpretations, Marginalia").
Machiavelli, Niccolò (2006),El Principe/The Prince: Comentado Por Napoleon Bonaparte / Commentaries by Napoleon Buonaparte, Mestas Ediciones. Translated into Spanish by Marina Massa-Carrara
Machiavelli, Niccolò (1985),The Prince, University of Chicago Press. Translated by Harvey Mansfield
Machiavelli, Niccolò (1995),The Prince, Everyman. Translated and Edited by Stephen J. Milner. Introduction, Notes and other critical apparatus by J.M. Dent.
Marriott, W. K. (2008),The Prince, Red and Black PublishersISBN978-1934941003
Il principe (2006) ed. by Mario Martelli and Nicoletta Marcelli, Edizione Nazionale delle Opere di Niccolò Machiavelli, Salerno Editrice, Roma.
The Discourses on Livy
Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (2001), ed. by Francesco Bausi, Edizione Nazionale delle Opere di Niccolò Machiavelli, II vol. Salerno Editrice, Roma.
The Discourses, tr. with introduction and notes by L. J. Walker (2 vol 1950).
Machiavelli, Niccolò (1531).The Discourses. Translated by Leslie J. Walker, S.J, revisions by Brian Richardson (2003). London: Penguin Books.ISBN0-14-044428-9
The Discourses, edited with an introduction by Bernard Crick (1970).
Machiavelli, Niccolò (1988),Florentine Histories, Princeton University Press. Translation by Laura F. Banfield and Harvey Mansfield, Jr.
Correspondence
Epistolario privado. Las cartas que nos desvelan el pensamiento y la personalidad de uno de los intelectuales más importantes del Renacimiento, Juan Manuel Forte (edición y traducción), Madrid, La Esfera de los Libros, 2007, 435 págs,ISBN978-8497346610
Machiavelli, Niccolò (1996),Machiavelli and his friends: Their personal correspondence, Northern Illinois University Press. Translated and edited by James B. Atkinson and David Sices.
Machiavelli, Niccolò (1985),Comedies of Machiavelli, University Press of New England Bilingual edition ofThe Woman from Andros,The Mandrake, andClizia, edited by David Sices and James B. Atkinson.
Hoeges, Dirk.Niccolò Machiavelli. Dichter-Poeta. Mit sämtlichen Gedichten, deutsch/italienisch. Con tutte le poesie, tedesco/italiano, Reihe: Dialoghi/Dialogues: Literatur und Kultur Italiens und Frankreichs, Band 10, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt/M. u.a. 2006,ISBN3631546696.
.JPG)
