Machiavelli's Realism

Machiavelli's Realism Author(s): Grant B. Mindle Source: The Review of Politics, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr., 1985), pp.
212-230 Published by: Cambridge University Press for the University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politics Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1406671 . Accessed: 23/09/2013 05:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Politics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 203.215.122.38 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 05:00:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Machiavelli's
Realism
Grant B. Mindle
Declaring his departure from the modes and orders of his predecessors-especially the creators of imaginary republics and principalities (men like Plato, Aristotleand Augustine) - Machiavelli undertakes to show "whoever understands" a new and more promising road to political salvation and personal well-being. So compelling is Machiavelli's rhetoricthat we seem to have forgotten just how "realistic"or "moderate" Machiavelli's predecessors were, and how "unrealistic" or "immoderate" Machiavelli's own teaching is. This essay attempts to bring to light the extremism which underlies Machiavelli's realism and raises doubts about his ability to provide his readers the securityhe promises.
The hallmark of Machiavelli's political science is its realism. What other expressioncould adequately describe the teaching of usefuleven at the riskof an author determinedto writesomething of a work (The Prince) alone that let appearing presumptuous, heretofore truth" whose expresspurpose is to set out "the effectual hidden frommankind behind the idealism embodied in all previous politicalscience? Indeed, Machiavelli seems almost ready to proclaim himselfthe firstpolitical scientistto behold the human conditionwithoutany illusions- to see the world as it is, men as theytrulyare - and having done so to discernand warn humanity about the danger of professing goodness in a worldwhere so many Machiavelli was the are not good.' According to one interpreter, to appreciate"therole of sheer forcein the conduct of governfirst to understandthat "the maintenance of a successment,"the first ful government willingnessto suppledepends on an unflinching ment the arts of persuasion with the employment of effective But were Machiavelli's predecessorsas naive as he would have us believe? And is his own teachingas realisticas he seems to suggest? Contrary to what Machiavelli or those influencedby him would have us believe, his predecessors'politicalexpectationswere sober and moderate. Explicitly rejecting political intransigence, Aristotlecalls upon the political scientistto investigatenot only suitable the nature of the best regime,but also those constitutions for more ordinary civic bodies, "for it is perhaps impossible for moral theSimilarlyAristotelian many [cities]to obtain the best."'3 as as much against any othererory stands against moral rigidity 212
military force."2
MACHIAVELLI'S REALISM
213
ror. Natural right, we learn in the Ethics, is a part of political right,an awkwardway of saying that "thereis no rule or precept of natural right. . . which may not change with circumstances''4 Nor can the originalityof Machiavelli's realism be traced to his pessimisticview of human nature, his beliefthat men are wicked readilysuccumbingto presenttemptation.Consider, forexample, Aristotle'sassertion in the Ethicsthat "most men are swayed by compulsion ratherthan argumentand by punishmentratherthan what is noble."'5 Awarenessof the limitationsthat beset all political endeavors, not confidencein the power of men to rid the world of evil, this is of those against the essentiallesson to be culled fromthe writings whom Machiavelli rebels. Since no politicalorder can last forever, it makes no sense to them to orient their political or private life Even the pursuitof gloryis around an excessive quest for security. the realization that marred by glory cannot endure foreverand that its pursuit renders one foreverdependent upon those who must confer it. Whatever "idealism" is to be found in preMachiavellian politicalthoughtrestsupon a bedrock of realism or moderation. Its "idealism"- forwe do not wish to deny that this - is demode of thoughtcontainselementswhich appear idealistic rivedfromits insistenceon the best and the recognition thatmany will neverbe able to understandwhypoliticaland privatemoderation is essential to human happiness, and hence the necessityfor ruling authoritieswho will educate those receptive to education the bounds of modand restrain by forcethe attemptto transgress eration by those who are not.
THE DESTRUCTION OF ARISTOCRATIC VIRTUE
The key to Machiavellian realism is not his willingness to condone the effective use of militaryforce or even his proclamation thatfidelity to what men call virtuecannot always guarantee political success; rather,it lies in his determinationto sever once and forall the connection,heretofore taken forgranted,between realism and moderation, between political science and a method of analysis that begins with the world as we firstperceive it, with what is ordinaryand typical.That is why ThePrince at investigates the a while the that beset new length pitfalls prince hereditary is barely discussed. prince, the more common or ordinaryvariety, In Politics and Vision,Sheldon Wolin attributesMachiavelli's
214
THE REVIEW OF POLITICS
procedure to his contemptfor nobilitygenerally, coupled with a particularanimus towardall who obtain theirthroneswithouteffort,by inheritancealone. What, Sheldon Wolin forcesus to ask, could Machiavelli have to say to such men?6Content to keep what theyhave, too dispassionateto be stirred by an uncertainquest for that theyneed only preserve glory,such men can relax, confident intact"the orders of theirancestorsand then temporizewith accidents"to ensure the perpetuationof theirrule. The greaterstability of theirkingdoms and the ease with which theycan maintain them ("But it is the new principality which presentsdifficulties"7) means hereditaryprinces neither need nor desire Machiavelli's counsel. And yetifwe accept thisexplanation,Machiavelli'spolitical science becomes nothingmore than a supplementto the teaching of the classics, a sort of addendum containing advice about how that most uncommon of creatures,the new prince, ought to than at least by implicationleaves the behave, and ifnot explicitly still hereditaryprince subject to the teaching set out by the classics. While the new prince may indeed be a special case, one cannot help but sense that Machiavelli's intentionis farmore radical. Wolin seems to share this impressioninasmuch as he findsMachiavelli'snew science a great equalizer wherein "the aristocratic principle in particular"is gradually undermined therebypermitting a more equal strugglebetween hereditaryrighton the one hand and raw natural abilityon the other.8Since the equalization of the aristocraticprinciple is, as we shall see, tantamountto its destruction,even the hereditaryprince will soon find himselfin need of Machiavelli's counsel. The Prince bepays scant attentionto hereditaryprincipalities cause Machiavelli believes the veryidea of a hereditary principaluntenable. Every prince, howeverhe acquires his ity is ultimately throne,must- ifhe is to preservehimselfin the worldMachiavelli is determinedto create-learn to thinkof himselfas a new prince and be governedin his actions by the same rules set down elsewhere for that most extreme and exceptional of circumstancesthe new prince in a new state. Realism becomes extremism;the While the impression ordinaryis assimilatedby the extraordinary. Machiavelli conveysin the second chapter of The Prince ("Of Hewould seem to cast doubt upon this interreditaryPrincipalities") pretation,we believe its argumenttentativeand misleading; all of the advantages Machiavelli attributes to hereditaryprincipalities,
MACHIAVELLI'S
REALISM
215
all of the rules he sets down fortheirprudentgovernance,are reA hereditary vised in the chaptersthat follow. prince willingto eschew innovation,Machiavelli tells us in chapter two "will always in his stateunless an extraordinary maintain himself and excessive forcedeprive him of it" a comforting at least until Mathought, and excessive chiavelli'ssubsequent disclosure that "extraordinary force"is in facta regular and common occurrence.9Similarly, his in are two that observation princes preliminary chapter hereditary likelyto be "more loved" by theirsubjects loses some of its luster when read in light of chapter seventeen'sdeclaration that "it is much safer to be feared than loved." Whatever advantages such love may procure its recipient,it clearlydoes not deter"men from voluntarily changing lords" in order "to betterthemselves" (chap. prince 3). Even the hope that deprived of his state, the hereditary "will reacquire it with the slightest mishap to the occupier"(chap. 2) is quickly dispelled; a wise prince will take care to extinguish the familyline of the prince who formerly held sway (chap. 4). and even Again and again Machiavelli hammers out in The Prince more vigorouslyin the Discourses the weaknessesinherentin heredas easy to secure itarysuccession.'0 Were hereditary principalities and maintain as Machiavelli's opening argument suggests, The Prince would be absurd, as would any work which sought to teach men how to acquire and retain the states of their neighbors,let alone one thatculminatesin an exhortation to unifyItaly and put an end once and forall to her internaldissensions. The teaching of ThePrince is by its verynature unsettling and revolutionary; by men how to Machiavelli cannot showing acquire, help but compound the task of those who seek to retain and enjoy in peace the titlestheyinherit. Nowhere is Machiavelli's attitudetoward those who rest their claim to deferenceupon "antiquityof blood" expressed as pointIn a speech attributed Histories. to a nameedly as in his Florentine less plebeian rabble-rouser,a new doctrine-the equality of all men-is brought to bear in Machiavelli's battle to expose once and forall the hypocrisy and rascalitywhich underlie the gentlevirtues. manly Be notdeceived about thatantiquity ofblood by which[thenothemselves above us; because all men havinghad the bility]fling same beginning are equallyancient,and by natureweremade in one way.Stripeveryone naked,and youwillsee everyone alike,dress
216
in ours,and we willundoubtedly and they clothes us in their appear alone makethedifand riches becausepoverty noble,theyignoble, ference. ... But ifyou willnotethewaymen proceedyou willsee eiwerebrought there and power thatthosewho attaingreatwealth haveusurpedeither or force, and whatthey therby fraud by deceit or violence,in orderto disguisethe uglinessof theiracquisition, ofhonest excuseunderthefalsetitle gains." they Nobilitywhateverits form,Machiavelli's spokesmantellsus, is sheer pretense, a dress we put on to conceal fromourselves and from all others the common origins of mankind. Not the moral of our ancestors, but their villainy,their disdain for superiority what Aristotlecalled "greatnessof soul" is the foundationfor the theirdescendantsenjoy.The engood name and the good fortune the origins of of especially those eager to forget emy forgetfulness, of their present status, Machiavelli stands ready to remind both the haves and the have-notsof the rapacitywhich gave rise to the is not The purpose of Machiavelli's "reminder" presentaristocracy. as one mightexpect to chastise the haves by arousing and indulging the moral indignationof the have-nots,but ratherto impartto the haves the precariousness of their present status and to the have-notsthe necessityof settingaside theirmoral inhibitionsas theyembark upon the "noble" art of acquisition. The equality of it does not and cannot lead eiall men as Machiavelli interprets therto the abolition of inequalityor to the renunciationof villainis to instillin noble and plebeous behavior; instead its raison d'etre a pervasive and gnawing ian alike a kind of general restlessness, to do something sense of insecurity along with the determination about it: or excessive foolishoflittle And thosewho as a result prudence because and poverty; nessfleethesewaysalways drownin servitude are alwaysservants and good men are alwayspoor.Nor thefaithful and audacious,or theunfaithful do anyeverescapeservitude except therapacious and deceitful.12 except poverty To reduce nobility to wealth alone, to the quality of one's wardrobe, is to rob magnanimityof its splendor. Missing from of Machiavelli's thoughtis an appreciationforthose characteristics soul once considered essential to true aristocracy. Courage in the face of adversity, of spiritin the hour of one's greatest generosity to the of vulgar ambition, an unflagging lure triumph,superiority devotion to virtue regardlessof the personal consequences, these
217
are not the precepts of Machiavelli's political science. Were Machiavelli'sintentionmerelyto affirm that what passes for aristocof so exalted a racy (rule of the best) is all too frequently unworthy title,he would have found no quarrel withthe classics. Nor would theyquarrel with the assertionthat fraudand forceusually attend the genesisof civilization.But as it is, Machiavelli goes further. By dwellingupon the unsavorybehavior of our forefathers, by spurning any attempt to transcend one's ancestral beginnings, Machiavellibringseveryoneback to the same level, to the lowestpossible level. None of us are permittedto renounce the "fraud or force,"the "deceit or violence" required to fling ourselves above others. Each of us is compelled to look at ourselves as new men, as have-nots. The rich cannot rest upon their laurels now that theirsecretis out; the poor must learn that theycannot affordto scorn the only proven formulafor fleeingservitudeand poverty. Foremost in everyone'smind is the desire for self-preservation as men striverelentlessly and we mightadd always unsuccessfully to distance themselves fromtheircommon origins. Caught up in the fearand uncertainty Machiavelli'sdoctrineis meant to arouse, behavior once considered extreme will be thoughtso no longer as men regardlessof theirstationrenounce theirmoral inhibitions.'3 In place of moderation stands the fruitof Machiavelli's realism, a doctrine of perpetual revolution.Lest this assertion seem strange, the reader should note how Machiavelli's realism denies legitimacyto everypoliticalorder thatexistsor ever will exist. No longer will rulers be able to rely upon that ancient prejudice which disposes mankind to equate the good with the ancestral; no of theirsublongerwill theyfindshelterbeneath the conservatism jects. In a world where loyaltycannot be taken for granted,only thosewho know how to acquire and reacquire the devotionof others can hope to endure.14 And when all are "equally ancient" there is no place for deference to the old and established. And when young and old are treatedequally, it is the latterwhich usually founders,perhaps because the formerare more prone to embrace the crueltyand audacity success in Machiavelli's world requires while the latter have difficultysaying good-by to the caution theirmoderationengenders.15 Too weak to denounce on his own the principles governing contemporarypolitical behavior, Machiavelli begins the Discourses by aligning himselfwith the very prejudices he criticizesin the Florentine Histories,taking pains to remind his audience of the
218
honor in which antiquityis stillheld.16 In art, in law, and in medicine no one questions the authorityof ancient practice. Only in politics are Machiavelli's contemporariesreluctantto imitate the "highlyvirtuous behavior" recounted by the ancient historians. The practices men ought to observe Machiavelli argues in the by the Roman Republic, chaptersthat followare best exemplified of Titus Livius. But how can especially as recorded in the History Rome, the most innovativeand tumultuousof the ancient republics, be the darling of those who cherish custom and tradition? This is the question Machiavelli takes up in Discourses (1: 5 and 6) where Rome, a state organized forexpansion and empire, is compared with Sparta and Venice, two statescontentto maintain the statusquo. In the analysis that followsMachiavelli weighs the advantages and disadvantages associated with each of these alternaas the weighingitselfis the reasoning he emtives: as significant ploys. and the longevto the stability Whatever value one attributes of Venice the like and states price theirconservaenjoy, Sparta ity tism was a politywhich could not expand should the necessityto do so arise. Just how grave this deficiencywas may be deduced from the followingobservation: "Since all human things are in flux and cannot remain still . . . necessitywill lead you to many 1: 6). Frightenedby the chaos thingsreason does not" (Discourses, nature decrees, many believed the solace and security theycraved could be guaranteed by a strictadherence to custom, by revering new or divisive. To such the ancestraland railingagainst anything men the example of Rome with "all its enmities and tumults" evoked both fearand disgust. This attemptto create islands of stability amidst a sea of chaos, to shield oneself and one's country fromthe fear,the enmity,and the discord that the emancipation of acquisitivenessbreeds Machiavelli labels utopian. When necessity calls, such states will find themselvesobliged to expand, but unable to do so. Should "heaven be so kind" as to relievethem of the necessityto make war, theirveryleisure will generateeffeminacy or factions." Either way theywill at last appreciate the full of everything the destruction theyhold price of theirconservatism, dear. The true conservativeis the radical who deliberatelyturns his back upon the past knowingfullwell that he cannot conserve what he has without seeking to acquire more, that "the middle way,"the way of moderation, does not exist. Like the plebeian rabble-rouser of the Florentine Histories,the choice Machiavelli
MACHIAVELLI'S
REALISM
219
whetherwe leaves us is no choice at all. It makes no difference honor moderation or acquisitiveness,conservatismor revolution; all roads lead to Rome. The world Machiavelli describes is not the world observation shows us, but the worldhe intendsto create. NeitherLivy nor the Rome he describes was as extreme as Machiavelli's realism requires. In a world tutoredby Machiavelli, moderation will soon give way to a realism that brooks no limits.'8 Had Lycurgus understood this, he would have anticipated the threat to Sparta's freedom a state organized like Machiavelli's Rome might pose some seven hundred years later. Preoccupied by extraordinary threatsto theirsecurity, even those states who heed Machiavelli's in a struggletheycannot counsel will findthemselvescontestants win as theyseek to masterthe futureno matterhow remote. Since domestic politics is subject to the same reasoning (the individual cannot retainwhat he has withoutacquiring more), the struggleat home is analogous to the one abroad. Just as Rome needs to conquer the world, so the individual must conquer Rome. But even success in thisendeavor cannot bringmen the securitythey crave. So long as the necessityto acquire remains in effect,subjects have no choice but to treat their prince as he treatedhis predecessor, sanza alcunorespetto ("withoutany respect"). Thus the quest for securitybecomes a quest withoutend as men spend theirlives eitheracquiring what belongs to othersor repelling theirassaults. Those who expect Machiavelli's realism to enhance theirsecurityare apt to be disappointed. Machiavelli goes on to observe that"he who does otherwise,if he be a man known forhis quality,will live in continual danger. Nor is it enough to say 'I do not care about such things,I desire neitherhonors nor advantages, I wish to live quietly and without trouble,'because these excuses are heard but not accepted" (DisMachiavelli promcourses, 3:2). No matterhow hollow the security it out. ises, joining in the fraywill always be saferthan sitting
THE MORALITY OF PRIVATEADVANTAGE
The second half of ThePrince (chaps. 15-26) is introducedby a entitled Those "Of chapter Things forWhich Men and Especially Princes Are Praised or Blamed" (chap. 15). Having completedhis discussion of foreignpolicy (the kinds of principalitiesand how they are acquired, the kinds of militia and what a prince should
220
do about them), Machiavelli is finallyready to consider how a prince should governhis subjects and friends.While the order of and thendomesticaffairs, is a sign of their discussion,first foreign relativeimportance,it should be noted that in foreignaffairs Machiavelliwas contentto "give himself over altogether" to the orders of otherswhereas in domestic affairs he boldly announces his departure from the teachings of his predecessors.19 Only at home does the full measure of Machiavelli's realism become apparent, for men "Are not ashamed to train [to do] in relation to others what theydeny is just or advantageous forthemselves.'20 Classical political philosophydid tryto persuade men to moderate the viciousness which oftenattended the conduct of foreignaffairs, but even here the classics were not blind to the possibility thatthe exigencies of foreignaffairs mightimpinge upon the practice of virtue both at home and abroad, forthese"idealists" knew therewere occasions when nations must alter theirbehavior to avoid subjuBut even in the face of necessity, classical political philosophy found room to reaffirm the supremacy of virtue to vice. Behind the compromises,behind the concessionsnecessityrequires, stood the idea of the best regime. While not always directly applicablethe conjunction of circumstancespermitting the undiluted application of its principleswas always reckoned most improbable- it remained nonetheless the guide for human behavior, for the statesman must know "what is absolutely best . . . in order to know what the best adaptation is under the various limitations imNor were these dilutionsconsidered unposed by circumstances." here and just since even justice varies according to "what is fitting of both natural and poBy insisting upon the changeability now.'22 litical rightwhile still affirming the preeminence of the best rethat is gime Aristotlesought to allow the statesmanthe flexibility required forthe conduct of politicallifewithoutdeprivingmen of the guidance and the restraint so essentialto human happiness. Because the conditionsnecessaryforthe perfection of the individual are more probable than those necessaryforan entirepolitical communityclassical political philosophywas led to conclude thathappiness would always be more accessible to the former than to the latter.While the happiness of the individual requires good fortuneas well- no one would call a man who suffers great misfortunehappy- the possession of virtuewas thoughtto give man some immunity fromthe malignity of fortune by allowingthe cregation.21
221
ation withinhim of a kind of inner fortress whereinhe mightfind refuge fromthe stormwithout,for even in the worstof circumstances nobilitywould stillshine through.23 It is this interpretation of virtue, this assertion of independence that Machiavelli finds misguided; whatever solace knowledge of one's own nobilityprovides, it is, Machiavelli assures us, poor compensation for the evils that are generated by the desire "to make a professionof good in all things"(Prince,chap. 15). Moreover the independence classical politicalphilosophypromises its disciplesis, Machiavelli argues in the chaptersthatfollow, more than real. Not does the the classics illusory only perfection prescribe jeopardize man's self-preservation, but in time it robs the prince of the respectand admirationof his subjects. Thus liberalitygives rise to rapaciousness (Prince, chap. 16) and compassion to cruelty(Prince, chap. 17).24 Unlike the political scientistsof the past, Machiavelli intends understands it" (emphasis "to write something useful for whoever Not it will benefit from the he retruths everyone, seems, added). veals (we have already seen the effectof Machiavelli's teaching upon those who mightwish to enjoy their inheritancein peace). Nor, it seems, will everyoneunderstandthem. Were Machiavelli's argument reducible to the propositionthat wickednesscan bring and goodness ruin, the proviso "usefulforwhoeverunprosperity derstands"would be unnecessary.What is tragedyif not an imof this insight?Had Machiavelli used this plicit acknowledgment observation to conclude that virtue without force is ineffectual, that the virtuous should unite and subdue the wicked, and that success in thisendeavor may not only require the virtuousto align themselveswith men less excellentthan themselves, but may also lead them to take up a mode of behavior gentlemenusually consider improper,Machiavelli's claim to originality would have been unwarranted. But this is preciselywhat Machiavelli does not do. Instead of a standard of excellence toward which men might aim affirming and fromwhich men might derive guidance whenever necessity forces them to choose among imperfect alternatives,Machiavelli dismissesas irrelevant those who would speak of a best regime or a good prince. Even in its most prudent form, such talk only serves to nourish the naive belief that man's devotion to private advantage can and should be sporadic and half-hearted.What many do not realize is that Machiavelli cannot permit man the
222
on groundsother alternatives luxuryof choosing among imperfect than privateadvantage withoutreaffirming the propriety of those imaginary republics and principalities he so eloquently denounces. The difficulty of a political science that encourages men to desire the establishment of the best regime is not its attitudetoward politicalcompromise-for intrinsic to this way of thinking is the dispositionto distinguishthe "morallybest" from the "politithe fullextentof cally necessary"- but ratherits failureto affirm to what Machiavelli's necessity's kingdom. Contrary predecessors believe, the necessitythat governsthe human conditionis not episodic, but absolute and continuous. The choice necessityleaves us is not betweenvirtueand vice, or even between moralityand success, but between the successfuland unsuccessfulpursuit of private advantage. Machiavellianism does not demand that we surrender our political principles for the sake of political efficacy; thereare no principlesleftto surrender. Because, if someonewill consider well,he will find everything thatsomething thatappearsto be a virtue, ifhe follows it,willbe his else thatappearsto be a vice, ifhe follows ruin; and something it, willbring abouthis security and well-being."25 The sacrificeMachiavellianism exacts is minuscule, the renunciation of what "appears to be a virtue," but presumablyis not, in order to enjoy the benefitsthat come fromwhat "appears to be a vice" but presumablyis not. Thus Machiavelli may proceed to offerthe reader instruction in the art of self-preservation. To render the "vices"he counsels more palatable, Machiavelli teaches us to replace the dichotomy of virtue or vice with that of selfpreservationor ruin, because in the name of necessitybehavior once consideredillegitimate suddenlyacquires an aura of respectability.26 What contemporary princes are lacking is not the disposition to be not good (men are already so disposed) as knowledge of "how to be not good," how to color the selfishnessnecessityrequires of us so as to escape the infamysuch behavior is said to procure. In the pages thatfollowMachiavelli teaches "whoeverunderstands"how to manipulate appearance and reality, how to promote one's advantage without forfeiting the favorand esteem of subjects and friends. A prince must know how to acquire the esteem of others,and
223
since he cannot do so by preferring theiradvantage to his own, his salvationwill depend on his abilityto give men- men whom Machiavelliwill later describe as "ungrateful, fickle. . . [and] greedy for profit" (chap. 17)-a reason not only to excuse but to rejoice in the selfishness of theirprince. Not force("Those who rely simply on the lion do not understandthis"[chap. 18]) but fraudis the most effective technique forsecuringoneselfagainst the selfishness of others. Contrary to what one might expect, the realism Machiavelli propounds cannot be learned by examiningwithcare the behavior of those republics and principalities which have been seen or known to exist since those who judge with theireyes are easily deceived. And men,in general, judge morewiththeir eyesthanwiththeir to see, but to fewto touch. hands; because it is givento everyone sees whatyou appear to be, but fewtouchwhatyou are Everyone takenwithappearances and withtheout. thevulgarare always comeofthething; and in theworld there is nothing butvulgar.27 The world observationshows us leads away fromMachiavelli's realism, because the world a man sees is largelydeterminedby the opinions he holds, and his opinions in turn by the doctrineshe has heard. According to Machiavelli men cannot speak about other men without noting at least some of those qualities (Machiavelli refrainsfromcalling them virtues) they consider worthy of praise or blame. "And thus it is that some are held liberal, some misero . . . some cruel, otherscompassionate, one treacherous,another faithful." But the human condition does not allow anyone, not even those naive enough to imagine themselvesso moved, "to have or entirelyobserve" all of the qualities men consider good. Thus the tragic dilemma many are wont to attribute to Machiavelli,that a moral man "must fall to ruin in a world where so many are not good" is out of place, for such a dilemma presupposes the possibility of moral perfection, an achievement Machiavelli now calls impossible. Perhaps this explains why Machiavelli spoke earlier of the destructionthat awaits not the one who is good, but ratherthe one "who wishes to profess goodness in all regards"(emphasis added).28 Although Machiavelli himself places no stock in the things men say,the factthat so many succumb to the temptationto distinguishvirtuefromvice cannot safelybe ignored. A prince must
224
of those vices be "prudentenough to know how to flee the infamy that will lose him his state"(chap. 15, emphasis added). The project Machiavelli describes-a reputationforvirtue built upon the nor as judicious employmentof vice-is neitheras extraordinary marvelous as many believe. If the categories created by human speech are indeed illusory,then the deception Machiavelli advocates is already an everyday occurrence, discernible whenever men resort to words of praise or blame. Thus the question, at least as Machiavelli forcesus to state it, is not whetherthere will be justice or exploitation, but who will benefit from man's naivet6- the virtuousor the fortunate, the new prince or the heWhat is that those who underMachiavelli asks reditaryprince? stand treat men as they already treat themselves,that they consciously exploit man's capacity for self-deception in order to theirown advantage. further
LIBERALITY AND JUSTICE
In chapter 16 Machiavelli continueshis assault upon the principles that underlie classical political philosophy;beginning with Machiavelli takes aim not only against the quality itself liberality, and but also, more importantly, against the view of the human condition it presupposes. Liberality,Aristotlehad told us in his Ethics,"seems to be a mean in the sphere of material goods." Unlike the stingyman, the liberal man enjoys giving,and unlike the extravaganthe gives to "the rightpeople, the rightamount, at the righttime."Althoughsuch men "are perhaps more loved than any other," theygive not to win the praise and gratitudeof others,but because it is noble to do so. Holding wealth in littleesteem, they welcome the opportunityto help others, therebydemonstrating theirown freedomand independence.29 To call liberality a virtue, as Aristotledoes, is to suggestthatman's needs are not unlimited, that independence need not give way to the fear of deprivation, thateven thosewho eschew politicalauthority can achieve the selfreal sufficiency happiness requires. Machiavelli also justifiesthe liberalityof privatemen, but not as an end in itself, not as a way of assertingone's freedomand inambitious men employin ordependence, but ratheras a strategy der to achieve greatnessand authority over others. "Thus Caesar his came to and by liberality imperium, many others by being held liberal, have achieved a very great rank" (chap. 16). When
MACHIAVELLI'S
REALISM
225
the wise give, they give not because theywish to help others,not as a sign of theircontentment and self-sufficiency, but in order to advance in rank. Their liberalityis proof not of theirhappiness, but of theirmisery,of theirneed to acquire stillmore. Not even those who attain the pinnacles of authorityand greatnesscan afEven Caesar, had he lived and taken fordto indulge this "virtue." his emno steps to reduce his expenditures, would have destroyed pire. - to While a prince cannot affordto practice true liberality not to someone need for despair give something nothing-he about establishinga reputationforliberality provided he has wisdom enough to overlook that quality men call justice. By taking his subjects to war, by invitingthem to share in the fruits of vica can for establish a as he entory, prince reputation liberality his estate. larges Liberality as described by Machiavelli is indistinguishable fromrapacity.Machiavelli's prince practicesliberality not out of a desire to share his good fortune withothers,but in order to enlist Without a share of the booty, supportforhis military enterprises. "he would not be followedby his soldiers."He earns theirpraise theiradvantage to and gratitudeonly because he appears to prefer his own, a deception made possible by the factthat most men are too naive to discern the stinginess that lies behind his seeming into difference personal gain. As long as men are subject to the necessity to acquire, liberalitywill be reasonable only when it is practicedforan ulteriormotive. The "liberality" or rapacitywar occasions, while perhaps more favorableto the prince and his subjects, is no more favorableto that quality conspicuouslymissing fromMachiavelli's prior enumeration of those qualities that bring men praise or blame justice. Indeed one mightsay that the real purpose of Machiavelli's analysis of liberalityis to demonstrate once and for all the irrelevanceofjustice. It is passing strangethat chapter 16 of The Prince should have been entitled"Of Liberality and Parsimony," for strictly speaking Machiavelli's subject is neitherliberalitynor parsimony.A liberal man is one "who spends relativeto his propertyand on the right objects."Thus a man who gives less "may stillbe more generousif his giftcomes from smaller resources."'3Similarly the money he spends must be his; we do not call a man liberal because of the he displays when handling the fortunes of others. But generosity
226
when the fortunesin question are, as they are here, the belongings of one's subjects or the subjects of anotherprince, the approbut justice and injuspriate theme is not liberalityor parsimony, tice.3' - these are the twin foundations Taxation and militaryservice Machiavelli discusses. But if Machiavelli is corforthe "liberality" must take in order to give, then the fundarect, if government mental politicalquestion would seem to be thatof distributive justice. From whom should governmenttake? To whom should it give? And how much? AlthoughMachiavelli observesthatliberalthat his it is significant ity"harms the many and rewardsthe few," formalobjections to liberalityhave absolutelynothingto do with that rouses Majustice. It is not the inequity of the distribution and juschiavelli'sire, but the complacencythatbeliefin liberality tice presumes. In classical political philosophyvirtue is allowed to triumph over fortune despite the limitedprotectionvirtueprovides against the malevolence of fortune.Since virtue alone cannot guarantee happiness, the freedom and securityvirtue conferscannot give man the kind of protection Machiavelli's realism seems to require.32But neithercan Machiavelli. To demand more of virtue, to try to conquer fortuneby pursuing one acquisition afteranavailand contentment otheris to exchange the freedom,security able to man fora world of endless toil in which even and perhaps especially the greatest of men will find themselves foreverand completelysubservientto the necessityto acquire. The price of of a view of virtuewhose war with fortuneis Machiavellian virtii, is unremitting, subjectionto Machiavellian necessity.33 This is not to suggest that Machiavelli thought men were ready to acknowledge their subjection. One can hardly expect men to obey a necessitytheydo not see, and most men do not see why moderation is unreasonable. In particular the many do not understandwhy the great cannot be satisfiedwith the advantages fortunehas leftthem. Nor can Machiavelli expect the gentleman his opto embrace a view of the human conditionthattransforms into ulence into poverty, his confidentassertionof self-sufficiency bombast, and his leisure into idleness. If men are to swear allegiance to Machiavelli's new modes and orders, they must be forcedto do so. But where is the force Machiavelli needs to be found? And As long as men believe how and to whom is it to be administered?
MACHIAVELLI'S
REALISM
227
it presumes, not only will in moderation, and the self-sufficiency mankind resistthe course of action Machiavelli's realism requires, but the virtuousmay even hope to gain the favorof the multitude by cultivatingthe very qualities Machiavelli cautions us against. Only by taking men to war, by stirringup discontent both at home and abroad, can Machiavelli obtain the force he needs. Since Machiavelli cannot hope to persuade the many to abandon he labors instead to sever the connection theirbelief in morality, classical politicalphilosophyhad soughtto establishbetweenpolitical authority and moral virtue. In Aristotle,moralityand politics are coextensive;politics itthe arena in which men selfneverbecomes the enemy of morality, are forcedto set aside theirscruplesin order to survive.The consummation of moral virtue is to be found not by withdrawing from political life, but by demonstratingto oneself and to the communityat large one's masteryof those moral and intellectual the essence of statesmanship. But constitute virtueswhichtogether with Machiavelli the nature and the locus of moralityis radically altered. Where Aristotelianmoral virtuerequired knowledge,hathe goodness Machiavelli attributes bituation, and self-discipline, to the multitudeseems to require no cultivationat all. If morality exists,it existsnot among the rulingclass, nor among those ambitious plebeians who seek political office,but among those whose desire to be leftalone causes them to shun the more exalted forms of political participation.In Machiavelli- unlike classical political philosophywhich attemptedto focus attentionupon how a man rules- the desire to rule is in itself morallysuspect. Concealed withinMachiavelli's realism are two messages, one - to those who rule to the few and one to the many. To the few a view of neand to those who aspire to rule- Machiavelli offers to their from the moral convenliberate minds cessitydesigned tions his predecessorshad promulgatedin order to limit theiracquisitiveness. To the multitude Machiavelli offersa view of the ruling class which justifiestheir animositytoward aristocracyby debunkingthose who rest theirclaim to rule upon an assertionof moral superiority. Machiavelli's realism gives rulers the flexibility to desire theyneed; rethey only rob them of the moral authority lieved of one limitation,they soon find themselvessubject to another. Only by persuading the multitudethat politicsis a dirtybusiare stained with imness, that all who exercise political authority
228
- who by definition that the gentleman leisure to morality, prefers labor, whose contentmentleads him to restrictboth the means and the extent of his pernicious, can Maacquisitiveness--is chiavelliobtain the "force" his enterpriserequires.34 Adopting the same strategyhe recommends to others (Prince,chap. 9), Machiavelliproselytizes among the multitudeto secure the authority he needs to compel the fewto acknowledgethe absurdityof leisure and the necessityof universal labor. Henceforth,the prince will have to justifythe authorityhe exercises not by pointing to his masteryof the virtuesor by appealing to some versionof natural rightbut by puttingtogetheragain and again the kind of enterprise necessaryto keep the "minds of his subjects in suspense and admiration"(chap. 21). Once the suspicions the multitudeharbor - patricianand plebetowardthe fewand the fewtowardeveryone ian alike-have been reinforced, the prince'ssurvivalwill depend from upon his abilityto raise the specterof war to divertattention the oppressionthat accompanies his reign. By playingupon man's fears Machiavelli is able to create the necessityhe urges man to subdue.
THE "BENEFICENCE"
OF NICCOL6
MACHIAVELLI
Classical political philosophy never encouraged mankind to not as Machiavelli would have us believe pursue self-preservation, because of its indifference to worldlythings,but because of its belief that men do not need to be told to consider theirown advanMachiavelli's predecessorswas the possibiltage. What frightened itythatmankind mightnever findthe time to look beyondprivate advantage, that men mightnever discoverthat freedomfromnecessitydepends upon theirwillingnessto recognize and obey the limitsvirtuedecrees. In the Discourses Machiavelli observes how easily people are moved by "great hopes and rash promises"(1: 53). Perhaps this explains why Machiavelli's realism is so appealing. When reading Machiavelli one is immediatelystruckby his liberalityof spirit, his eagerness to show men less giftedthan himselfhow to satisfy theirambitions. Only later,if at all, do men notice the price Machiavellidemands in returnforhis advice. When the senate announced that fromnow on the plebeians would be paid fortheirmilitary service,"Rome went upside-down withjoy" (Discourses, 1: 51). Try as theymightthe tribunescould
MACHIAVELLI'S
REALISM
229
do nothingto awaken theirconstituency to the taxes thatwould be Had the plebeians to this act of necessary defray public generosity. considered more carefullythe giftthey were offeredthey might have noticed how this new arrangementwould enable the senate to extend the duration of theirmilitaryservice. They mighteven have consideredthe lives theywould be called upon to sacrificeso that Rome mightextend its dominion, constantly advancing from one conquest to the next. But Machiavelli's realism was meant to abolish the leisure such reflections require. The best conspiracies, Machiavelli tells us in the longestof the chaptersof the Discourses coconspira(3: 6), are those which do not allow the conspirator's tors the time to reflect upon the enterprisethey are about to undertake. For betteror worse extremismhas become the foundationof our politicsand of our morality. The wise men of our age, tutored by Machiavelli without realizing it, frequently proclaim the inof moralityand realism. But perhaps the time has compatibility come to ask in earnest: "How realisticis Machiavelli's realism?"
NOTES I wish to thank Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., for his patient and generous assistance in the preparation of this article. 1 Prince,chap. 15. Cf. Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. Machiavelli'sNew Modes and Orders (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979), p. 441. 2 Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of ModernPoliticalThought (Cambridge:
3 AristotlePolitics1288b 25-27, trans. Carnes Lord (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 118. See also 1288b 35-36. 4 Harry V. Jaffa, Thomism and Aristotelianism (Chicago: University of Chi5
Press,1978), 1:129. University
Ethics 1104a 1-10; 1134b 18-1135a14. cago Press, 1952),p. 184; Aristotle
296. 202.
6
AristotleEthics 1180a 4-5, trans. Martin Ostwald (Indianapolis, 1980), p. Sheldon Wolin, Politics and Vision(Boston: Little, Brown, 1960), pp. 200-
Prince,chap. 3, beginning; cf. chap. 2. and Vision,p. 202. Wolin, Politics on Machiavelli (Seattle: 9 Prince,chaps. 24, 25; cf. Leo Strauss, Thoughts University of Washington Press, 1969), pp. 56-57. 10 Consider Prince,chaps. 14, 19; Discourses, 1: 2, 10, 11, 19, 20. 3:13. 1 Florentine Histories, 12 Ibid. But how can one be sure that the speech delivered by Machiavelli's nameless plebeian is the truth and his assertion in Prince,chap. 2, is merely tentative? Besides the citations in note 10, the reader should consider Machiavelli's celebration of Roman wisdom in Prince,chap. 3, especially their rejection of "what is in the mouth of the wise men of our times, 'to enjoy the ad3: 1, that no order can vantages of time,'" as well as his insistence in Discourses, long endure without returningperiodically to its beginnings.
7 8
230
13 14
Cf. Hobbes, Leviathan,chaps. 11, 15. 3: 1. Consider also the Mandragolawhere the Prince,chap. 21; Discourses, only trust that remains inviolate is that between the fellow conspirators. All other trusts, between master and servant, doctor and patient, husband and wife, mother and daughter, priest and confessor,are violated. I owe this observation to Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. 2: 13, where the examples of 15 Prince,chap. 25. Consider also Discourses, have-nots turn out to be the prince's nephews. 16 To appreciate just how provisional this alliance is see Discourses1: 60 (especially the final word); 2, preface. 1: 6. 17 Discourses, 18 Consider the Mandragola, Act 3, 10 and 11 where the necessity Machiavelli unveils governs ordinary as well as extraordinary times. If Lot's daughters were allowed to lie down with their father,believing him the last man in the world, then surely Lucrezia may commit adultery and endanger the life of a strangerin order to provide her husband with an heir. But Lucrezia is not the last woman nor Nicia the last man. 19 Prince,chaps. 14 end, 15 beginning. 20 AristotlePolitics1324b 32-35, trans. Lord, p. 201. 21 Plato Republic375a-e; 469b-c; Aristotle Politics1265a 19-28; 1268b 22ff; 1331a 1-18. and Aristotelianism, p. 183. 22 Jaffa, Thomism 23 Plato Republic519c-520b; 540d 1-3; 545c-d; Aristotle Ethics 1100a 101101a 20. 24 CliffordOrwin, "Machiavelli's Unchristian Charity," American PoliticalScienceReview,72 (1978), 1217-27. 25 Prince,chap. 15. 26 Discourses,1: 9; 3: 41. 27 Prince,chap. 18. 28 Ibid., chap. 15. Machiavelli never speaks of virtue in chap. 15, only of "apparent virtue." 29 AristotleEthics 1119b 20-1122a 17, trans. Ostwald, pp. 83-89. Observe how Machiavelli's realism dissolves the distinctionbetween public and private, reducing the state to the private and temporarypreserve of the prince. On Machiavelli's use of stato,see Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., "On the PoliticalScienceReview,77 (1983), Impersonality of the Modern State," American 849-857. On the connection between liberality and justice, see Strauss, on Machiavelli,pp. 238-39. Thoughts 32 AristotleEthics 1100b 28-30. 33 As if to indicate the irrelevance of the traditional moral dichotomy (virtue and vice), Machiavelli preferspairing virtui Consider, forexamwithfortuna. ple, the titlesof Prince, chaps. 6-7. 34 Discourses, 1:55.
31 30
Ibid., p. 85.

Machiavelli's Realism

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Machiavelli's Realism

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Machiavelli's Realism Author(s): Grant B. Mindle Source: The Review of Politics, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr., 1985), pp.

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

Press,1978), 1:129. University

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

Machiavelli&#39;s Realism

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Machiavelli&#39;s Realism

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Machiavelli's Realism Author(s): Grant B. Mindle Source: The Review of Politics, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr., 1985), pp.

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

Press,1978), 1:129. University

THE REVIEW OF POLITICS

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

Machiavelli's Realism

Machiavelli's Realism