lker Kocael

INTL 600 FINAL PAPER MACHIAVELLI: EVIL OR ANGEL?

Independent of the vagueness of their works, almost all the political thinkers are interpreted in
different -if not conflicting- ways. Machiavelli is apparently not an exception in this respect, since
whereas his civic republicanism is admired by some scholars, he cannot escape to be labeled as the
teacher of evil (Strauss 10) owing to his understanding of politics independent from traditional
morality. In fact, this confusion is not groundless, as his two books, The Discourses and The Prince
seem to be based on radically different principles concerning politics. Interestingly, when one reads
the Prince, (s)he would say that those who consider Machiavelli as immoral and evil are absolutely
right, as he seems to argue that anything goes in politics on consequential grounds. Another person
who have not yet read The Prince but The Discourses would think the opposite: (s)he will see there a
Machiavelli who admires the Roman Republic and promoting classical republican values such as
liberty, primacy of common good, civic virtues, participation etc.
The point of departure of this paper is this perplexity before these two irreconcilable images
of Machiavelli. In fact, the main question leading to this confusion is whether there exists a continuity
between Aristotelian, civic humanist and Machiavellian conceptions of republicanism. The main
purpose of this paper is to discuss the points of continuities and ruptures of Machiavellian
republicanism in relation to classical republicanism which is best represented by Aristotle. We will
then formulate our own perspective regarding the continuity problem, after having assessed different
arguments in literature. Our main claim will be that even if the continuity exists in some terminological
respects, the overall study of the Aristotelian, humanist and Machiavellian conceptions of
republicanism will show us that the continuity is in appearance, not so much in content. We will oppose
to the evil image of Machiavelli as well as to his pure classical republican account, placing him
somewhere between, specifying different aspects.

First, we will discuss why Machiavelli would have written two books which are perceived to
be radically opposed in terms of political principles. There, we will see that his distinction between
forms of government is so important that it creates different political ontologies on which Machiavelli
will build his political principles accordingly. Second, we will discuss what we mean by classical
republicanism, Aristotelian republicanism, humanist republicanism which are, for some,
constitute the basis for Machiavellian republicanism. Having presented civic republicanisms, we
will try to see in Machiavellian thought different types of continuities and discontinuities with this
heritage. Finally, we will make our own overall interpretation on the question of continuity as a
conclusion.
1. Different forms of rules, different principles
We have mentioned above that the Prince and the Discourses were perceived to be
incompatible on the basis of the principles Machiavelli adopted. In his book called the Prince,
Machiavelli presents his advises to Lorenzo de Medici, the governor of the republic of Florence at the
beginning of the sixteenth century. This is rather a practical book, which cannot be interpreted
independent of Machiavellis possible desire for a good job as government advisor. Because of this
book, Machiavelli is accused of setting the ground for politicians to be cynical in their own domains,
free from all classical moral concerns.
This accusation is not meaningless, as Machiavelli contends that a prince who newly acquired
power cannot be held responsible for the actions which would be considered as immoral according
to the common moral principles in that society in order him to maintain his princely power. Once the
good consequences are assumed; sheer force, lies, cruel acts might be used as normal political
instruments. As people are fickle, () you have to be prepared for the moment when they no longer
believe: Then you have to force them to believe (Machiavelli 20). If a ruler wants to succeed, he
should not keep his word when such an observance would be to his disadvantage (54). We can find
lots of examples which show that the prince is not bound to classical moral rules when it comes to his

maintenance of power. It would be, of course, preferable if in a given situation, the moral and political
principles are saying the same thing, but unfortunately this is rarely the case. Usually, the prince would
better off if he manipulates people or kills them in order to keep the state and his rule intact. Then,
Machiavellis prescription is that, the prince not only can opt for the immoral solution, but he should.
It might be surprising that the same Machiavelli wrote the Discourses in which he openly
supports republican type of regime as the best one to achieve greatness. Instead of a picture in which
passive mass ruled by a morally irresponsible prince, the focus is now on citizenship, political
participation, liberty, common good which are considered to be terms belonging to the classical
republican thinkers. On the one hand; an image of Machiavelli who promotes cruelty, lie, deception;
on the other hand; another Machiavelli who takes Roman republic as example, preaching that the
liberty and greatness is achievable only by a republican rule. Is this just a simple contradiction without
any plausible reason?
For Skinner and Strauss, there is no difference between these books in terms of underlying
morality (Strauss 20). For Strauss, the dedication of the book by Machiavelli is different: he dedicates
the Prince to prince and the Discourses to two private citizens. This is just a superficial change, his
evilness stays the same. Similarly, Skinner argues that the Prince is concerned with individual princes
whereas the Discourses concerns the whole body of citizens. He gives the example that the Romulus
murder of his bother on political grounds was justified in the Discourses, which shows that both books
are based on consequentialist assumptions rather than moral ones (The Foundations of Modern 184).
An interesting contextual account comes from Maurizio Viroli who focuses on the contextual
meanings of words and the way Machiavelli uses them. According to his account, the word politicus
(politics) as it was used in the early modern Europe had a strong correlation with the word civitas,
meaning that it was a charged word that reminded a kind of republican city (Viroli 145). The fact that
Machiavelli never used the word politico in the Prince is not a coincidence, but tells us something
about the nature of this book: as his subject matter is principalities, his precepts will have nothing to

do with civitas. Then, if the rule of principality does not belong to the political realm in the
vocabulary of that time, there is no need to talk about citizens or other things about politics. It will
contain just pragmatic advices to the prince. In this respect, the Discourses is an example of a book
about politics given the fact that its content resonates with civitas. There appears a self-ruling
community in which citizens benefit from security as well as liberty, which makes this union political.
For Pasquino, two different Machiavelli in the Prince and the Discourses is a product of the
continuation between Aristotelian and Machiavelian classifications of social groups (Pasquino 397).
Aristotelian and Machiavellian republics are not composed of equal individuals but two different social
groups: demos and gnorimoi for Aristotle and popolo and grandi for Machiavelli; which are used to
show more or less same fractions within a society. The former connoting poorer classes and the former
owners of property. According to Pasquinos interpretation, the positions of these two social classes
creates the nature and form of cities political order: republic is the most egalitarian form in which the
difference between two social groups is the least. The Discourses is about these types of egalitarian
societies where vivere libero would be possible. The reason why Machiavelli had a totally different
political vision in the Prince is that this is another where popolo and grandi find themselves in a
different relationship. As he talks about principalities, it means that the difference between those two
groups is more important. Consequently, the difference between these two books is based on different
types of distribution of wealth within societies creating different types of regimes, on the basis of
Aristotelian classification.
All the perspectives above accept the fact that there is a difference between these two books.
Strauss and Skinner are more prudent about this difference, as they argue that the difference stems only
from different perspectives adopted in each book, which still share the same consequential moral
approach. Virolis account is more radical, contending that the Prince is not a political book in the
sense which was used at that time; contrary to the Discourses. The place of two social factions within
society determining the type of regime which constitutes a point of continuity between Aristotle and

Machiavelli is the response for Pasquino, who claims that the Prince is about the societies which are
less egalitarian than the societies the Discourses was written for.
We cannot be sure about Machiavellis intentions about writing these two books which were
perceived as conflicting. It might be simply Machiavellis search for status or job, his conceptions
about different kinds of societies where wealth is distributed differently or his understanding of
political and non-political rules. What is important for our early question -whether there is a continuity
between classical republicanism and Machiavellis republicanism- is that Machiavellis distinction
between principalities and republics is an ontological one, whatever the reason. During the foundation
of principalities, Machiavellis understanding of politics has nothing to do with classical republican
view of politics. The Prince is totally incompatible, thus, with the latter view, owing to the external
position of the prince: as Foucault puts it, the relation between the prince and the territory is a relation
of possession (Foucault). As the rule is based on personal power and right to property, the ruler is
external to the society and detached from the common morality. This is the opposite of what Aristotle
calls political rule which exists among those who are rational and equal citizens as opposed to the
master and slave relationship (Barnes 240).
Having said that the Prince is not at compatible with the main premises of the Aristotelian
republic, it does not automatically imply that the Discourses follows a complete Aristotelian path to
the classical republicanism. It is true that Machiavelli is far more republican in the Discourses than he
is in the Prince, but being republican by using republican terminology should not be equated with a
perfect continuity. In the next chapter, we will discuss to what extent the Discourses in which
Machiavelli apparently takes a republican position might be considered in continuity with the
Aristotelian and humanist civic republicanism.
2. Machiavellis republicanism: continuity or rupture?
We eliminate the Prince in our attempt to trace the continuity between Machiavellian and
Aristotelian republics owing to the fact that according to the Aristotelian classification, political rule
5

is different from the domination logic which would be a characteristic of master-slave relationship. As
he puts it, () the rule of the master and that of the statesman are different from one another () One
kind of rule is exercised over those who are naturally free; the other over slaves () (Aristotle 20).
Only Machiavellis Discourses would be considered as political according to the Aristotelian
distinction; as this book is about republics.
When we think of the context in which Machiavelli wrote this book; we would easily be
tempted to favor the continuity argument. According to the continuity narrative1; long years after the
Medieval political thought favoring the domination, encouraging a pious life at the expense of civic
virtues and participation; Machiavelli represents the reawakening of the republican awareness in
politics, in continuity with Aristotelian and humanist civic republican thoughts. In fact, one can find
such continuities in the Discourses in which Machiavelli favors republican rule as the supreme one for
the liberty, common good, praising civic virtues, concord and participation. The question is that
whether the republican terminology used by Machiavelli can be seen as a proof of the continuity
argument which claims that the continuity is not only terminological but substantive.
Now, in this part, we will first briefly go over the Aristotelian republican understanding and
the humanist reawakening concerning republican thought which are supposed to constitute a basis for
Machiavellian republic. Then, in order to the extent to which Machiavellian republic in the Discourse
is in line with this heritage, we will discuss five main points on which the continuity and discontinuity
arguments are in discord: conception of ethics, common good, liberty, concord or conflict and lastly
vivere civile and civic virtues. The positions of Aristotle and Machiavelli in the Discourses will prepare
our overall claim about the continuity and discontinuity arguments.

Best represented by Pocock, J. G. A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic
Republican Tradition. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 1975.

2.a. Aristotelian polis and humanist republic

Talking about Aristotles republic is not a separate activity from talking about his natural
philosophy and ethics. This is, in fact, the most important aspect of his thought: for Aristotle, there is
not yet a compartmentalization of different human activities such as politics, economics or ethics. They
are all intertwined and constitute a big whole. According to his ethical understanding, the ultimate aim
of all human beings is to achieve a good life. As people are social in nature, creating a political society
is a means for the perfection of the individuals fulfilling their full potentials (Barnes 233). The
Aristotelian city exists by nature beyond any human design, as the third stage of the natural gathering
after the household and the village. It is the highest degree of self-sufficiency; as it is composed of
equally rational beings who differ in their functions they fulfil in society.
One of the most important aspect of Aristotelian city, and also that of classical republican
thought is the idea of good life beyond mere sustenance (Aristotle 10). We have said that Aristotles
point of departure is the individual self-fulfillment; for him, it would only be possible within a political
community where virtuous people create their own laws through civic participation and rational
deliberation and live in harmony with others. Values of virtue will make people favor the common
good at the expense of their particular goods; disciplining them in order to master their passions
rationally.
In this ethical community called polis where virtues like justice, prudence, moderation,
generosity are shared by all citizens; these values perfect their nature; and even make them human,
as there would be no human outside of genuine political communities. Thus, political activity is not
just a means to achieve some end, but an integral part of human self-realization. The naturalness of this
process comes from the teleological view of Aristotle; which is explained by Baker: () the world is
not an uncorrelated mass of separate movements towards separate ends (Baker 227) Aristo, as a
classic, is not living in a disenchanted modern world; his world functions in an harmonious way

towards a definite end; beyond human design. Thus, in this non-secularized world with cosmological
harmony, God and nature do nothing in vain (221).
According to Roger Fischer, the classical republicanism represents the communitarian strand
of political thought modeled after Greek polis and Roman res publica (Fischer 32). According to the
contextual explanations, the medieval time was the disappearance of politics in favor of personal
domination, tyranny and pious life, observed after the fall of Roman Republic and the rise of Roman
Empire where civic virtues are neglected. Then, what is the meaning of humanist awakening in terms
of the revival of the classical republicanism and what would it potentially contribute to the
Machiavellian republic?
The first contribution comes from Viroli who stresses the importance of the early modern
European context of political thought and of city-states in Italy (Viroli 31). According to him, the civic
strand of Renaissance humanism broke with the idea of universalistic empire; returning back to the
ancient republicanism. This is a return to the idea that human perfection is only attainable within a selfgoverning community where the rules are determined through the civic participation. This is the
political way of life expressed with the terms vivere civile or vivere politico. Then the idea of good
life in a city composed of virtuous citizens is recovered; especially with the translation of Aristotles
Politics into the Italian language and charging the word politics with civitas. The continuity between
Aristotelian and humanist strands of republicanisms is well summarized by Viroli by these
characteristics: citizens rule themselves by laws, participate in public deliberation, fill the offices of
mixed regime, develop their virtues, and maintain lasting concord (Fischer 34).
Another perspective is based on the recovery of the idea concerning the greatness of human
potential by the Renaissance humanism, as argued by Skinner ((The Foundations of Modern 186).
The expression virt vince fortuna meaning that the power of the virt can overcome the misfortune
summarizes well the belief in human potential. Even if this idea promoted the belief in human potential
for civic participation and good life in a community, it should be stated that the secularized form of

misfortune, fortuna, is not at all compatible with Aristotelian teleological world view. This passage
from an ordered world view where philosophy and contemplation is praised, to a secularized,
disenchanted and fragmented cosmological understanding is best explained by Pocock, whose ideas
will be revealed in our continuity-discontinuity discussion.
2.b. Machiavellian virtue or imposture
Among the scholars, there is little doubt about the continuity between the ancient political
tradition represented by Aristotles polis and the conception of politics possessed by Renaissance
humanists on the basis of the realization of individual perfection through political activity. However,
the question is that to what extent Machiavellis Discourses is part of this picture. On the one hand,
there are those who claim that Machiavelli belongs to this republican tradition in a way to epitomize
the revival of the Ancient republic, following the Medieval break. Two main supporters of this
argument is Pocock and Skinner. In fact, it is not a coincidence that they are both member of Cambridge
School; which is known for its emphasis on the intellectual and historical context in which the thinker
produces her/his work. Then, as they emphasize the Republican humanist context in which
Machiavellian lived, the accent is on the belonging of Machiavelli to this big picture. Third scholar
who is in favor of the continuity argument is Viroli. His main argument is based on the way Machiavelli
uses the term politico in line with the classical tradition and the political context of his time.
On the other hand, there are those scholars who are on the side of the public image of
Machiavelli, best represented by the common term machiavellist. This word has apparently a
pejorative connotation, evoking the negligence of moral precepts in order to achieve an end. The most
important representative of this strand of interpretation is Leo Strauss. For him, Machiavelli is a teacher
of evil who reversed the Aristotelian thought. He contrasts the founding principles of the USA with
Machiavellian principles; saying that the former is based on freedom and justice whereas the latter on
the fratricide and tyranny (Strauss 13).

Other proponents of the discontinuity argument are Fiscer2, Hankins3, Sullivan4 and
Nederman5. Fiscer argues that the continuity between classical republicanism and the Machiavellian
thought is just semantic; meaning that there is a sharp break in substance owing to the consequentialist
moral of Machiavelli. Hankins, in his turn, refuses the contextual overemphasis put by Pocock and
Skinner, arguing that Machiavelli represents the subversion of the central premises of the politics of
virtue. Nederman&Sullivan compares the Machiavellian republic with that of a Roman republican
thinker, Ptolemy, and concludes that the two are incompatible. Finally Sullivan criticizes Pococks
continuity arguments, accusing him of not proving enough his claims concerning continuity.
Having presented the Aristotelian and humanist understandings of republic and two different
positions as to what extent Machiavellian Discourses belongs to this classical tradition, we will now
discuss five main specific points on which authors present conflicting arguments of continuity and
discontinuity: conception of ethics, common good, liberty, concord or conflict and lastly vivere civile
and civic virtues. While presenting arguments of authors, we will also evoke our own interpretation
which will lead us to make a final conclusion at the end.
Lets begin with the concept of ethics. Machiavelli is usually seen as the thinker who discarded
ethics from politics. As opposed to this, as we have explained, Aristotelian politics cannot be
understood without Aristotelian ethics. In fact this is the point where the proponents of the
discontinuity argument are really strong. Baker mentions Machiavelli in his book, in a part dedicated
to Aristotelian ethics in order to contrast him with Machiavelli; mentioning the former as the author
of the divorce of politics and ethics (Baker 241). In contrast to it, Aristotle maintains that the end of

Fischer, Markus. "Machiavellis Rapacious Republicanism." Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy. Ed.
Paul Rahe. New York: Cambridge UP, 2006. 31-62
3
Hankins, James. "Machiavelli, Civic Humanism, and the Humanist Politics of Virtue." Italian
Culture XXXII.2 (2014).
4
Sullivan, Vickie B. "Machiavelli's Momentary "Machiavellian Moment": A Reconsideration of Pocock's
Treatment of the Discourses." Political Theory 20.2 (1992): 309-18.
5
Nederman, Cary J., and Mary Elizabeth Sullivan. "The Polybian Moment: The Transformation of Republican
Thought from Ptolemy of Lucca to Machiavelli." The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms 17.7 (2012):
867-81.
2

10

community is not separable from the end of its virtuous citizens: reaching happiness through political
participation (Baker 240).
Even followers of the continuity argument like Skinner acknowledges the fact that political
rationality surpasses ethical concerns in the Discourses: he mentions that Machiavelli, at the opening
of the book Discourses, tells us the foundation story of the Roman republic (The Foundations of
Modern 184). Machiavelli is not disturbed from the fact that Romulus killed his brother on political
grounds; justifying this atrocious crime owing to its beneficial political consequences.
In our view, the discontinuity in terms of ethical positions may also be seen in the two
conflicting world views: for Aristotle, people are living in an orderly teleological world in which
nothing happens in vain. Thus, being virtuous will naturally bring human happiness through natural
political organization, namely, polis. Machiavellian world is secularized, complicated, full of conflict,
thus, unsecure. As this is not an orderly world, one should be able to behave (virt instead of virtue)
according to different situations (fortuna). Being virtuous in all situations would bring about unwanted
consequences, so consequential logic should be dominant in Machiavellian republic. Similar point is
made by Pocock, saying that the tension between philosophy (vita contemplativa) and rhetoric (vita
activa) was present in Aristotle (Pocock 56). Florentine political thought took the side of vita activa.
It was a break with medieval thought based on universalistic philosophical assumptions. Florentine
humanists and Machiavelli were not concerned with universal principles which we can include
universal rules of ethics- but with rhetorics which is concerned only with active life of the citizen
implying a particular activity in a particular time (Hrnqvist 8).
Our second point is common good which constitutes one of the basic pillars of
republicanism. As opposed to the tyrannical rules, rational citizens in republics are aware that pursuing
common good in beneficial for all; not to the tyrant. For Aristotle, individual and common good are
inseparable, as good life is only achievable in polis where individual self-realization is promoted
through civic participation. Still, he emphasizes that () the city is prior in the order of nature to the

11

family and the individual () for this is that the whole is necessarily prior to the part (Aristotle 11).
But it does not change the fact that from ethical perspective, the polis is only a way to pursue individual
perfectness. In this sense, Aristotles conception of common good might be considered as
individualistic.
Lets hear Machiavelli on this issue: It is easy to work out why, for cities become great by
pursuing, not the interests of private individuals, but the interests of the community as a whole. And
there is no doubt the public interest is never a guiding principle except in republics (Machiavelli 166).
He also adds that one man rule is not preferable since his interests are susceptible to hurt the interests
of the city. It seems like a perfect Aristotelian passage: public interest is more important than private
ones and the only association that would be able to create this system is republic. Skinner, one of our
proponents of continuity argument, make this point in his article (Machiavelli's Discorsi and.. 138)
stating that placing 'the public welfare' and 'the public benefit' above all other values can be rightly
considered as a republican claim in the Aristotelian sense.
From our perspective, even though Machiavelli and Aristotle seem to both favor common
good at the expense of private interests, what they mean by this term is fundamentally different. We
have stated that Aristotelian common good would not be thought independent of individual pursuit
of happiness in a community whereas Machiavellian common good is not at all directed towards
individual self-achievement. In fact, the passage of Machiavelli above tells us something about his
intention when he favors common good. His common good is for cities to become great. In fact,
in this chapter, Machiavelli shows his admiration for the Roman Republic owing to its greatness
resulting from territorial expansions. This is not a polis where common good is pursued for the sake
of good life beyond mere survival, but an expansionist republic where power and wealth are praised.
At this point, one of the proponents of discontinuity argument, Rahe, states that when Machiavelli talks
about common good, he has in mind war, conquest, and empire aimed at satisfying at the expense
of outsiders the ambition of the citizens and their longing for glory, power, and wealth. That is a good
depiction of Machiavellis common good, undermining Skinners continuity argument. For Skinner,
12

just because Machiavelli stated that common good should be pursued and it is only possible in
republics; it creates a continuity with classical republicanism. However, as we tried to show, the
substances of the same term in two political thinkers are so different that it would not be possible to
talk about a kind of continuity.
Our third point concerns the liberty. Both authors seem to praise liberty that would exist within
a republic. However, the question is to what extent Machiavellian liberty is compatible with that of
Aristotle. Lets begin with Aristotelian liberty. His idea of liberty is a classical one, meaning that
different from liberal conceptions of liberty which takes it as the absence of external constraint. Instead,
according to the communitarian strand of liberty, which is the one promoted by Aristotle, it does not
imply complete freedom for the individual. As opposed to this, Aristotelian liberty is very attached to
the virtuous choice that necessitates self-control through reason6. Thus, communitarian type of liberty
proposed by Aristotle is part of ethics; very related to the issue of being virtuous; and an important
aspect for an individual to his way towards telos.
Skinner assumes that Machiavellian liberty in the Discourses is very similar to this republican
heritage. For him, Machiavelli means in the opening chapters of Book I that the body politic in
question enjoys the capacity to act in pursuit of its own chosen ends, its actions being under the control
of its own will and in consequence directed to seeking the benefit of its members as a whole
(Republican virtues in an age 151). In this way, he makes a vague connection between Aristotelian
liberty and Machiavellian one. For us, this connection is also a superficial one, since Machiavellian
liberty is based on not being dominated inside by a tyrant or an oppressor group or from outside by
another foreign power; as he puts in the 5th chapter of Book I (Machiavelli 95). In this respect,
proponent of the non-continuity argument, Hankins point is relevant: whereas for ancient philosophers
like Aristotle and humanists, the liberty is something achieved by individuals thanks to their virtues

Unpublished paper by Eric Gallager, available on

https://www.academia.edu/514010/The_Conception_of_Liberty_Through_the_Ages

13

and their rational capabilities, for Machiavelli, the desire for liberty is a natural passion which exists
in all men (Hankins 106).
Concerning the question of liberty, one important point that should be made is human nature.
Aristotles individual is guided by his reason towards a definite telos within polis in interaction with
others, which promotes his liberty in the communitarian sense. Machiavellis individual is wicked by
nature and will always follow her/his evil desires when possible (Machiavelli 92). Moreover, men
never do anything that is good except when forced to" (Machiavelli 93). These two conflicting views
of human nature, one based on mens rational capability and the other based on mens evilness make
Machiavellian liberty radically different from that of classical republicans. Because Machiavelli finds
the source of Roman freedom in Roman constitution elaborated on the basis of the conflict between
two factions of society.
This last point concerning the relationship between liberty and conflict is unconceivable from
a classical republican perspective for which harmony and concord are indispensable features (Viroli
25). It leads us to our fourth point of discord between two camps: concord or conflict. Aristotle is
proponent of a mixed regime that would combine best dimensions of democracy and oligarchy
(Aristotle 153). For illustrate his best regime that he calls polity, he gives the example of Spartan
city state where no difference is made between the rich and the poor (Aristotle 154). In line with the
classical republicanism, Aristotle makes the most harmonious design possible to prevent any kind of
factional conflict in polis.
Viroli makes at this point a nave argument concerning the parallelism between this
harmonious conception of society promoted by Aristotle and Machiavellis concept of vivere politico:
along with the emphasis upon civic virtue, another recurrent convention of the vocabulary of politics
was the recommendation to preserve concord as one of the necessary foundations of the vivere politico.
In this respect Machiavelli parts company with the humanist and the Ciceronian tradition (Viroli

14

(157). This is a weak argument as it discards the role of conflict in the constitution making procedure,
which is, for Machiavelli, the best way to keep the liberty and the greatness of a republic.
For Machiavelli, the clash between plebeians and patricians is the creative force that led to the
elaboration of the Roman constitution which is a perfect one in terms of greatness and glory. As
opposed to the Aristotelian emphasis on theoretical constitution of polis in which the harmony will
prevail; Machiavellian constitution arises from practice, resulting from the creative struggle between
two traditional opposed factions within society: () those who criticize the clashes between the
nobility and the populace attack what was, I would argue, the primary factor making for Romes
continuing freedom (Machiavelli 94). Then the conflict is not harmful, but useful in the sense that it
shapes the constitution in a way that will arrange the distribution of power among two groups. Again,
we are faced to the fundamental difference between Aristotelian and Machiavellian world view: for
Aristotle, the philosopher would be able to design the best kind of rule on the basis of natural truths.
However, for Machiavelli, fortuna creates situations that no philosopher would be able to imagine
before. Then, instead of contemplating on the best constitution, he chooses to focus only on particular
situations: all we can do is to look at great states like ancient Roman republic or great statesmen, and
to take lessons from them wisely to apply to our situation. Thats why while Aristotle is favoring
Spartan constitution, Machiavellis choice is Roman constitution as the former is elaborated artificially
which would keep the stability but can never bring greatness like the latter one.
As proponent of the discontinuity argument, Fiscer puts it, Machiavellis praise of conflict in
order to achieve internal stability and imperial greatness, is a mark of discontinuity with republican
understanding (Viroli 158).. Even the proponent of the continuity argument, Skinner, accepts that this
point constitutes a break with classical republics (Republican virtues in an age 156). The fact that
both Aristotle and Machiavelli propose mixed type of regime does not mean a great deal; since the
logic behind them are totally different, as we tried to show.

15

As to the fifth and last point, civic virtues and vivere civile, the issue is much more complicated.
Again, if we take these values as citizenship virtues through participation, surpassing the mere survival
in favor of the good life or greatness, ruling collectively in interaction with other members of republic
on some shared values rather than being dominated by one tyrant, followers of continuity argument
seem to have a point. Pocock, for instance is one of the scholars who make this argument: as opposed
to the Medieval logic of domination and lack of political awareness, Machiavelli as a representative
of the Florentine thinkers at that time- brought back viviere civile of ancient times, meaning citizenship
virtues on the basis of public deliberation and participation, which ultimately led to the republican selfawareness (Pocock 57).
Similarly, Viroli makes, at this point about civic virtues, the continuity argument by stating:
For Machiavelli, like his republican teachers, politics is not just to do with the formal structure of the
constitution; a primary aim of politics is to shape, to educate the passions of the citizens. In full
agreement with the classical view, Machiavelli too uses the word politico to denote, in a sense that
may be unfamiliar to us, the practical life of a community. (Viroli 156). For him, vivere civile implies
a kind of civic education beyond formal institutions of regime which conforms to the classical
republican idea. We will refute this approach above by showing that Machiavelli had conflict-based
understanding of civic participation for which civic virtues is not based on self-constrained behavior;
on the contrary, following interests of one faction that will bring stability through conflict.
Machiavelli is aware that his citizens are not rational individual beings that would be virtuous
enough to concentrate on the common good, mastering their particular appetites. As they are wicked
and implanted in two opposite self-interested groups called popolo and grandi (simply poor and rich),
the absence of domination and liberty will ultimately bring a creative conflict. Despite this drawback,
letting these two groups to fight against each other is the only solution which will produce a perfect
constitution like that of Rome born out of conflict- in which liberty, expansion and glory would be
possible.

16

Besides the conflictual perspective against the continuity argument, Fiscer makes the argument
that in the Discourses, it is permitted to do evil that would impinge on virtuous principles; if raison
d'tat could justify it. This consequentialist if not cynic view is apparent when Fischer gives the
corresponding example: Republics can execute policies more effectively than principalities because
the majority can easily crush the minority (Fischer 42). Then, in our view, there is no civic virtue per
se, but it exists as long as it contributes to the good of the republic. Moreover, from a consequentialist
perspective, non-civic deeds are also justified on the basis of communities interests that would be
incompatible with classical understanding.
In sum, we discussed five specific points of discord which oppose two camps of continuity and
discontinuity. On the question of ethics and politics, even supporters of continuity argument were
prudent, given the fact that Aristotelian politics is almost the same thing with Aristotelian politics
whereas Machiavellian ethics vague and depends on its consequences. As to the common good, both
favor common good of the community over the private interests. However, Aristotelian common good
is directed towards pursuit of individual happiness whereas that of Machiavelli is directed towards
glory, victory and greatness in the image of Rome, achieved only by expansion through wars. Again,
in the question of liberty, both authors praise it as an integral part of republic; but Aristotelian liberty
is based on virtuous action achieved through self-control through reason; whereas Machiavellian one
is almost an instinct concerning the desire of not being dominated by a tyrant or a foreign power.
Related to the conflictual understanding of liberty in Machiavelli, in the question of concord and
conflict, Machiavelli praises the conflict within society as creative force, contributing to the formation
of constitution, liberty and greatness. This point is also unconceivable from ancient perspective which
promotes a society the most harmonious possible, staying away from factional conflicts. Lastly, despite
Machiavellis support for civic virtues; consequential moral pertaining to raison d'tat is more
dominant than civic concerns and practices of vivere civile.

17

3. Conclusion
On five main issues that contrast continuity and discontinuity arguments; our position was in
favor of the latter one, as one could understand from our own comments in the previous section. Back
to our first question: as we think that his relation to classical republicanism is based only on the
terminological use of this tradition rather than on substantial continuity; do we think that Strauss was
right when he said that Machiavelli was a teacher of evil? Our answer is no, because even if there is
not a real continuity, it would not be possible to deny the return of the politics argument for which
there is a break between Medieval conception of rule as domination and Machiavellian rule as glorious
and free community. Yes, this is the return of the politics having the civitas connotation; but it has not
the same substance with ancient politics.
As opposed to the terminological continuity, their very basic world views are radically
different from each other. Aristotles world is a teleological one converging towards its end. Everything
happens with a purpose, as part of one big natural plan. Thats why, every question will have a rational
answer; including the end of the human being. The latter, in order to pursue her/his end of being happy,
will be virtuous, perfect his nature and find his self-realization within polis as (s)he is naturally social.
Conflict and fraction are enemies of this perfect order which works with harmony.
Machiavellis world is totally different. There is no more natural plan, no more Gods
intervention or any kind of external power. As we are living only in particular time and in particular
place; most importantly independent of any kind of pre-established plan, finding rational answers to
all our questions is impossible. We should first realize that we are not living in an ordered teleological
world as Ancients, but it does not mean that anything goes in this fragmented world. We cannot copy
principles of ancient world, as these principles were specific to their context (lets call it fortuna). Now,
what we can do is, that we can learn and take lessons from these experiences. We cannot directly apply
them to our context, but it can contribute to our virt struggling fortuna.

18

For Machiavelli, the most important goods for a community are glory, greatness and victory
which were all present in the Roman republic. The Discourses is an attempt to find the reasons behind
this greatness. In fact, this is the core of the difference between Aristotelian and Machiavellian
republics. The former begins with the pursuit of individual happiness whereas the latters main concern
is greatness. For Aristotle, the polis is the only natural place that could provide people with this
happiness. For Machiavelli, there is no naturalness. If he concluded that the glory through military
expansion is only possible within a monarchy, he would not hesitate to change his commitment to
republicanism. The logic is consequential in him: liberty is achieved by conflict within republic, which
ends up with perfect constitution that will lead to military expansions bringing greatness. Thats why
our conclusion is that despite terminological continuity, the winner of the continuity and discontinuity
arguments is the latter one.

19

References
Aristotle. Politics. Trans. Ernest Baker. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Barker, Ernest. The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. New York: Dover Publications, 1959.
Fischer, Markus. "Machiavellis Rapacious Republicanism." Machiavelli's Liberal Republican
Legacy. Ed. Paul Rahe. New York: Cambridge UP, 2006. 31-62
Foucault, Michel. "Governmentality." The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality : With Two
Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault. Ed. Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter
Miller. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1991. 87-104.
Galleger, Eric. The Concept of Liberty Through the Ages. Non published paper, accessible on
https://www.academia.edu/514010/The_Conception_of_Liberty_Through_the_Ages
Hankins, James. "Machiavelli, Civic Humanism, and the Humanist Politics of Virtue." Italian
Culture XXXII.2 (2014).
Hrnqvist, Mikael. Machiavelli and Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004.
Machiavelli. Selected Political Writings. Trans. David Wotoon. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company, 1994. Print.
Nederman, Cary J., and Mary Elizabeth Sullivan. "The Polybian Moment: The Transformation of
Republican Thought from Ptolemy of Lucca to Machiavelli." The European Legacy: Toward New
Paradigms 17.7 (2012): 867-81.
Pasquino, Pasquale. "Machiavelli and Aristotle: The Anatomies of the City." History of European
Ideas 35 (2012): 397-407.
Pocock, J. G. A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic
Republican Tradition. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 1975.
Rahe, Paul Anthony. "Introduction." Machiavelli's Liberal Republican Legacy. New York: Cambridge
UP, 2006. 19-30.
Skinner, Quentin. "Machiavelli's Discorsi and the Pre-humanist Origins of Republican
Ideas." Machiavelli and Republicanism. Ed. Gisela Bock. Cambridge [England: Cambridge UP, 1990.
121-141.
---. Machiavelli on Virt and the Maintenance of Liberty in Renaissance Virtues, vol. 2 of Visions
of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 160.185.
---. Republican virtues in an age of princes in Renaissance Virtues, vol. 2 of Visions of Politics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 160.185.
---. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1978.
Strauss, Leo. Thoughts on Machiavelli. Seattle, Wash.: U of Washington, 1958.
Sullivan, Vickie B. "Machiavelli's Momentary "Machiavellian Moment": A Reconsideration of
Pocock's Treatment of the Discourses." Political Theory 20.2 (1992): 309-18.

20

Taylor, C. C. W. "Politics." The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle. Ed. Jonathan Barnes. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1995. 233-258.
Viroli, Maurizio. "Machiavelli and the Republican Idea of Politics." Machiavelli and Republicanism.
Ed. Gisela Bock. Cambridge [England: Cambridge UP, 1990. 143-171.

21