Machiavelli: Discourses A
Machiavelli begins his work with an introduction, acknowledging the achievements of the ancient world and noting the reverence in which ancient art and law is held, but deploring the failure to learn the lessons that are taught by ancient history. Thus, we know from the beginning that he is not really writing history but political theory. In I.2, he shows that his objective is to find a stable constitutional arrangement, as the Spartans and Romans did. If a state has been improperly framed at the beginning, it probably cannot correct itself. He brings up the classical analysis, namely, three types of government, in good and bad forms: Monarchy/Tyranny, Aristocracy/Oligarchy, Democracy/Ochlocracy. None of them is really satisfactory, the bad types because they are bad and the good because they do not endure. The one form that does endure is the mixed system advocated by Aristotle, which incorporates the best features of all three good types.
(I.3-4) Rome passed from monarchy to aristocracy, but the arrogance of the nobles required the introduction of a democratic element, in the form of the tribuni plebis. The people cannot come up with the truth in any matter by itself but it requires guidance from honorable men they can trust. Machiavelli's first true Machiavellian insight is his praise of the class conflicts in early Rome, because it is only through such dissensions that they found the path to a stable social order. He will later apply the same insight to the actual wars, which trained Romans to be good fighters and prepared them for the trials to come. Peaceful people (to take an example he does not know about, the Minoans on Crete) will always fall prey to a more warlike invader (e.g. the Greeks).
(I.5) Which class, noble or common, should be entrusted with the job of preserving liberty. A case can be me made for either—Sparta and Venice being good arguments for the wisdom and stability of the nobles—but the commons are less likely to seek to maintain permanent power. Another way of looking at this is the Jeffersonian realization that common people seek to be left alone to manage their affairs, while elites are always looking for a pretext—poverty, war, social disorder—to increase their authority over our lives, thus even in an aristocratic state, one expects the commons, in defending its interests, to retard the growth of centralized power.
(I.6) M. takes up again the case of class conflict and concludes that aristocracies that repress such conflicts can be quite successful, but that Rome only became as powerful as she did because its citizens were truculent and warlike.
Machiavelli's interest in the conflict in republican Rome is partly a reflection of his own concern with Florence. Medieval and Renaissance Tuscany was rife with dissensions. To name only the biggest, there was the conflict between the nobility (of largely Germanic origin) and the Italian bourgeoisie, between the rich (Grandi) and the less prosperous merchants, and between the guildsmen--merchants, bankers, craftsmen--and the poor workers excluded from guilds, between supporters of the Empire (ghibellines) and of the papacy (Guelfs), but the latter party was divided into Blacks and Whites over family feuding. In fact, the Guelf/Ghibelline feud broke down largely along family lines. But, in addition to these actual feuds and wars, there were traditional conflicts between cities (Arezzo v. Pisa v. Lucca, Pisa v. Florence v. Siena) and within cities. Siena is most famous for the street fights and contests between the contrade (neighborhoods), which inspired Siena's most famous tourist attraction, the Palio delle Contrade.
In all of these conflicts, someone wins and someone loses. At the very least, the nobles gave up or shared power with the Grandi, who took, eventually, the more middling classes into alliance. At Rome, the patricians conceded the plebeians first tribuni and then one consulship and most other magistracies, but of course those were mostly, like the Florentine Grandi, the richest plebeians who ended up dominating the late Republic. Then Rome, in its conflicts with the Latin and then Etruscan cities and then the Samnites and Lucanian, acquired an empire over Italy south of the Po, while Florence absorbed most of Tuscany apart from Lucca. Machiavelli does not say that expansion is either good or bad, but he certainly believes it is better to conquer than be conquered. That is simply the way things are.
There are, however, two differences between Florentine and Roman expansion. In the first place, Rome's rivals (except for the Etruscans) were not so big and advanced that they could not eventually understand they were better off within than outside the Roman orbit, and, for the most part, Rome treated her subjects well and allowed them to function as city-states. Florence, by contrast, was confronted by large and expanding city-states with a brilliant culture, and Florentine rule usually meant stagnation to her subjects.
(I.7) Drawing as much on Florentine as Roman examples, Machiavelli argues that stability requires orderly mechanisms by which the great and powerful may be impeached or tried for their offenses. Otherwise, covert factions develop and mob violence is resorted to. This is certainly true, and it ties in with his argument that the commons are to be trusted with the preservation of liberty. On the other hand, (8) calumny should not be permitted to be used as a tool of faction building. (WHat would he say of the modern press?)
NM uses these early chapters of Livy, covering the largely mythical history of the founding of Rome, the monarchy, and the early republic, to discourse in general terms about the state. His brief account of Agis of Sparta and CLeomenes attempt to restore the “Lycurgan” constitution is wonderfully balanced–a good idea but impossible without violence (killing the ephors) and impractical because of the world situation (the Macedonians). Note that he does not disapprove of a little tyranny in a good cause, restoration of the republic. How practical this is, I do not know. In general, probably not wise.
(I.11) NM takes up a theme dear to Livy and Polybius, that it was the religion of the Roman people that made them strong, a point obviously absorbed by some of the deists (e.g. Washington) who founded the American republic(s). ”And as the observance of the ordinances of religion is the cause of the greatness of a State, so their neglect is the occasion of its decline; since a kingdom without the fear oft God must either fall to pieces, or must be maintained by the fear of some prince who supplies that influence not supplied by religion. But since the lives of princes are short, the life of this prince, also, and with it his influence, must soon come to an end ; whence it happens that a kingdom which rests wholly on the qualities of its prince, lasts for a brief time only; because these qualities, terminating with his life, are rarely renewed in his successor. For as Dante wisely says :—
” Seldom through the boughs
Doth human worth renew itself; for such
The will of Him who gives it, that to Him
We may ascribe it.” *
It follows, therefore, that the safety of a commonwealth or kingdom lies, not in its having a ruler who governs it prudently while he lives, but in having one who so orders things, that when he dies, the State may still maintain itself. And though it be easier to impose new institutions or a new faith on rude and simple men, it is not therefore impossible to persuade their adoption by men who are civilized, and who do not think themselves rude. The people of Florence do not esteem themselves rude or ignorant, and yet were persuaded by the Friar i Girolamo Savonarola that he spoke with God. Whether in this he said truth or no, I take not on me to pronounce,/ since of so great a man we must speak with reverence ; but this I do say, that very many believed him without having witnessed anything extraordinary to warrant their belief; his life, his doctrines, the matter whereof he treated, being sufficient to enlist their faith.”
This is a grim thought for the American people who long ago jettisoned their fear of God and religion. Most think Christianity is a nice idea, but are convinced that churches should not frighten people, much less exercise real influence on society.
Machiavelli is far from arguing for a strengthening of the Church's authority, since a decadent papacy has not only corrupted the Church but infected all Italy with its poisons. This rhetoric, rooted all too much in the reality of the Renaissance papacy, hearkens back to Ghibelline arguments made in Florence before even Dante's time. The worst part of this, according to NM, is the fact that the Church is not strong enough to take power to unify the country.
To be continued in this place
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Fleming,
I read Roman history from the time of the Tarquins to the fall of the Empire as one long devolution of power; do you see the same devolution at work in today's West, only in time-compressed form, i.e., one hundred years instead of one thousand? Why should this be so? Would it be because of the Leftist/Democratic ascendancy from 1900 on, or do you think there are different reasons?
"If a state has been improperly framed at the beginning, it probably cannot correct itself"
Is the same kind of wisdom that Burke wrote down when he said that
"A state without the means of change is without the means of it's preservation"?
So a constitution is stable because it is the product of conflict and tradition: it with stood the hands of time?
Greetings from the Netherlands
I don't think you mean devolution but concentration of power. We know rather little of Roman history from the Tarquins to the Gallic sack of Rome, and even afterwards we know precious little. It could not have had much concentrated power, because the Roman commonwealth would have had very few institutions to control the people.
To answer Sempronius' question on the earlier post, foreign interventions and internal dissensions, though not unrelated, are quite separate issues. Italy had been suffering from invasions since the 5th century without experiencing dissensions, and Medieval Tuscany was filled with every kind of dissension, with our without the threat of invasion. Certainly, there were occasions on which Germans invaded Italy because of wars going on, but they also invaded on the slightest pretext. So neither chicken nor egg.
"Italy had been suffering from invasions since the 5th century without experiencing dissensions, and Medieval Tuscany was filled with every kind of dissension."
Doesn't Machiavelli explore the possible causes of these internal dissensions (or the lack thereof) in terms of how they are ruled? Is it the form of their governments, the inadequacy of their rulers, or the fruit of their different religions and cultures?
At the end of 1.6, is Machiavelli saying that a good republic will necessarily tend towards empire? He seems to say that any republic, even a strong one, that is not fit for expansion will be destroyed when the opportunity for expansion comes. Maybe calling it a necessity is too strong, but, historically speaking, it seems very likely.
"Therefore, not being able, as I believe, to balance matters or to maintain exactly this middle way, it is necessary in the organization of a republic to consider the most honorable choice and to organize it in such a way that should necessity impel it to expand, it may do so and conserve its acquisitions."
First, welcome to the US from our Nederlandisch friend. I know Burke is much studied by Dutch conservatives. I once had lunch with the leader of an organization named after Burke. And yes, both tradition and conflict are the hallmarks of a republican society. Without some measure of conflict and competition, societies die.
Second, an addition to the original post:
Machiavelli's interest in the conflict in republican Rome is partly a reflection of his own concern with Florence. Medieval and Renaissance Tuscany was rife with dissensions. To name only the biggest, there was the conflict between the nobility (of largely Germanic origin) and the Italian bourgeoisie, between the rich (Grandi) and the less prosperous merchants, and between the guildsmen--merchants, bankers, craftsmen--and the poor workers excluded from guilds, between supporters of the Empire (ghibellines) and of the papacy (Guelfs), but the latter party was divided into Blacks and Whites over family feuding. In fact, the Guelf/Ghibelline feud broke down largely along family lines. But, in addition to these actual feuds and wars, there were traditional conflicts between cities (Arezzo v. Pisa v. Lucca, Pisa v. Florence v. Siena) and within cities. Siena is most famous for the street fights and contests between the contrade (neighborhoods), which inspired Siena's most famous tourist attraction, the Palio delle Contrade.
In all of these conflicts, someone wins and someone loses. At the very least, the nobles gave up or shared power with the Grandi, who took, eventually, the more middling classes into alliance. At Rome, the patricians conceded the plebeians first tribuni and then one consulship and most other magistracies, but of course those were mostly, like the Florentine Grandi, the richest plebeians who ended up dominating the late Republic. Then Rome, in its conflicts with the Latin and then Etruscan cities and then the Samnites and Lucanian, acquired an empire over Italy south of the Po, while Florence absorbed most of Tuscany apart from Lucca. Machiavelli does not say that expansion is either good or bad, but he certainly believes it is better to conquer than be conquered. That is simply the way things are.
There are, however, two differences between Florentine and Roman expansion. In the first place, Rome's rivals (except for the Etruscans) were not so big and advanced that they could not eventually understand they were better off within than outside the Roman orbit, and, for the most part, Rome treated her subjects well and allowed them to function as city-states. Florence, by contrast, was confronted by large and expanding city-states with a brilliant culture, and Florentine rule usually meant stagnation to her subjects.
Machiavelli also says that the people (as opposed to the nobility) generally desire to be left alone while the rulers usually pursue more power or at least the maintenance of their own power. He continually sees the relationship between the commoners and the nobles as one wrought with conflict and strife.
What do we then make of the symbiotic relationship that can arise between rulers and the people they rule? Currently, the United States and many other Western countries have a people that are directly dependent on the state for their sustenance. In other words, these people generally do not want to be left alone. They actively encourage their governments to advance further into the lives of the common man. Is Machiavelli's generalization wrong or is he only speaking of the Roman character? Or is a third option more likely?
M. was speaking of a free people trying to defend their liberty. We read about such Americans in books, but for the most part they were extinct before I was born.
I think we can understand Machiavelli's point about the plebs by focusing on his concern for Italian sovereignty (liberty) in the face of "barbarian" invasion and oppression.Sloppily,it goes something like this;in order to be free (sovereign) you need a strong army,in order to have a strong army you need to raise many native soldiers,if you put arms in the hands of the multitude you have to surrender at least a little power to them in recompense,if you surrender some power to them then you must be willing to put up with their tumultuousness.Thats it in a nutshell.
Also,tumults are evidence that the plebs seek redress of their grievances within the Res Publica,as opposed to seeking it by throwing its support behind some foreign power.(A common Italian vice).So long as the plebs refrain from doing that,raising hell in the Forum is music to NM's ears.
The invitation to read Machiavelli came just as I was finishing up Pascal's Pensees, and it has been a memorable segue. Rafting in the confluence of two great rivers comes to mind. I can feel their waters mingling under my little craft, but I think I'll have to let the passage of time clarify just where they join and where they remain discrete. Under the heading of "Sayings Attributed To Pascal", however, there is this: "He was often heard to say (in connexion with the education of a prince) that there was nothing to which he would sooner contribute if invited, and he would willingly give up his life for something so important."
One hundred pages into The Discourses and I can say at least that I much prefer a councilor who can come right out and say "If then one desires to remedy these difficulties and to cure the disorders which the aforesaid difficulties bring about, there is no way more efficient, more sure, more safe or more necessary, than to kill the sons of Brutus..." to the Bundys, Kissinger, Brzezinsky, Morris, Rove, et al, and their maunderings. Sort of puts the concept of tough love in perspective. Did Boss Daley read Signor M.?
Speaking of those who might have read Machiavelli, I wonder if Truman and MacArther, during their clash over how to fight the Korean War, thought of themselves as being in a Machiavellian situation. Certainly, MacArthur was incapable of ..."abstaining from any act savouring of arrogance or ambition, so that his prince may have no ground for suspicion ... ." And so, he was ordered to "place himself in the hands of his prince".
Regarding Machiavelli's observation that public tumult can lead to reform and thus to stability, there also seems to be an opposite principle: once the state reaches such stability, then as long as the laws are reasonably just and the people are not being meddled with too much by those in power, there will be very little tumult, though of course exceptions may arise; but when there is little or no tumult for a long time because the people have no cause to rise up, that can lead to the people losing their vigilance, thus enabling conspiracies to be formed within the state to oppress the people, and at the same time making it more difficult for those concerned with the matter to get the people to do anything due to public apathy or lack of credulity. Thus, dangerous or even ruinous instability or tyranny is created.
Perhaps too much stability is not always so good.
Could one say that, with regards to the expansionist nature of human-rights-ideology, ideas are to the modern (western) state what armies were to the classical ones? Of course words and threats will eventually have to be backed up by raw power and violence, but it seems that "pressure form the international (or European) community" to change the form or size of a state is likely to be more effective than invasion and conquest. Especially with regards to states who swear to protect the "fundamental rights of humantiy".
And how can we trust either the commons or the political class with our liberty if both are defenders of the modern state?
Prof. Fleming,
Part of I.4 --"And should any object that the behavior of the Romans was extravagant and outrageous; that for the assembled people to be heard shouting against the senate, the senate against the people; for the whole commons to be seen rushing wildly through the streets, closing their shops, and quitting the town, were things which might well affright him even who only reads of them...."-- reminded me of the current town hall events, of which you wrote:
"The rudeness of the protestors is appalling. Yes, I know I know, the Left does it all the time. Leftists also do drugs and murder their babies. If this is the freedom of speech protected in the First Amendment, then damn Jemmy Madison and the Congress that passed the Bill of Rights. Just in case you were not already revolted by democracy American-style—the tyranny of demagogues based on consent of the stupid—we have the spectacle of these Town Hall meetings. What is there to get excited about? Yes, they are spending the country into the poorhouse, and yes we shall undoubtedly have an even worse system of medical care."
Surely started as a scam for incumbents to pretend to more concern for their constituents than they actually have and so improve their re-election chances, I am starting to think this town-hall habit has opened up a real way for the common American to guard, if not their long lost republic, at least some part of freedom. Would Machiavelli agree? If the town-hall rudeness derails this socializing of 1/7 (or is it 1/10th) of the economy, wouldn't it be worth it? And if that takes effect, and in that way these town hall become a sort of institutionalized habit --e.g. in the future candidates might rail each other with something like, "my opponent refuses to even appear before his constituents to defend his record in a town-hall!"-- then wouldn't M look on it as a good thing?
I'm catching up on the reading but that passage seemed remarkable given current events.
Yes, to Rene, that neither the elite nor the people is worthy of trust. As to the Town Hall meetings, what are they crying about? Money, money, money. That is all the they care about. Try to raise any issue, here, for example, the pathetic state of the schools, and the cry goes up, "I'm living on a fixed income and my property taxes are too high, as it is." Ordinary people are right to be concerned, even angry over higher taxes and socialized medicine, but does anyone imagine that in incessantly and moronically comparing Obama with Hitler, "conservative" demagogues are doing anything but further lower the standards of public discourse. Clark Stooksbury made a good point about this in praising Barney Frank for shutting up a ridiculous woman. Frank himself deserves to be in jail, rather than in the Congress (though that could be said of most of his colleagues), and his attack went beyond the limits of courtesy and discretion, but someone has to shut the yahoos up. Senator Feingold, by the way, and his northern Wisconsin constituents have shown how a civil and productive conversation can be carried on: http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=10027.
As to NM's observation, it is good to recall that 1) He is taking his information from Livy who, in this early period, had little or no certain knowledge of what went on, and 2) that the plebeians were not struggling for tax relief or hoping to preserve benefits graciously granted by government. The issues were serious. In the early republic, only patricians could be magistrates; elections were controlled by the powerful families; for some of this time, plebeians and patricians could not intermarry--a violation of one of the most fundamental privileges of citizenships--and yet it was the plebeians who manned the armies that were officered by the patricians. I do not, by the way, say the Plebs was entirely in the right. When they did become consuls and lead armies, they proved themselves, in the early days, manifestly incompetent.
Naturally, NM is talking about Florence and Tuscany, really, and harping on his theme that civil strife keeps the population fit, jealous of its privileges and willing to defend it. The Florentines were a real people, however. What Americans are, I leave it to others to decide, but when I see my fellow countrymen in public and observe the way they dress, eat, talk, I have trouble fitting them into any known category of humanity except the most degraded proletariat. Encouraging these spoiled and selfish people to make public displays of themselves is one of the worst things that can be done. Do you really want people who listen to Glen Beck and Sean Hannity to vote on important matters? Fortunately, the gangsters who hold real power in the US only rarely have to pretend to listen to the hooligans they have have spent their careers degrading. It is an endlessly downward spiral, as the elite becomes more powerful and corrupt and the masses--including the middle masses--become more degenerate. It is a good thing the blogosphere exists or once in a while the dummies might wake up to realize the hopeless position they are really in.
More Discourses:
(I.7) Drawing as much on Florentine as Roman examples, Machiavelli argues that stability requires orderly mechanisms by which the great and powerful may be impeached or tried for their offenses. Otherwise, covert factions develop and mob violence is resorted to. This is certainly true, and it ties in with his argument that the commons are to be trusted with the preservation of liberty. On the other hand, (8) calumny should not be permitted to be used as a tool of faction building. (WHat would he say of the modern press?)
NM uses these early chapters of Livy, covering the largely mythical history of the founding of Rome, the monarchy, and the early republic, to discourse in general terms about the state. His brief account of Agis of Sparta and CLeomenes attempt to restore the "Lycurgan" constitution is wonderfully balanced--a good idea but impossible without violence (killing the ephors) and impractical because of the world situation (the Macedonians). Note that he does not disapprove of a little tyranny in a good cause, restoration of the republic. How practical this is, I do not know. In general, probably not wise.
(I.11) NM takes up a theme dear to Livy and Polybius, that it was the religion of the Roman people that made them strong, a point obviously absorbed by some of the deists (e.g. Washington) who founded the American republic(s). "And as the observance of the ordinances of religion is the cause of the greatness of a State, so their neglect is the occasion of its decline; since a kingdom without the fear oft God must either fall to pieces, or must be maintained by the fear of some prince who supplies that influence not supplied by religion. But since the lives of princes are short, the life of this prince, also, and with it his influence, must soon come to an end ; whence it happens that a kingdom which rests wholly on the qualities of its prince, lasts for a brief time only; because these qualities, terminating with his life, are rarely renewed in his successor. For as Dante wisely says :—
" Seldom through the boughs
Doth human worth renew itself; for such
The will of Him who gives it, that to Him
We may ascribe it." *
It follows, therefore, that the safety of a commonwealth or kingdom lies, not in its having a ruler who governs it prudently while he lives, but in having one who so orders things, that when he dies, the State may still maintain itself. And though it be easier to impose new institutions or a new faith on rude and simple men, it is not therefore impossible to persuade their adoption by men who are civilized, and who do not think themselves rude. The people of Florence do not esteem themselves rude or ignorant, and yet were persuaded by the Friar i Girolamo Savonarola that he spoke with God. Whether in this he said truth or no, I take not on me to pronounce,/ since of so great a man we must speak with reverence ; but this I do say, that very many believed him without having witnessed anything extraordinary to warrant their belief; his life, his doctrines, the matter whereof he treated, being sufficient to enlist their faith."
This is a grim thought for the American people who long ago jettisoned their fear of God and religion. Most think Christianity is a nice idea, but are convinced that churches should not frighten people, much less exercise real influecne on society.
One observation I want to make is that M. was a diplomat for many years until he was exiled to his farm outside of Florence. It is there, where having the time and opportunity to reflect upon the vicissitudes of life that he produced these works we are discussing --published only after his death. These are philosophical works in that they are the result of individual reflection upon a lifetime of experience and learning. They are not pathetic hankerings for the best seller's list or a fast read for a buck, upon which to retire. I say this only because it might add to the recognition of the qaulities of age that is so sorely missing in current political journals that will say or do anything to draw a crowd. That is to say, M. should be considered as somewhere between a philosopher and thoughtful journalist but is in no way simply a polical commentator or a "How TO" talking head of today's variety. All these young folks running around in conservative circles today talking about how to win the next election are not Machiavelli types, they are something much less. Hope this was a helpful digression, which is always a little off the topic but still on the theme.
Machiavelli is far from arguing for a strengthening of the Church's authority, since a decadent papacy has not only corrupted the Church but infected all Italy with its poisons. This rhetoric, rooted all too much in the reality of the Renaissance papacy, hearkens back to Ghibelline arguments made in Florence before even Dante's time. The worst part of this, according to NM, is the fact that the Church is not strong enough to take power to unify the country.
What, then, is Machiavelli's ultimate attitude towards the Church. Does he view the Church, rightly or wrongly, as a ruinous political institution yet still remains Catholic?
I cannot tell whether he values religion from a purely practical perspective, meaning that because it provides order and stability to a people it is therefore to be encouraged, or whether he is more sincere in his praise of religion. Put bluntly, does he really believe his religion or does he merely want it to be used in the service of the political organization? While religion, both pagan and Christian to a greater and lesser extent, may serve to strengthen the stability of a political association, it does not seem particularly Christian to view this as the highest end of religion.
Also, is his call for unity anything other than that? Did 19th century nationalists (Mazzini, etc.) find inspiration in his desire for Italian unification? Does he wish for the destruction of the Church or some usurpation of its earthly political authority?
Thank you.
Concerning Chapter 11:
This part of the book is the first which can be applied directly to America without having to include the qualification that Machiavelli is talking about normal people, not moderns. In every chapter before this, it seemed as if he were writing about people from an alien world. It almost seems as if the best way to apply what he says to modern America is first to see how it does not apply to our bizarre anti-human anti-state.
It's as if I am on one planet, reading about how things and people are on his planet, and it is I, not he, who is the alien, because it is my world, not his, that is strange and weird, and senseless.
#18 "Does he view the Church, rightly or wrongly, as a ruinous political institution yet still remains Catholic?"
Edward ,
Your questions are excellent and I cannot respond to all of them or any of them as well as others will but for what it is worth, I offer the following comment.
My own take on his view of the Church is that it can be used as a political tool for good or ill -- mostly ill in his day. It represents an essential truth to man about himself, but also the decadence and imperfection of man on earth. We are not angels and should not aspire or expect angelic behavior in the realm of politics -- for those who want to be perfect let them follow the evangelical counsels, sell everything they own, give up everything for Christ and follow Him in spirit and in truth. For those who become sad at the thoughts of such an adventure, let them see the acts of men in action as they actually are performed. It seems to me whether you love, respect or despise Machiavelli, at least he understands he is writing in the light (or shadow) of something more lasting and permanent than the press and passing current of his own political climate.
Edward,
I might add that we can readily see the same influences today of politicians and talking heads using the church. The rank, dead smell of liberals such as Catholics for a Free Choice, Tedd Kennedy, Vice President Biden, or "conservatives" such as George Wiegel or James Hitchcock, etc. all republican water bearers, hankering after the Catholic vote with empty, "conservative" promises,duplicity,equivocations and all liberal results. To paraphrase Mr. Derbyshire, "The Church( he said Paleos) is as irrelevant to politics today as it could possibly be." This is because politics is only a serious business when what "ought to be done" is a serious local issue. In a decadent age such as our own, it is the highest of compliments to be totally irrelevant to such times, because questions about what is good or true are not relevant to the current conversations of what can be accomplished.
Some Popes of Machiavelli's lifetime: Innocent VIII, Alexander VI, Julius II, Leo X, Clement VII--5 of the worst and most corrupt popes who brought scandal and infamy to the Church. Leo and Clement were members of the Medici family who plotted the ruin of their own city. No one could foresee, then, that the Church would soon enter one of Her periodic revivals, at least no one who did not trust to the Holy Ghost.
But, whether or not the Church is corrupt, there is reasonable debate among good Catholics on what the Church's secular authority ought to be. In my brief introduction to Florentine history, I pointed out that the war, cold and hot, between Church and Empire harmed both contestants, and the pretensions of Boniface VIII shocked some of the most sincere and faithful Catholics in Europe. Although the Guelfs liked to pretend that the Ghibellines were atheists and pagans, that was merely propaganda--the Guelfs certainly did not act according to Christian principles any more than their enemies. I do not know of a Guelf Farinata, who prevented the destruction of his city after the victory at Montaperti. We cannot know what Machiavelli thought of the Church qua Church. What we do know is that he claimed to be a good Catholic and bitterly criticized the scandalous behavior of bad Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests.
"What we do know is that he claimed to be a good Catholic..."
When did he ever do that?
Show me where he did not. In Catholic Italy, even atheists and pagans claimed to be good Catholics. The exception was Giordano Bruno and even he recanted before he went back to his nonsense and got burned for it. He was highly critical of the Church and expressed doubts about Christianity itself, anticipating Nietzsche's argument that it weakened the character of Europe. He also engaged in the dubious game of all reformers, that of praising the pristine early Church with which the Church of his own day was unfavorably compared. He is said to have received the last rites of the Church. Whether he was an actual believer or not, I have not the slightest idea. He went through life as though he were a Catholic critic of the Church, as so many others had been before him. I no of no place where he professes atheism, repudiates Christianity per se or the Church per se. But this is a time-wasting distraction.
Discorsi I.12
"The Church then,has neither been able to occupy the whole of Italy,nor has it allowed anyone else to occupy it.Consequently,it has been the cause why Italy has never come under one head,but has been under many princes and signori,by whom such disunion and such weakness has been brought about,that it has now become the prey,not only of barbarian potentates,but of anyone who attacks it.For which our Italians have to thank the Church,and nobody else>"
NM is anti-clerical,unlike the stupid "reformers," not because of any "moral" concerns, but for patriotic reasons.NM was no prude.
Sempronius has obviously not read my discussion in which I quoted the above and seems bent on deflecting the discussion from an objective attempt to grapple with Machiavelli's work in his own time. With so little time at my disposal--I am breaking off a study of Roman kinship to post this--I am postponing this discussion to some future time.
So far, Machiavelli strikes me as one who wishes for internal peace in Italy and effective defence against external threats, all based on a responsible form of government. He is critical of the Papacy for it's corruption, and knows that it cant unify Italy. The emperor also cant do it, but I wonder if Machiavelli would have supported complete absorption of Italy into the empire if it would have accomplished what he wanted.
If Italy had begun centralisation around the period of his lifetime, so that it could have been united gradually, and perhaps a century or two before it actually was, perhaps the Italians could have avoided many of the excesses of the silly nationalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Probably not, since no one else avoided it
I'll post a few observations, not an essay certainly, on Machiavell's discussion of how easy it is to lose liberty and how difficult to regain it.
Allen Wilson raises some pertinent questions. However, it is important to note that at no time did the Empire have much of a centralized authority, and when it did, from time to time under a particularly vigorous ruler like Barbarossa, it was largely in response to rebellions, the suppression of which led temporarily to a stronger authority. Thus Italian states within the Empire--never really a possibility, considering the logistics--would probably have been more autonomous than Virginia in 1800. Italy was not even a rudimentary nation, either in the 16th or the 19th century, so different were the languages and cultures before mass culture and mass democracy began destroying everything--a process less complete in Italy than in most parts of Europe and North America.