CONTENTS Prefice, ix Note on Sousces, xii 1 Civic Humanism and Power Politics, 3 The Republic That Is, 6r v A Day and a Night in the Life of « Citizen, 99 v Conversations with the Ancients, 130 vi Conversations with the Moderns, 168 vir Interpreting Machiavelli, 229 Notes, 259) Index, 291PREFACE My PURPOSE in writing this book is to reopen the question of Machiavelli’s relacionship ro neoclassical, humanist, republican thought—the tradition sometimes called “civic humanism,” which began wih che Greek and Roman clasics, was rebora during the Renaissance, and lived on to the end of the eighteenth century, ‘up co and including the French Revolution, an event owing much of its revolutionary ideology to the classical reminiscences of modern authors. Many other scholars have wricten—and with distinction —on the topic of Machiavelli che republican auchor and devotee of the tudia bumaniatis." Ie is not theit scholarship that I wish ¢o ‘question, but rather what seems to me their misplaced deter- ‘mination co prevene Machiavelli's though from being the scandal he intended ic co be. Our a ‘embattled humanism for humanists to be willing to recognize Machiavelli for whae he o35, the first snd one of the greatest subversives of the humanise tradition. We understandably but mistakenly prefer co believe that Machiavelli was a humanist misunderstood, or that his immersion in the humanist tradition proves we have nothing to fear from him, ot better yet, chat he ‘was, in anticipation of ourselves, a humanist grappling with the problem of “dirty hands,” the dilemma of the necessity of doing evil for the sake of the good, Bur in truth, a5 I hope to prove, # Machiavelli so much to our liking is not Machiavelli stall. The real Machiavelli deliberstely , it seems, is too much one of + A Reaisace “humaoist” was educated i the humane studies, the bua fues—dhe sey of grammar, tte, history, and ees. The concept oft adi beets Clesonie in oii.inverted the master symbols of Latin ltr, and ech of bis inversion wat an ineoioal subversion ofthe humanist eed by earning the Sroiismof ier upside down, Machel ced thes banana ive bith to Maciavelis—a ach ‘ellam born sor of neces," bu ofa yearning fo che grande conquest, matched by an impatience with—tnd dadin fr tay burmndiesympechies sanding ln the way ofthe glory of tepublen empite By force and by fond ee Roman fepublic of Machines imagination ad detoued the ancien worl, and Machinvels move hele eam was that Floece eight one thy do the same forthe moder word. The disconcerting Bal lance of Machiavelis subversion of hmanisn wl be the sbjee of es inven My procedure ia iterpeting Maciel wil be co rnd the cer urealy anv place them in conext—conent inthis cae being understood a meaning, above al he ci republican troltion tat made Maciel’ thought posible and that he trade scaring vhs own audscions speieatios,The 19 of Machiawel’sreluioship to “civic humaniam i complex es bi though ll fat bene his casa leaning was Thoroughly Lara hei prevented him fom questioning the Toman riche, even when they diluted or fled ro appreciate mach of wha was ousanding fo Thuydies, Pato, and Ai tole, AC ote times he eflectvly and povecaively called a tenon to what fad always been potently “Machavlian” in the casi and peoelaul ees of the ancient Roman atid tmeden Plreeie haraniss, amy he theme ofthe grandee aol gay of impel epeeston. Final end not seas, Machiavelli often creively impostor of is own taking pon the “mace” of Lain Uteue. Aran alternative (0 che scr! puritans of Roman thought, Machiavell feted «vine dicion of amorous and seductive activites tat ae recogeand by thle prpeors gues, ta mere divesone—es atv longing to the order of ot tne (mp ching). — a Inthe order of se grand (great things), Machiavelli's inno- ‘ations within she tradition of Roman thought were nothing less than shocking ey put, he too ce Roman republicans, whom Cicero had porfayed as pre-Seaics, and tuned chem into sel conscious power politicians, raking by force and by fraud, by che methods ofthe lion and the fox, what Cicero ad ancient peoples freely giving to che Romans because they were the embodiment of justice, dedicated to che fir and humanitarian treatment of roankind. "Ie as Cicero who invented the imagery ofthe lion and the Pox, the beter to congretlare Rome on having disdained theic use i was Machiavelli who mainesined that che Hon and the fox were evident ehroughou the history of republican Rome, chat che bestia in che Romans was what nade thern great and thar any modern republic wishing 10 re-creste ancient grandeur had beter overcome its dena ofthe animal inside the man. Not antl Nieesche, pechaps, do we agiin encounter so deliberate and formidable an stermp to use the stadia humariais for the Purpose of invercing its humanitarianism * | wisi to thank Frank E. Manuel for his comments on the ist chapter of this study; George A. Kelly, formerly my colleegue bbue never an ex-colleague, for his remarks on the fourth chapter; James T. Kloppenberg for reading and commenting on the en- tirety of this book; Jobn H. Geerken for sharing with me his ‘admirable combination of expertise and vision; and Judith N. Shklar for continuing co be may mose formidable critic, OF the ‘many distinguished contemporary scholars who have studied Machiavelli, itis Felix Gilbert whose writings I have found pa ticularly indispensable, Macerial quoted ftom The Literary Works of Machiavelli, trans- luted by J. R. Hale, is used by permission of Oxford University PressNOTE ON SOURCES Nores To Machiavelli refer co Nizold Machiavelli: Tate le opee, ed. Mario Marcelli (Florence, 1971). I have normally used Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, ed. and trans. Allan H. Gilbert, 3 vols. (Durham, N.C., 1965) when quoting from Mach= iavelli in English translation. Whenever [ offered translations of my own, the notes call this to the reader’s atention 1 do no: believe this work requires a formal bibliography. My acguments with che interpretive literature in the frst and last chapters, together with the notes, provide—I thinks satisfac- tory enumeration of the interpretive works most relevant eo the present study. Here, I wish only cocall attention ro several surveys of the scholarly lierarure: Erie Cochrane, “Machiavelli: 1940- 1960," The Journal of Modan History, 33 (4961), 113-136; Rich- ard C. Clark, “Machiavelli: Bibliographical Spectrum,” Review of National Liteateres, x (1970), 95-135; Matio Marelli, Nicolo Maciel: Tate Bes, 1971, Now igi Ini-lxiv; and John H. Geetken, “Machiavelli Studies Since 1965," Juma of the Hiner flea, 37 (2970), 331-368CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS OVER THE LAST several decades scholarly attemprs to save Machiavelli's name from its popular conaotations of immorality fraud, and deceit have been untiring in energy and crusading in tone, "The central contentions ofthis study are that the scholarly image of Machiavelli is no less miscaken than the popular image, and that while from his popular reputation he might at least derive wey satisfaction, his shade would sharply rebuff the ab- solution ministered by the scholars. Learned friends and unlearned foes alike bear responsibility for the much-nored sardonic smile of his porteai, but his friends more so than his foes. ‘What has happened to Machiavelli in the interpretive licerature of contemporary scholarship is strikingly similar to the faces for= smecly endured by Rousseau and Nietzsche. To defend Rousseau from the charges of primitivism and iracionalism, his interpreters began to write as if he never wrote che First Discos, never attacked European culture root and branch, never uttered any- thing nie readily assimilated by the “grest tradition” of Wescern thought. The same is erue of Nietasche. To fend off charges of proto-fiscism, « Nietzsche was manufactured who attacked Chris tianity but somehow lefe intact what to him were its nauseating successors; the Enlightenment, liberalism, socialism, and the hu rmanitarianism common to all chree. In the very process of re demption, Nietesche and Rousseau were lost, shocn of all that made chem great and dungerous. If Machiavelli has suffered from8 similar process of well-intended revisionism, the most funda- mental discoveries concetning his meaning and significance may have yee to be made. ‘At the center of contemporary discussion among students of ‘Machiavelli stands the notion of republican political ehoughe. Puzzlement over the relationship of The Prine to the Dixours, long regarded as possibly the most vexing problem of Machiavelli interpretation," has been resolved by the suggestion that the ‘monarchical and “Machiavellian” means of The Prine have as their ‘mission the achievement of the republican ends of the Discourse, In no uncertain terms the Machiavelli of the Dixourer warns the prince thac co wield power for personal ends is to consign his foyal self co che torment of immortal shame in the works of historians, whereas co build or restore a republican order that will live on after him is to assure his name immortal glory: infamy awaits the prince who uses bad for the sake of the bad, fame awaits the prince who uses bad forthe sake of che good.» Further evidence for this interpretation may be found in the Diiceare Remodiling the Goverament of Florence, an essay addressed t0 the Medici and outlining, a scheme whereby they could restore the republic, secure the position of thet family and friends as prom inne citizens, and attain everlasting glory for oversceing the withering away of the prince.» With Machiavelli as with other thinkers who have provoked ‘centuries of controversy, the leading interpretation of today is usually not without ics precursors of yesterday, That the Eliza- bethan image of a satanic Machiavelli¢ has fnally been laid As the increasingly recognized and applauded hero (CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS 3 of the cepublican tradition, Machiavelli’ visage has progressively lose its shadowy hue uncil, ac last, @ Machiavelli has emerged who is so respectable chat the distinguished historian Garrett Mactingly could bluntly assere “Machiavelli .. . was not ‘Machiavelliaa.”* ‘One theme in Harrington's understanding of Machiavelli the republican is consistently overlooked in contemporary scholar- ship, the theme of empire. When Hatrington declared, “the first of these (Enropean} nations that recovers ehe health of ancient prudence shall assuredly govern the world,"” he was not playing the renegade of republican thoughe; far from it, he was metely repeating Machiavell’ insistence chat republics and conquest go hand in hand. Obviously, then, ic is not enough to bridge the sap berween The Prince and the Discount o to point t0 Mach- iavell’s republican progeny in order to make a ease for an un ‘Machiavellian Machiavelli At this poine the standard intespre- tation of Machiavelli ends when it is precisely at this point that it should begin. Why did Machiavelli favor republics over mon- archies? Ifthe answer may be phased in terms of liberty, it may ‘equally well be phrased in terms of power, for his constant prin= ciple is that the grates criamphs of power politics are the mo- nopoly of free, republican communities, The standard scholarly interpretation of Machiavelli is cherefore revisionist; it deletes all ‘hat is most striking and shocking in his though; tis Machiavelli cexpurgated. (OF all republics past and present to choose from, i€ was the ‘world-cooquering Roman republic thar acrested Machiavelli's a= tention. The ancient model he admired and hoped to reproduce jg modern times was none other than that singularly expansion- ary, singularly successful Roman republic whote way of life had been che fulilment of virtw,* an ethic of glory, grandeur, and The Lacia word nas it ip many respect interchangeable with the Greek srt ae the Tein rr. Al thee won ce choroughly page i thei come hoations of manips, alt, and excellence. Vin alone ats adoheroism. While the individual excellence of the prince may be admirable, the greatest feats of heroism are collective and popular Jn nacure. In its democratic form, vrius taps the potential great- ‘ness of the common man, his willingness co fight and die for his ‘councey, and can claim as its due meed of glory the conquest of all other republics. Machiavelli, chen, is admittedly not the prophet ‘of a life “beyond good and evil" —he is not an amoralist; rather, hhe is one possible fulfilment of pagen moraity—bue none the less frightening for chat By no means is imperialism an obscure or occasional topic in Machiavell’s writings. On the contrary, it is a central theme running chroughout all his works, from beginning co end. The Discos deal with the successful empire-building of the Romans, the Litore Fiorentine with che filed empire-building of che Flor- centines; the “new prince” of I Principe is frequently an old prince in 2 foreign land, Louis XII of France, whose blundering efforts to annex # chunk of Italy are criticized and superior methods suggested. Alternatively, the methods employed by Cesare Borgia, to carve out an Italian empire are praised in I! Principe as models ‘worthy of imitation.® Not even in his poetry can Machiavelli forget the question of empire: L'Arity, I Decenali, Dell Ambiione, and Di Fortuna all bear directly on war and conquest. Ie is not for want of persistence on Machiavelli's part chat scholars have missed the significance of imperialism in his choughe. Nor is the problem a dearth of quality in che secondary lic- cerature. Many of the finese minds among contemporary scholars have made conteibutions to out appreciation of Machiaveli, so ch so chat bibliographies of Machiavelli studies read like a ‘who's who of contemporary philosophers, political theorists, and intellectual historians, And their findings to date have frequently been remarkable: excellent studies of Machiavelh's vocabulary? of ies rooes in the vocabulary ofthe governing citcles of his day," sssciatons of Chan viru, on ‘Mies whether he used hi te i , scent question of Machel page or ts Chistian signification, (CIVIC HUMANIEM SUD POWER POLITICS 7 of his biography," and of the use and abuse of his name ehrough the centuries” have been placed at our disposal. How, then, are wwe co explain the whys, the ways, and the means of evisionism? How has his meaning been misconstrued even as the secondary licerature has made great strides forward in every other endeavor? In the case ofthe philosophers and political theorists an answer is not difficule ro come by. Benedetto Croce"? forthe liberals and Mautice Merlesu-Poney'* for the socialists have been eager to prove that the heits of che Ralightenment can face up £0 the harsh realities of power politics. Accordingly theics is a Mach invelli torn, divided, and tortured by the necessity of doing evil for the sake of the good; to them Machiavelli is thar rare maa, strong enough £0 admit that no one can be innocent, that refuge isaveilable to none, not even to chose who withdraw from policies ‘oF ignore it, inaction itself being action. No one can call himself ‘humanist and mean it unless he has dirtied his hands politically, for ends are nothing without means. Humanism entails political action, but politics, instead of being humanistic, answers co ies ‘own logic, follows its own amoral rules, and judges events ac- cording to its own vicious standard of success or failure. ‘Two eyes on the twentieth century are one coo many when ‘writing on a figure of the Renaissance, For all theie insight into the dilemmas of liberals and socialists, Croce and Merleau-Ponty show little or none into Machiavelli. They may suffer from Angst, he did not. For them the truths of power are certible; for him they were exciting. AS a corrective to such misunderstandings stemming from false modernization, Friedrich Meinecke" and Sir Isaiah Berlin, in their different ways, have pointed out that for the Florentine secretary pagan values were one thing, Cristian values another; to the former he gave himself heere end soul, joyfully and withoue misgivings, and hence Machiavelli never had to suspend cherished Christian ethies in order to serve the political order. The arguments of Meinecke and Berlin are incisive and mark8 CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS a clear advance in Machiavelli studies, yet their correctives eg a new round of corrections. Machiavell’s paganism is not the “naive,"*” innocent, rosy-cheeked und un-slf-conscious phenom- ‘enon Meinecke would have us believe i i; nor is it necessary t0 wait, as Berlin implies, for che unfolding of Machiaveli's fame and fortune among the Christian and/or Enlightened thinkers of ppost-Renaissance times before we encounter the protest that his thought is devastating. Machiavelli's sting has not only beea felt by the Christians, philorphs, liberals, and socialist ofa later age who despise the choice he forced between the community and ‘mankind, power and humaniarianism, virtue and goodacss, It ‘was fele within the Renaissance ieself and by spirits kindzed co his. None other than Francesco Guiccirdini, the friend Mach- ive "loved" haedly less than his native city,” accused him of being “always extremely partial co extraoedinary and violent methods.” Hatred of the Catholic church, love ofthe Florentine republic, an unsqueamish political vocabulary of power sad dom- {nation, and an admication of Latin lecers closely unite Mach- Javelli and Guicciardini; yer Machiavelli was sometimes more than his friend could bear. Neither Floreacine diplomat-author was a “Christian humanist” in the fashion of Erasmus, More, and the Northern Renaissance; neither was a humanist who was also 4 Chistian in the feshion of the Italian Renaissence; both were ‘Renuine pagans, but to Guicciardini, it seems, Machiavelli was an exceptionally disturbing writer. Sir Isiah Berlin's contrast of pagan versus Christian is inadequate, failing co discriminate, for example, between the contemplative and militarily defensive se- public of Plato, which left no impression on Machiavelli, and the activistic and marching republic of Livy, which aroused Mach- iavelli to commentary. Why historians have been no more effective chan philosophers and political cheorsts in weeding revisionism out of the literaruce ‘on Machiavelli is not immediately obvious. On the fice of i, all hhas been going well. Studies of the Italian Renaissance have ‘GIVIG HUMANISM ANG POWER IRC = highlighted che birch and growth of republican ideology, so that wwe can now view Machiavelli in che cultural context that nour- ished him. At long tase Burckhard’s coup! scudies with the cours ofryrunts™ has been broken. A humanism thae was republican and civic, as Hans Baron, Eugenio Gatin, and others have shown," competed vigorously with the human- ism that consorred with despots. Around 1400, argues Baron, 2 "civic humanism” emerged when chose intellectuals who studied ancient languages and are forms began to revive ancient political ideals in response to the life and death struggle of the Florentine republic with che cyrant of Milan. Provoked by politcal crisis, classicism became politicized, patriotic, and republican, and ex: erred its new-found fervor chrough reworking the symbols com= ‘mon ro the educated. Under the sponsorship of the civic hu- ‘manists Cicero was restored to his position, los¢ during the Middle ‘Ages, of citizen and advocate of che vita activa;* and Brueus, slayer of Caesar, was rescued from the jaws of Satan, where Dante had placed him, his vacated spot being offered to Caesar, murderer of the republic. At the end of this line of development, more than a century removed fom is inception,” and standing as ies chief beneficiary and culminaving point, is Niecold Machiavelli So far as Machiavelli is concerned, Baton's thesis ects by omnis son; it accounts for intellectual continuity from Leonardo Bruni in the early quattroceato to Machiavelli a cencury later but says nothing about discontinuity—the differences between Mach- iavelli and his forebears, sich on questions of foreign affrs axe specially radical. Juxtaposition of Baron's account of the years t4oo to 1450 wich Machiavell’s rendering of that samme half- ‘century in his Florentine History reveals a great deal. With skill and formidable erudition Baron shows how, i the face of repeated threats from the Visconti, che humanists of Florence united with of humanistic ‘rhe “acrive li” the Ife of plies and public aes, comets wie the contempt ie," the te soaps, During medical times, when the contempluive ideal wa a vogue, Cicer wat misudentond ast Pate MBEoe ee ne ee ee ‘heir counterparts in Venice, each cepublican intelligentsia sound ing the phrases of liberty and carrying this theme from the do: restic to the intestate realm: the “free peoples” of Italy, a kind of brotherhood of republics, became a centerpiece of political shetoric.*> Machiavelli, however, sees the same period in an al- together different lighe, In his account the early quattrocento was «period of poliics-as-usual in which republic confconted republic {ally a oftenas republic confronted monarchy. What little pride hae takes in the conflict with Milan is local pride, reserved for the efforts of Florence.» And when we Snally come upon a passage in which Machiavelli has Floretines exhorting Venetians to take up arms in 2 common republican venture, the Plorentines in question are exiles and very bad citizens. All theie eloquence is disloyal, aimed ac fostering foreign intervention in the politics of their patria.*® ‘The gap between Baron and Machiavelli widens to a chasm as swe move from specifics to general principles of foreign policy, To Baron “tyranny was by its nature a dynamic, expansionist factor in inter-state telations."*” To Machiavelli, on the other hand, ryrannies are stagnant and republics aggrandizing. ‘As soon as a cyranny is established over a free community it no longer goes forward and no longer increases in power or in riches; but in mose instances, in face always, ie _goes backward.** ‘With republics itis just che opposite ‘We see that cities where the people are in control grow enormously in a very short rime, and much more than those thar have always been under a prince, as Rome did after she expelled che kings end Athens did after she freed herself from Pisistratus."* Jn sum, Baron would salvage as much as possible of Sismondi’s simple contrast of liberty with tyranny, while Machiavelli would ‘make Siseondi* impossible, During the very years when Baron hha the republics of aly proclaiming their solidarity, Machiavelli has the Florentines taking advantage of the debilitacion caused by temporary tyranny in Lucca to conquer that republic." When something fundamental is amiss in che secondary li cecature, a return ¢o the fist principles of interpretation is man- darory: the notion of “civic humanism” must be reconsidered. Contemporary scholarship begins by underscoring the wast dis- tance between Renaissance humanisen and the humanism of today; it ends by ignoring that distance. Stricely speaking. a Florentine “humanist” could not possibly be an advocate of “humanism, since the lareer word was invented by historians of the nineteenth century and then anachronisically tead into an era dead and buried for half a millennium.2* So we initially heat. Soon, how= ever, we are told that che gap between the Renaissance and our age is not so grexe afterall, chat ee studia bumanitari—ehe revival of classical grammar, poetry, rhecoric, history and ethics—"efe ‘heritage that remained effective at lease down to the end of the eighteenth century."®> So far the footing is still solid, bus ie becomes unreliable when scholars take a leap into the thin air of faith with the supposition of a teleological development from Renaissance to contempority humanism, Usually the assumption of a ralt-ae-work is covert bu occasionally i dares come out into the open, as in Neal Wood's essay on “Machiavelli's Humanism of Action.” After distinguishing between the “cultural hurman- jsin” of the Renaissance and the “secular humanistn” of today, ‘Wood! proceeds deliberately to conflae the ewo humanisms, the first being regarded as a preparation for the second, and Mach- iavelli as having a stake in both, Before long his argument be- ‘comes a repeat performance of Metlesu-Ponty’'s effort at marzying Machiavellian insights to enlightened modern choughe. Unfor- tunately, whae was earlier said of Merleau-Ponty must now be * Simonde de Samond wat author of s mule-nelome Hissie dr Ripbliges alse: de Moyen Age, wich began to appt in 1867,12 «CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS said of Wood: that however desirable it may be for che Bolight ‘enment to learn tough-mindedness, « Machiavelli forcing himself to rise above tender-mindedness is not Machiavelli, ‘There is, of course, no reason why a link cannot be draw between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The pilisopbes themselves did so in their search for earlier enlightenments. Less self-servingly, modern scholars have noted that an education in the classics and 2 belief in the viza actta form a genuine afinity between the ewo periods. Without too much stretching of the facts one can say tha the humanicarianism of Voltaize deew its inspiration from che bumanites® of Cicero, with the Renaissance acting as go-between. Bur though the humanistic studies of the Renaissance may contain the seeds of Enlightenment, they also ‘contain the seeds of one of its most formidable enemies, the ideal of glory which is usually blood-seained. Dideroe’s project of a theatce of everyday life, the diame buurgeit, had very litele to do ‘with the muchdiscussed “rise of the bourgeoisie"; it had a great deal ro do with che displacement of Corneille, Racine, and the ddeama of glory which had held sway in the Feench classical cheat, Happily for the philaopbes, chey had only co contend with the heroic ethic in its monarchical guise. Its republican expressions were far more frightening, as can be observed in the contrast of Machiaveli with Castiglione. Writing forthe court of Urbino at the same time Machiavelli was composing his works for che re- public of Florence, Castiglione would have his ideal courier seek fame theough grace, charm, dtess, and style—pacific activities all, for his project of making his self a work of are could only, bbe hindered by militarism. Castighionedisdains those princes who despoil neighboring peoples "and cal ie vireue{virtil].” Princes, headds, “oughe not to make theit people watlike out ofa desire to dominate, buc in order co defend chemnselves."»© Machiavelli, by contrast, yearns for the good fight, ehe fighe that is only good * Cicero gave great many meanings Bam, oe of which wat reonay close ov noi of huraniaviantn, CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS = 13, provided is scope is great and its violence substantial. For che mollifying effect of Christianity on the law of nations, he feels nothing but contempr. (Our way of living, a6 a resule of the Christian religion, does ‘not impose the same necessity for defending ourselves as antiquity did. Then men overcome in war were killed or kepr in perpetual slavery . . . ; conquered cities were either laid waste of the inhabitants dtiven out, their goods taken from them and they themselves sent wandering through the world. . . . Today this fear for che most par has disappeared; of the conquered, few are killed; no one is long held prisoner because captives are easly freed. Cities, even though they have rebelled many times, are not destroyed.>° “Wars they cannot be called,” he bitterly complains, “in which ‘men are not killed, cities ate not sacked, princedoms are aot destroyed.” It would be mistaken to interpret Machiavelli's position as 3 foreign “form” imposed upon the reluctant native “mareet" of civic humanism. Rather mighe his thought be properly regarded as a finale evoking one of the potentils always present in the humanist eradition. From civic humanism to power policics was «path previously crod by Leonardo Bruni in the early Renaissance, if less vigorously than by Machiavelli near its end. In certain passages Bruni is Baron's man, championing the cause of al free peoples against the king of Naples and the tyrant of Milan, or warning that just as the Eeruscans fell co che Romans for want of solidarity among republics, so the Florentines and Venetians ‘may meee their demise should they fil co forge a common front. This same Bruni then turns around and writes his Hétorianam Florensini Populi without once questioning the propriety of a Flot- centine empire incorporating all of republic-breeding Tuscany.” ‘Greatness” in the terminology of Broni was already becoming.‘what it was later to be in Machiavelli's [ore Fiorentne: the lst of cities once free and now subject to the yoke of Florence. ‘The theme of Florentine greacness had been evoked long before che coming of Bruni and humanist historiography in the chronicle of Giovanni Villani, begun shortly after 1300. Imperfecty ed- ucated in che Greek and Roman classics, medieval in his most fundamental beliefs, forever in danger of drowning in his knowl- edge of facts, the simple burgher Giovanni Villani could never- theless rise ro sublime heights when contemplating the grandezza (grandeur) of his commune: “Considering that our city of Fl ‘eoce, daughter and creature of Rome, was in its ascent and about to accomplish great things, while Rome was in decline, I judged ie proper to record . .. all the doings end undertakings of Flor- fence.” Still, there is all the difference of two worlds between Villani’s and Bruni’ respective conceprions of grandeur, and an appreciation of what separates them on this score is a promising :means for proving thae che advent of humanism marked triumph of "Machiavellism” as well 2s of "idealise," When Villani, swell- ing with local pride, intercupes his narrative co claim for Florence she fame chat is her due, the result is nor, as with those later ‘cosmopolitans, the humanists, alist of conquests. Instead his list includes the number of workshops, bakers, apotheceries, lawyers, doctors, and bankers; the figures on the mount of wine, meat, and flour produced; plus statistics on population and public f- nance.** None of the entries in his ledger is very dramatic, all are licerally bourgeois, but chey have the considerable advantage of not suggesting that the freedom of Florence is bought at the price of the unireedom of other republics, By an inexorable dynamic, the humanists of Baron's chosen period, for all their talk about the ideal and ethically best form of government, were driven to build the foreres of power politics that Mechiavelli was eventually ¢o command, In common with the ideologues of later revolucionary eras, they magnified the significance of conflict through a process of abstrction.*> "During ee AND FOWRE FOLITICS = 33, the Milano-Venetian Wat of 1451 and 1452, between Francesco Sforza and Jacopo Piccinino,” notes Jacob Burckharde, the headquarces of the latter were attended by the scholar Gian Antonio Porcello dei Pandoni, commissioned by Al- fonso of Naples to write a report of the campaign. It is writeen . . . in the style of che humanjstic bombast of the day. . .. Since for the past hundred years ic had been se- siously disputed whether Scipio Africanus ot Hannibal was the greater, Piccinino through the whole book must needs be called Scipio and Sforex Hannibal, «+ Similarly, at the beginnings of his Histry of Florine Leonardo Bruni compares the Florentine conquest of Pisa ro Rome's victory over Carthage. Thus both humanists take a limiced conflict and fepresent it with parallels ro whar every educated man regarded fs the most total war ever fought, the scruggle to che finish becween the two mose powerful republics of antiquity. Sometimes intellectuals abstract excessively because they ate ‘out of contact with their socery. Such is noe the case with che Renaissance humanists. Often they held public posts, whether as secretaries or chancellors of cities, so it cannot be suid they were literary or academic intellectuals and nothing more. Moreover, the humanists were acively concerned to adjust theie thought ro the needs of the established social order, as may be observed in. their willingness co question Cicero's strictures againsr traders, Praise of work, Praise of the burgher as citizen, were themes frequencly on their lips. The simple teuth ie chat the humanists ubscracted because it was their selfimposed professional duty t0 «lo so. Given their seif-conception as an intellectual elie founded upon expertise in oratory and zhetori, they had to exaggerae.*® ‘And when cheir exaggerations were applied to politics, political thetoric became extceme. ‘Through abscraction the humanises had become ideologues: wha made maccers worse was that the content of their ideologycrystallized into an ideal of glory which by hich by its very naan was ning. er Govan Vintec cold be meng speaks ou apn the elem of Hence ster he Po overburden thse cizens sao shock Ching ee Oh Florentine Signori, what « bad and evil measure ic isto increase che revenues of the commune with the subseance dae Poverty of the citizens hroogh imposed canes, in onder {0 finance ina projects! . Temper, most beloved, ia ordinate desires; thereby you will plese God and aoe overburden an innocent people.” ium: on the other hand, is clearly fitting wich a gloiscaton Wat. His pospose in writing history is the clasical one of fd conn: wig hoy, Bens masons tg ow the people of Flrence “suk al ay na ye Apulia wich he sound of Pltzncne ans en A © wo gue of crstion om Roca nes rane te eo he OF Mian foreindows Ben's later hat oho Once te hs sted upon Ds, Baron ey so teens ntaiom rhs liking. "The Roretioen,” wrote Dag ee peace and profc by it as the bee profits by the honey of lowers = Ofte Foren i may be id tae Whe mane ee chronicle as an anticipation of Bruni rather than & continuation of Villani—wrong because the pacific emphasis in the writing of CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS = £7. Dati owes fundamentally co what is redolent of the old way of thinking. Villani, the old-fashioned chronicler, had been the nay- sayer to war; the newfangled humanist Bruni, by contrast, was sometimes to be the dramatist of violence beeween states. AS ‘unsophisticated burghers, Villani and Dati knew full well that an imbalance between revenues and expenses is usually the oue= come of prolonged wars, o which Dati adds a eulogy of decent, peaceful, middle-class citizens and a tirade against the ambition of tyrants, Calculations of economic profit and loss set limitations fon war, unlike che humanistic passuit of gloria (glory), which constantly called out for more. A scholar of Professor Baron's erudition snd brilliance cannot bbe simply mistaken. Much must be conceded to him: his evidence for the existence of a generation and more of humanists cham- ppioning the cause of republican peace against monarchical aggres- sion is powerful, indeed. Missing, however, io his analysis is aa appreciation of che extent to which the humanists’ goal of peace was the resule of their admission of the erader—mercilesly cas- tigated by Aristotle and Cicero—to the tank of citizen in repub- lican theory. By this adjustment in Greek and Roman political thought the humanists were, of course, merely admitting the facts of life (or pethaps the facts of patronage) in che modern city state of traders as opposed to the ancient city-state of warriors.» Yer their revision of classical norms, however pragmatic, was noteworthy forgiving the humanists something in common with the nonhumanists Villani end Daei, namely, an economic anchor Which prevented the cheorized ship of state from becoming an idealized warship.” So long as humanistic thought bore even naive relationship to econamic concerns, republican political thought was not predatory; its passion for glory and grandeur was kept under control Never, however, did che humanists develop a theory of eco- ‘nomics, and such litle economic knowledge as they had at their disposal was automatically purged from consciousness as soon as18 «CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS they set about writing history. Je is Dati and not Bruni, as Professor Baron admits, who ferreted our the economic reasons for the failure of Giangaleazz0 to vanquish Florence. A burgher ‘must needs think abour revenues and expenses, but a humanist is forced by the conventions of his historical art to neglect them, In humanistic historiography nothing marcered except those fac- ‘ors to which Livy had been attentive, and if economics was not fone of them, so much the worse for economics. To battles he had been attentive, and co the glory or shame that accompanies chem, hence milicary affers and grandeur became the themes that preoc- ‘cupied Florentine humanist historiography. Ie was these histories, moreover, of all the humanist writings of Bruni’s period, that ‘were cited time and again by the humanists of later generations, including Machiavelli. Consequently, by the time we get to Machiavelli's Florentine History, the prevailing representation of the past had long evolved into something significantly Mach- iavellian, Fully acencury earlier humanists had deleted the saving _grice of economic calculation from historiography, leving “great- fess" with a0 other competitor than Bruni’s feeling forall re- publics endangered by the Milanese tyrant. Machieveli had only to rewrite the record of the Milano-Florentine conflice as a sory of politics-as-usual in order to render history thoroughly Mach- iavellian, At last gloria stood alone, o& rather it took as its com panion the forza (Corce) which had always been its blood brother. Perfectly consistent wich Machiavelli's general viewpoint is one ‘other revision he brought co bear upon the usual humanistic account of the wars of Florence with Milan. Unlike his prede- cessors, Machiavelli was eager to call atention to the importance of money in the struggle against the tyrant of Milan,> because the Florentine substicution of coins for citizen-soldiers was all the evidence he needed co contrast the heroic wars of ancient Rome with the disappoincingly uaheroic wats of modern Flor- Possibly then the cinquecento “prophets of force” of whom (CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS = =§ 19 Felix Gilbero speaks—the youthful generation of the wellbora smmong Machiavelli's contemporaries—are the natural and legit- imate offspring of the rising generation of quartrocento idealists portrayed by Hans Baron, Separated by a hundred years, the two _Renerations nevertheless shared the ideology of “civic humanism,” with the difference thatthe latter group disdained the concessions thei forebears had made ro commerce in aonhistorical writings. It is noe likely chae this final and absolute deletion of the man ‘of business is unassociated with the emergence, ia their thought, of the man of force.>” When Professor Baron applauds the waning of Florentine foreiga policy based on "down-to-earth {economic) realism” and the upsurge of a policy rooted in the idealism of civic humanism,%* he may be inadvertently applauding the rise ‘of power politics ‘Marxist historians of ideas, believing humanism has yet to ‘exist, are nor tempted £0 idealize the past, and obviously they are not about co pass lightly over economics. Buc they, t00, have confused the issues. All coo frequently Marx's notion of com- pulsive acquisitiveness, worked out ¢o explain the competitive dynamics of macure capitalism, is read back into early modern Europe, where it quickly becomes the reason why this of chat “advanced” intellectual living in a postfeudal age posited a libido doninandi (lust for power) a8 the driving force of human en- deavor.°? A more unhistorical view than ehis is difficult to imag- ine, for acquisitiveness was limiced, glory unlimited in the con- ceptualizations of preindustial Burope, and it was the ati-economic notion of glory espoused by the most advanced intellectuals, the humanists, that was responsible for che prevalence of a libido dominandi in Renaissance thought. Significantly, the rise of eco- nomic theory in a later erx had a one ofits goals the taming of ‘what had always been insatiable, che heroic ethic championed by the humanists. ‘Alfred von Martin is one scholat of a sometime Marxist per suasion who, fr all his stress on che supposedly capitalistic aspecteee ee of the Rensissance, nevertheless recognizes Machiavelli's passion for glory; but only insofar as it provides an early example of a bourgeois civilization which, growa decadent, produced an ideologise calling for catharsis in the form of a "Third Reich,”** Against this proto-fascist Machiavelli of the 1930s, Sheldon Wo- lin’s discernment of an “economy of violence” in the writings of the Florentine secretary is most welcome. Not violence for the sake of violence but violence as a means co an end, and the more ‘economical the means the better, is Machiavelli's message, Wolia ues. Ironically Wolin's essay, while proper as a corrective, might better be applied :o Villani, who quite literally believed that the economy placed limitations on violence Sit Herbert Butterfield is perhaps closer to the mark with his suggestion that che “swiftness and niceness” of Machiavelli's ad justment of means to end has about i¢ “a sore of poetry and something like an aesthetic thrill." Only we must add to But- terfield that the norm of beautiful action is itself derived from ‘he ideal of glory, and in Castiglione no less thaa in his Florentine ‘contemporary, but in Machiavelli alone do beauty and efficiency meet as one instead of being pacceled out as values appropriate to the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, respectively. Even, ot perhaps ‘specially, on the field of battle the ideal courtier of Castiglione cares noe for effeccivenes. ‘Whenever the courtier chances to be engaged in a skimish for an action or « battle in che field, or the like, he should discreetly withdraw from the crowd, snd do the outstanding and daring chings that be has to do in as small a company as possible and in the sight of all the noblest and most respected men in the army, and especially in the presence of and, if possible, before the very eyes of his king. By contrast, the citizen-soldier of Machiavelli is part ofa system of disciplined, orgenized fighting, and knows that to withdraw from his fellows in a seatch for individual glory is despicable (CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS = 2 singlory, the kind thet Roman leaders mercilessly punished. True glory is collective, organized, effective, and in is falfilment ln x work of ar and a thing of beau. So far Ihave argued tha che concepe of “civic humanism,” a formulated by contemporary scholars, ers in de-emphasizing of fven expurgating the veel notions of grandeze and gloria fom the republican tradition, These arguments must now be com- plemented by the claim char the political significance of speech And heroic has been overemphasized. Among political philos- ophers, Hannah Arendt has offered an exceptionally influential Innerpretation of classical ideals in which public speech figures as the essence of the tia actva.© For their part, contemporary historian in great and increasing numbers have fsisted that the ‘publican tradition is incomprehensible without thetorc.* My sontrary contention is that one of the essential meanings of re- publican thought will never be recovered unless speech and rhet- (tic rt sufer a cercain demotion in contemporary scholarship ‘On a careful look it may well be les Livy or Machiavelli fanturies ago than Hannah Arende in our owa day who ses in Apeech an end in itself or, beter yet, at activity tha abolishes the distinction berween means aad ends. As she views politics, the public rem was atthe time of the polis and should be today the ultimate stage on which « human actor can appear and be Applauded for a performance in gestures and words, Choices, Aicisions, and policies are consequenty far less important to her nthe formal debaces preceding them. Power, violence, foree— All these are merely the props holding the pubic stage Copether, they are pre- or exre-politca. Signficatly, at no point does ‘Arend make a serious efor co prove that her vision ofthe ancient flty-tate has about it anything of historical realty, Firs, rather, Inthe city-state as it should have been if ie wanted to reject the modern world of men-as-animals who have traded in the tite (eee forte creature comiorts of a consumer's society. Arende’s downgrading of power and upgrading of speech asEE EEE AELELINSISTA AND POWER POLITICS| the defining characteristic of politics would have baflled Gian- michele Bruro, 2 Venetian humanist of the sixteenth centuty. “We are educated,” he insisted, “noe by the inactive and barten philosopher, but by Scipio in arms; not by the schools of Athens, bat in the Spanish camps. We are educated noc by speeches but by deeds and examples." While Hannah Arende sees great deeds 85 speeches, Gianmichele Beuto obviously feels cheated when action srops at words and does not proceed to military deeds How could he fee! otherwise? Speeches in Livy's history effectively dramatize the issues of domestic or foreign politics, but chete is Jicee to suggest chat words have geeat value ia and of themselves ‘The position of the Roman historians was well stared by Selluse, ‘who proudly noted that in Rome “the bese citizen preferred action to words, and thought that his own brave deeds should be lauded by others racher than thac theirs should be recounted by him.7© It is of course toue that speech had been cited by Stoic phi- Josophers as evidence of a power to resson distinguishing humans from animals, and that the Seoic position stood in contradietion to the Epicurean belief that human speech was simply « higher development of he sounds natural to animals.” Machiavelli, however, shows not the slightest concern for this philosophical debate berween the Stoics and the Epicureans, Ie is true too ehat Livy and the Roman historians owed something to Stoic thought. Yet Livy did no regard speech as the highest expression of po- Hitical manhood, and indeed ehoughe the Greek addiction o woeds «proof of theit lack ofvirtws, “This was the Athenians’ wat a Philip, a war of words, written or spoken; for that is where theie only strengch lies."”* Typically, Machiavelli quotes with heatey approval the words Livy puts in the mouth of a Roman general, abour co lead his cops inco glorious battle: “My deeds, not my words, soldiers, I would have you follow.""8 Thete isin fact only fone place in his writings where Machiavelli bothers co discuss oratory, and chat is in the Art of War in a passage noting its CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS 23, usefulness to a general intent upon controlling che spirits of his ‘men.7 Speech is instrumental of, filing that, is mere words In Machiavelli's thoughe speech is, if anything, even less im- porcant than in Livy’ All che real decisions of politics, in his view, are made behind closed doors and with voice lowered lest the many should overhear the discussions of the few. For the {reat majority of the citizens, in fact for all but the “fory oF fey" who hold positions of authority in republics, political ‘education is military taining and nothing more. Michael Walzer ‘annot be thinking of the republicanism of Machiavelli when he writes chat “whispering is to royal coures what public speaking 1s co democratic assemblies”; for Machiavelli’ ideal city, how- ‘ever much it belongs co the populace, is a republic of whispers Arendt’s conclusions are the opposite of Machiavelli's because her starting point and his are radically different. She, sounding ttrangely like a Stoic arguing against Epicureans, is out to discover ‘realm unshared by man wich animal, an activity distinctively human and therefore uniquely worthwhile. Labor, fabrication, And force being common ro man and animal, they do not satisfy her quest—only public speech does. Contrasiwise, exactly that Which man shares with animals fascinates Machiavelli. Political animals are centaurs, half an, half beast, che human half char- acterized by law, che bestal by force.7” Even without law, force fan sometimes succeed, and with law force is still essential, 30 the bestial in man is primary, and its use, effective or ineffective, ‘constieures the criterion upon which fame should be alloted. * PanapoxicaLLy, even though the republican commitments of. Machiavelli have been stressed in. recent research, The Prince is hs best understood work. The interpretive literature on The Prine ln us satisiying as that on the Dicuss is uasacisfying, and pro- vides a clue co the methodology needed co recover the meaning and significance of the republican Machiavelli“SMITE HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS Decades ago Allan Gilbere® broke with the usual treatment of The Prince in which an igvestigator troubled by a problem of recent history, be it fascism, the Soviee purge trials of the 19305, ‘f Some other pressing concern, rifled through the pages of Mach iavel’s classic, isolating passages praiseworthy for their sceming modernity. As aconereat for the sins of unhistorical interpee« tation, Gilbert wrote a book proving The Prin had been written by @ thousand auchors before Machiavelli, beginaing ia the Hel- lenistic age, working through the Middle Ages, and moving on to the Renaissance and Machiavelli, whose pamphlet is simply the most famous example of treatises written in the venerable genre of works “on princely cule Gilbert's scholarship is impeccable and his contribution 0 Machiavelli studies undeniable. Were it not for his keen desite (o save Machiavelli from his popula and pejorative reputation, Gilbert might have accomplished a great deal more, however. So eager is Gilbert to whitewash Machiavelli chat he nearly loses hhim in 2 glue of continuiey wich che Christian Middle Ages. The Prince becomes, as the subtitle of Gilber’s book announces, “a typical book de Regimine Principum.” In the closing pages of Mach- ‘avlli's Prince and Its Forounmers, Gilbert does acknowledge that ‘Machiavelli used a traditional artform to say new things; yer ie fever accurs ro him that Machiavelli mighe have written in an ‘established Christian genre for purposes of subversion, and chat such is his originality Felix Gilbert’ “The Humanist Concepe of the Prince and Tle Princ of Machiavelli" is strong precisely where Allan Gilbert is weak. Not only does Felix Gilbere conteast the prince of the Italian humanists wich the prince of medieval cheologians, but hae effectively plays off Machiavelli's prince against both of his predecessors, Christian and humanist. A Machiavelli who is ap- propriately shocking and novel is che result. The humanists pre- pared che way for Machiavelli, argues Gilbert, when they pictured 4 good prince whose reward was fime in this world rather char CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS — 25, 1 blessed place of retirement in the world to come. Again, che humanistic “mirror of princes” made Machiavelli possible by proclaiming che utility, slong with the goodness, of liberality, ‘Clemency, fidelity, and all che other vireues typically catalogued capeer by chapter in works of this kind. Such was enough ro ‘open the door to Machiavell’s claim ther virtue is not always ‘uteful, evil sometimes is, so that the ideal prince must lesen “how not co be good"**—his goodness is being good at politics, his vit is vireuosity in che policical arts. Thus in one fll swoop the ‘extreme moralism of both the humanists and eheir cheological [predecessors was stood on its head by a self-conscious Provcaeer. From Allan Gilberc’s book to Felix Gilber's articles, we finally arrive ar J. R. Hale's one-sencence summary: “Because of its formal resemblance to old manuals Of Prinly Government, Mach lavell’s Prine was like a bomb in @ prayecbook."® ‘What has been done for The Prince must now be done for the tepublican writings of Machiavelli: these, too, must be restored to theit inelleceual concext, which for the Disoures, Art of War, And Florentine History is classical political thoughe, Roman in particular. To some extent, of course, such an undertaking has been atcempced in the secondary literature; but wich results far impressive than those secured for The Princ, Neither che ‘ontinuity nor che discontinuity of Machiavelli's republican trea- tikes with heir classical forerunners has been adequately com- prehended. For if, as we have argued, a Machiavellian pocentiality Always inhered in che republican tradicion, ehe secondary li ‘ture errs in dwelling solely on che “idealism” of civic humanism ‘and in contrasting ic with the so-called “realism” of Machiavelli Much of Machiavelli's work had necessarily been done for him by his predecessors because the values of grandeur, greatness, and Alory had always implied a vision of interstate relations wherein futraine is anomalous and must be explained, while expansion normal and may be raken for granted. This is Machiavelli'see aS Sw POLITICS ‘ost significant link with those who preceded him, and about ‘his che secondary literacure is silent, Likewise Machiavell’s break with his epublican ancestors has been inadequately delineated. After thoroughly immersing Mach- lavelli in che cradition of civic humanism, Quentin Skianed stops for a moment in his book on “che foundations of modern political thought” and asks whae makes Machiavelli different ‘That he devalued Christianity and believed socal coafice could be functional are Skinner's unobjectionable but less than decisive answers. Suddenly a mountaia on the landscape of republican political theory has been reduced to a molehill, a slight prot. berance on che plain of intellectual continuity. Yee all that is seeded is @ slight adjustmene—che addition of the theme of empire—for Skinner's list co assume a totaly differene aspect, allowing Machiavelli the sayer of shocking and spectacular eruths ‘0 come to the fore. Social conflict, to Machiavelli, is fanctional ‘90% merely because it sustains checks and balances assuring “lib- cerry," but also because it fuels « machine of war, ehe Roman ‘republic bene on “greatness."*« No more elective way to buy off the populace could be found chan for the senators to propose an tunending succession of wats. Republicanism is predatory, and ‘specially so when untroubled by a Christian conscience—such is Machiaveli’s striking claim, ‘That which is aovel in Machiavelli and that which is old are tne and the same: che empire demanded by the collective glory known as civic virtue. Forever calling out for more great deeds, tlory had always been a thing insatiable; bue before Machiavelli, repablican theorists had sectled for less chan wars chat would end all war a5 they eliminated every republic save their own. Bruni’s imperialism quit after reaching the outer limits of Tuscany be- cause he recalled the history of ancient Reme. That greatest of all republics had destroyed noe just some, but all other republics, only to forfeit her own liberey co Caesar." For Machiavelli, how. ever, there was no turning back, no halfway measures were ac- ceptable—ie was all or nothing: “Since all human affairs are in CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS = 27 motion and cannot remain fxed, they must needs rise up or sink down.”*" In his theory 2 republic was either rising or declining with the middle excluded, hence che Roman way of conquest was the only sensible course to follow. Hians Baron repeacedly states that from the moment the study of the classics cook a political cura, an “explosive™™ force was planted in Western culture. The violence ofthat explosive charge fas been consistently underrated by scholars, including Professor Baron, and equally underrated has been the shattering effect of the secondary explosion within the republican tradition triggered by Machiavelli. Because of its formal resemblance to the old ‘moralistic writings "on republican rule,” Machiavelli Discourses was like a bomb in a moral ceatse. ‘The interpretation of Machiavelli suggested in che present chapeer tnd which wil be further developed in the following chapters is fot without ies predecessors. Sir Herbert Butterfield once re- marked that Machiavelli “did noc admire ancient Rome because the Romans had « republic; he admired republican government because it was the form under which ancien Rome had achieved ‘unexampled greatness and power." Unfortunately, no ocher sen tence in his book treats the subject of imperialism. More recencly, J.G-A. Pocock has detected a “virtue . . . become cannibal” in the Discarss: “The truly subversive Machiavelli was not « coun- selor of tyrants, but a good citizen and patriot." This is well but briefly said. The why and whither of republican empire ere ‘only hinted at, and soon all is forgoreen and swallowed up ia the sheer mass of Pocock’s book, subteled Plorenine Political Thought sand the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Neal Wood, after writing excellent essays demonstrating chat for Machiavelli “the model Of civic life is always military life," writes a culminating essay ‘on "Machiavelli's Humanism of Action” which is an out-and-out Feturn to the standard Machiavelli. Unthinkable thoughts on the meaning of Machiavelli, even when occasionally thought, yield all co0 readily to the powerful forces of scholarly revisionism. ‘The subversive messare of Machiavelli i noe hidden or mugs.EE EES EL SLISLIIIA RAND POWER POLITICS: terious.* Outspoken, ierepressible, and fealess, i¢ is pagan co the core and hinges on the recovery of che original meanings of “glory"** and “virtue.” From the Iealian words vr and gloria, Machiavelli worked his way back to the Latin virts and gloria, and he did so effortlessly, without steeping himself in che pains. taking philological labors of the Reeaissance, To him it was intuitively obvious that rir and gloria were not Christian, since in his own Tuscan tongue gloria was synonymous with grandeiza, and vir was coupled aot with tizio (vice), as in the Italian of today, itself eribute tothe vierory of the Counter-Reformation, but with fortona (fortune), as in the ancient pagan euthors.* “Machiavelli was equally adepe at recovering the original mean- ing od fall implications of vivir, taking as his ualikely ally in this endeavor Cicero, che Stoic moralist from whom he normally lllered. Speech was the bond of society lus for war its nemesis jn Cicero's fusion of republicanism with Stoicism. “"Those who Say that one standard should be applied to fellow cicizens but another to foreigners, destroy the common society of the human sce," Cicero lamented. His conviction is the direct opposite of that voiced in Machiavelli's idealized Lif of Gastracio Castrae ‘ani: “He was gracious to his friends, co his enemies terrible, juse with his subjects, not co be trusted by foreigners." It is also orally at odds with Machiavelli's understanding of che Roman republic, « predator if ever there was one, and of republics in Beneral: “OF all hard slaveres, the hardest is that subjecting you oa republic. . . because che puspose ofa republic is to enfeeble and weaken all other bodies in order ta increase its own." To ‘ead Cicero, Roman forcign policy was the mose just ever known; to read Machiavelli, ic was the most Machiavelli, Yet on the meaning of vvtur Machiavelli could, in effec, fing beck at Cicero the latter's own words, as stared in the Tusulan * hea, under Spanish apices, the spin of the Countet-Reformation tok ol in aly shorty afer Machisvll's death, one of is epcienetine so gee {he expurgaton of the word fren fom the text of Canigtone's Bet Ue Gourtir. Machiavelli's writings were placed on the Index of Forbidden Berke CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS = 29 Disputations: “Ie is feom the word for man {vir} that the word virtas is derived." By an exercise in simple logic, Machiavelli could arrive at virility and power asthe defining qualities of the vir virus, the manly man, Shedding all traces of the Stoic do- mestication of sirius so as co revive ies original connotations, Machiavelli consistently used “effeminate” as a pejorative adjec- tive. Indecisive, fickle, and unarmed cities were “effeminate re- ppublics."**" Nothing could be more unfortunate chan the delicacy of modern warfare, and nothing was more sinful in ehe record of Christianity chan its esponsibility for turning men into women, Ancient religion . . attributed blessedness only to men abounding in worldly glory, such as generals of armies and Princes of states. Our religion has glocified humble end ‘contemplative men rather than active ones. It has, then, set up as the greatest good humility, abjeceness and contempt for human things; the other put it in grendeur of mind, in strength of body, and in all the other things apr to make men exceedingly vigorous. In shore, “the workd has grown effeminate." ae ‘Again and again, Machiavelli tells his reader he writes for a shou young, serene men Hiatal maybe conse With Aristorl’'s, who believed youths should not be caught po- tical sence." Nor so asserts Machiavelli, for fortuna is woman And yields ro the audacious advances of young men willing fuse fore. “The conquering prince is merely “human and ordinary": to the conquering republic goes the glory, thanks to paganism, of bewiat and excrsordinacy deeds ‘The pagans, greatly esteeming honor and believing ie cheit greatest good, were fiercer [than the men of today) in theit fctions. This we infer from many of their insieutions, be- ‘inning with che magnificence of their sacrifices, compaced with the mildness of ours. . . . [Theirs were} fall of blood30 CIVIC HUMANISM AND POWER POLITICS and ferocity in the slaughcer of a multitude of animals; this terrible sight made the men resemble i.'°7 Without advantage of reading I! Principe, che pagan Romans knew they were centaurs, half man, half beast, and readily converted their bestalicy into manliness and grandeur. ‘When Nietasche restored arf end virus to their original mean- ings, the result was exactly ashe anticipated: a shock wave numbed and subsequently angered the humanitarian ineellectuals of the nineteenth century. Much earlier, during the sixteenth century Machiavelli had conducted a similar enterprise, salvaging the classical world from centuries of first Stoic and then Chistian fevisionism, Surely Machiavelli would not appreciate the efforts of tweatieth-century intellectuals to redeem him ehrough initi- ating a new round of revisionism and expargetion, Ie was as vital to him co shock che humanists of his day as ie was eo Nietzsche to shock the humanitarians of his day and ours Machiavelli, of course, was no Nietaschean, nor Nietesche a Machiavellian. There is a distinction of the most profound sig- nificance between the willro-power ofthe great community againse other communities and the will-to-power of the great individual against the community. “How could chere be a ‘common good’! ‘The term contradicts itself: whatever can be common always has litee value.”" Thus speaks Nictasche, and i is unthinkable that the author of the Disoures on Lity should ever make a similar seatement. Machiavelli incessantly speaks of the “common good," the well-being of the patria; and particularly admires heroic ‘uncommon acts performed in its behalf. Nierasche looks backward to the Homeric hero and forward to the superman, each a law ‘unto himself; Machiavelli looks backward co che Roman infan- ‘tryman and forward to the Florentine infantryman, each a lover of the laws." THE REPUBLIC THAT WAS Histony is the praise of Rome. With this statement Petrarch inauguraced the Ialian Renaissance, and ia Machiavelli's writings an the Roman republic, above all in his Disorer on Lity, chat tame intellectual “rebirth” came to spectacular and shocking fulfiment. For Machiavelli wes much more Machiavellian a8 @ ‘republican chan asx monarchicel author, and never mote so than in his interpretation of republican Rome. When viewed through the lenses he ground, ancient Roman democracy was democracy dn the march—ies objective and achievernent was wotld conquest. ‘democratic politics maximized Rome's power in that i allowed fveryone to be armed; and since this enormous power was har- nese snd led by the most astute and Machiavellian ruling class fer known, the Roman senators, itis apparent that Rome suc- seeded where others failed because she could hardly do otherwise ‘Truly the grandeur thae was Rome shamed the moderns, and yet In beckoned, caoled, and taunted them to imitation ‘Wherever one curas in Machiavell’s writings, his remarkable Romans are present-—present noe only in the Divas on Lity, but also in che Art of War, The Prince, the Florentine History, even In he familiar leters and poesry. Not for a moment could Mach lave forge his Romans, who proclaimed chemaelves masters of the political and military arts and backed up thee boasts by citing the grandeur and longevity of their empire, gloriously gained during che cencris of che epublic and merely maintained during the subsequent centuries of inglorious court politics. All chat was temirable in history was Roman ad sepublican; ll that remainedof antique grandeur was the memory of the Roman republic and the hope thar the study of Roman methods of governing. and fighting might yet save che moderns from the misery of cheir histories. For the sake of the Florentines Machiavelli retold the story of the Romans, told so many times before, mi ‘edifying because more “Machiavellian,” more instructive in the methods of power politics, of force and fraud, of che ways of the lion and the fox. Machiavell’s aecoune of the Roman republic, parcicularly as given its most complete expression in the Discouret on Lity, is the foundation ofall his ehough + Repunuics are supetior ¢o monarchies, and the people are su perior to princes, Machiavelli maincans. Tested against che stand ard of longevity, republics are che unequivocal winners because it's impossible that a government is going to last long i esting fm the shoulders of only one man; but it is indeed lasing when it is left to che care of many, and when its maintenance rests on ‘muny.”” No republic lasts forever,* but a well-constituted one will endure much longer than a monarchy, and for proof there is Sparta, which deferred the inevitable decline of all things human for the generous span of eight centuties.* The people, furthermore, have an abilicy co persevere i policies which is unknown among princes, as may be observed in the contrast oF the Roman emperors with the populace of earlier Rome. While inconstancy was endemic and notorious ia the behavior of the ‘emperors, the populace, unbudging in its preferences, “was for four hundred years an enemy co the aame of king, and a lover of the glory and the common good ofits naive city." Republics and peoples also have the advancage over monarchies and princes in matters of leadership. A good monarch isa carey, ‘wo good monarchs in succession are almost unheard of, but “a succession of able rulers will always be present in every well- ordered republic” meritorious versus heteditary succession mak ing ie more ing all the difference. Because “a people makes far beter choices than a prince,”* the secondary positions of political leadership are likewise more ably filled in republics than in monarchies How can a prince tolerate talented advisors and generals? "So rarurl co princes . .. is suspicious fear that ehey cannot defend themselves from it and cannot show gratitude eo men who by victory have under princely banners made great gen.” Spitted and talented men are always viewed as a ehrea by the prince, even when they do his bidding, because there is room for only fone sun in the heavens. Envy and malice are noe peculiar co princes; indeed, so basic 0 human nature are these vices that congratulations are all the mote due “the people {who] are less ungrateful than princes.”* Ingraticude is infrequent in republics, as opposed to monarchies, because the free ciy breeds many more men of stature than the unfiee city, so char by their very numbers the ambitious men police themselves, leaving the great mass of the populace with lice o fear from their betcers and less reason co deny hovots £0 the most deserving citizens. “There rose up in Rome in every age so many valiant men, famous for various victories, chat che people had no reason for fearing any of them, since they were ‘many, and one watched another." {In republics, moteover, there is more liberty, more vit, and smote dedication tothe public interes than in monarchies. "With- ‘out doube the common good is thoughe important only in te- publics" for in monarchies the concepe of « public interest is either absent of is fatally confused with the private interest of the prince. How very diferent isthe politics of republics where, ‘even when the people go too far, chey express their allegiance © good transcending personal ends: "The cruelies ofthe multitude are dizected against those who they fear will interfere with the ‘common good; the cruelties of princes are againse those they fear ‘will interfere with thie private incerests.""* As for feedor, more is to be found in republics than in monachies for the reason thatthe republican way of life is freedom, just as its monarchical ‘ouncerpart, by its very nature, is servlity. To take part in political and military afurs, o actin the public realm, is to be 4 free man, and all properly constituted republics foster pertic- ‘pation in politics. By concrast, monarchies, if they do noe pre- cisely constrice polities ro che prince, do noe petmie it to wander far from court, and this contraction of the political sphere, ies isolation from the everycay life ofthe many, entails the ufteedom of the city; forthe only free society isa civic sociery. Finally, there is more virit under republican than monazchical rule, more vigor, “more life," more greatness of spirit, since the fce city produces many men who aze manly, a8 opposed to the princi= pality, in which the capaciey for vr? is the monopoly of one ‘Most of Machiavelli’ arguments for republics and against mon- archies were stated with as much actention to interstate a8 t0 domestic policies, If republics “of necessity have a series of able rulers,” the most admirable consequence is chat “therefore cheir ‘gains and increases are great. ‘Two successive reigns by able princes are enough to grin the wotld, Such were Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great. For a republic this should be still more possible, since the method of choosing allows not merely two able rulers in succession but countless numbers In brief, the tyrant can and must exploit his owa ciey, but will not sucvive if he exploits those foreign, conquered, and yet nec- cssarily well-treted cities that provide him with the allies he Tacks at home. ‘Thus, neither the good prince not the tyrant is likely to be se to conquer indefinitely, feeding on one victim as he pursues another. The glorious capaciey to “enslave,” “enfecble,” and "weaken" foreign prey is distinctively republic Only the well-regulaced republic can take full advantage of the potential for conquest and grandeur that inheres in civic cxistence, Institutions, a way of lif, anda ruling clas, all prop rly consticured, are necessary if « republic isco be all that its ‘monacchical competior is not. A model ofthe best republic, best because historically eried and proven, not best in a utopian and illusionary sense, must be ofered by a republican politcal theo- fist. For Machiavelli, as for virtually all the civie humanists before, during, and after his day uotl the French Revolution, the model republic was ancient Rome Peete eee eee a” Institurionally, Rome evolved a system of mixed and balanced -overnment, becoming in fact the kind of “polity” that Avistotle ‘theorized about but never experienced in Greece. So Polybius, a ‘thoroughly Romanized Greek,* had argued, and Machiavelli ea- ‘erly seconds his opinion.» Afzer the early kings were expelled from Rome, a universal hatred of royaley soon was transformed {nto the mucual hatred of social classes, pattcians ageinst ple- beians. Whatever comradeship among all Romans had once ex- isted during the stuggle against the ryrant was quickly dissipated by the insolence of the nobles. The people, seeing their former allies eurn into their newly acquired enemies, steuck back by withdrawing from Rome co the Sacred Mount, which broughe ‘the Roman senators to their senses. A democratic ingredient was Added co the constitution chrough che crcacion of the Tribunes of the People and a popular assembly.*" Social conflict, in Roman history, led to institutional devele ‘opments so perfect they might as well have been designed by a Rome wore dowa. the resistance of its neighbors by constant small-scale wars and 8 scheme of treaties and alliances which was surely the most evious diplomacy imaginable, With the kind of admiration thae only one Machiavellian can feel for another, Machiavelli recon- structed the Roman masterplan ‘Throughout Italy she obtained many associates, who in most respects lived in equality with her; and yet... she always reserved for herself che seat of authority and che reputation ‘of command; hence these associates of ers found that with- THE BEFUBLIC THAT W485 38 ‘oat realizing it they had subjeceed chemselves with their ‘own labors and their own blood. For Rome sent armies fof Romans and associates} outside Italy and curned kingdoms Jnto provinces and made subjects of peoples who, accus- tamed to living under kings, did not mind being subjects; then these people... . did nor recognize any other superior than Rome. Hence these associates of Rome who were in Iraly found theenselves ac once encircled by Roman subjects and kept down by such a very great city as Rome, When they realized the deception under which they had been liv- ing, they were not ia time to remedy i. Rome's ersewhile allies were then reduced {zom free associates (0 lune subjects, "This method of proceeding . . has been ob- served only by che Romans; a republic char wishes to expand ‘anoor use any other method.” Hire, in Rome's foreign policy, was power politics in its purest form Because Rome used . .. all the methods she needed for attaining co greatness, she did not falco use (fraud). Nor ‘ould she have adopted in the beginning a more important deception thaa her method .. . of making herself associates, because under chis name she made them slaves, as weee the Latins and other peoples round about. From humble beginnings to grandiose finale, the Roman republic single-mindedly applied every sinister device th passed into the hands or inco the fertile iraginacion of the senators, ever ready to vest che latest in Machiavellian means So ie is plain chat the Romans too in their early groweh ‘were also not lacking in fraud, which ic has always been necessary for those co use who from litle beginnings wish +0 climb to high places—someching which is che less to be censured he more it is concealed, as was this of the Ro-eo TEE SAPURee FT ae ‘The grandeur thar was Rome was the greatness of « people completely powerful and completely in conttol of its powers, ‘Originally & rude people, the Romans shed the savagery and bestiality oftheir beginnings when the yokes of law*» and rcligion were imposed upon them. Yer these restraints were aimed not at breaking cheir animal spiris buc at channeling chem and making them manageable, Under pagan direcion religious sacrifices and rites both inflame the people snd render them obedient. Terrible and terrifying, just as the violent spectacles of thei religion had ‘made them, each young Roman was willing and eager to prove Ihe was avr rats, and together they consticuted the unstoppable collective reality known as vires Romana (Romaa vireue). Men were never before or since lifted so far above the beasts in grandeue ‘of soul as were the Romans when they undertook a program of systematic desteuction and acted the pare of beasts abroad, ‘The power politics of The Prin was grounded inthe necessity 1 fice up to the itd efftuale della cxa:® the power politics of the Ditoure, by conteas, goes beyond a mete recognition ofthe faccual traths of monarchical power politics to a glorification of republican power politics. The factual truths of Reman power are exciting, ideological euths when comprehended by moderns, and a model for making theie politics as heroic as chose of thei + OW OCCASION, Machiavelli himself was troubled by his deib- rately troubling political vision. Noc that there was enough of ‘the Christian in his psyche co bother him with belie in a moral standard over and above Rome, outside history. Rather, the prob- Jem was internal ro pagan values, particulaely eo the notions of ‘grandeur and greatness; and the problem was inescapable: for if The Gilbert crmition es, "the tach ofthe mace fact how i What Machiael adios i his clerntedpanage ir polis best on & eal rcopition ofthe bre face of power. THE REPUBLIC THAT WAS: 7 eseroying republican peoples is especially glorious, ic is also especially iniquitous. Achille is nothing if Hector, his victim, is noe great; Rome, a collective hero, is not great if eests content with victories over monarchial, and therefore servile, cities. Only ‘the destruction of tepublican, free, and great peoples, peoples ‘unconquerable save by Rome, could make the Romans great. Shades hovering above « mound of decaying republican corpses, ‘ach one once vibrant with civic virtue, might at any moment haunt Machiavelli" [Now and chen in his poetry Machiavelli recognizes che darker side of che heroic ethic. His verses on Ambisione are a brief but definive bemoaning of carnage, and in L'Asino he intetrupes the narrative to gaze nostalgically ac che German republics where “at the present day each city lives secure through having Jess chan sx miles round about.” Yearning for empire, he continues, is to tisk repeating the fate of Icarus, who destroyed himself by Bying 00 near the sun." Sell, Machiavelli's occasional self-questioning, carefully see aside for minor writings and answered co his satisfaction in his ‘major works, should noc receive undue attention. In the Disosi he dlismisses the sigaificince of the nonaggressive German re- publics on che grounds that they, residing withia the not com pletely meaningless jurisdiction of the Holy Roman Emperor, ‘were subject co 2 minimal rule of law in their relations co one another. Thus they were exempred from che usual pattern of interstate violence, but did noe constitute a model oo the basis ‘of which other city-states might escape the same.” Likewise he ‘uses his discourses on Livy, a5 we have already seen, asa platform for praising ambition as the lifeblood of a healthy cepubli."= Obviously, therefore, his sweating off of ambition and empire in Asin is no more his characteristic mood than is the argument, ‘with which that poem ends, for pigs and against men. Closer 0 ‘ature than man will ever be, the pig and ocher animals are untroubled by che woes of politicking and womanizing, the twoa“ a a activities that, the human-hating pig would noc be surprised to learn, encompass the greater part of Machiavelli's correspondence For a moment and as a change of pace, Machiavelli has assumed the un-Machiavellian voice of works de contomptw mardi, Hle has fot, however, changed his mind, nor has he given evidence of being of two minds, Ie is well to remember chat the heroic tradicion itself had always sanctioned moments of concern for its victims, as when the rage of Achilles absted just long enough for him to share emotionally with dead Hector the dreadful face of mortality." For all that, to forgo the grandeur of carnage is uuothinkable. Machiavelli was not about to join the ranks of those he-despised, stranded in the midale, too weak to be totally good or totally bad, Whar uneasiness Rome's destruction of non-Roman freedom and virtd caused Machiavelli was easily alleviated in incidental writings. Rome's subsequent loss of her own freedom and vrei ‘roubled him much more deeply. Just offstage throughout Mach= favell’s entire performance in the Divan were the annoying presences of Plato and Aristotle whose condemnation of imperialism’™ was nor moralistic, Soical, or Christian, and had nothing to do with easily dismissed nosions of the oneness of ‘mankind. ‘Theirs, rather, was the claim that imperialism is nec- essariy fara for its republican perpetrator, because a city-state expanded is no longer a city-sate: i may live on ate its conquests but only by forfeiting its civic virtue and republican politics, Machiavelli’ response is evasive. Ar vatious points in the Dis ‘rss he expresses his awareness of almost every factor needed t0 demonstrate that berween Roman imperalisin and Roman cor- and repression; a less of inerest wvages of clas struggles; an infusion of foreign mores inco the city; and soldiers more atentive to theit ‘general than co Rome defintely Sgure in Machiavelli's account of ancient Rome.'% Nowhere, however, does he bother to inte- Fan BAER Taree ee 39 _rate them by citing eheir common denominator, the coreuption that necessarily followed from Rome's determination to annex the world." Refusal ro make a causal argument was, then, one way by ‘which Machiavelli sidestepped the inconveniences of his position ‘Making a weak causal argument served the same end of evasion. (Of necessity Rome had to conquer the workd or be conquered, the argued in the opening pages of the Divoarss, because all physical bodies move up or dowin and cannot remain balanced in bberween.'% A mere metaphor was Machiavelli’ substicuce for the hhard work of determining when, if ever, a state must play the aggressor to survive, how far ies aggression need reach, and at ‘what point aggression becomes self-defeating. Soon he forgets himself and says Rome's drive for empire was the upshot of ambition, not of necessity: and he constantly asserts thar the [Romans were seekers of grandeur, glory, and greatness." Buc inthe meantime, the woed "necessity" has allowed him to pretend there is no human choice involved when wars, conquests, and empires are in question and the life and death of entire peoples hhang in the balance. Machiavelli's analogy of political wich phys ical bodies isthe language of self-deception ‘A choice, a very difficule choice, had to be made, he insisted, beeween a republic for "preservation" or for “increase,” beeween Sparta and Rome, berween 2 durable civic wieue withoue empire, and half as durable a civic virtue with empire, between the eight hhundeed years of stationary Sparta and the four hundred years of mobile Rome.‘ Rather than accepe the bash alternatives, Mach- iavelli clouded the issues and soughe refuge in spurious arguments suggesting the Roman way had to be followed. Only by deceiving himself into believing there was no middle way was Machiavelli able to avoid it and ta be torally bad Machiavelli's iresponsibilicy, his unwillingoess co face up co the full implications of his chougie, does not detract from the incellectual significance of his work: ic does, however, rob hisSE AE SEAT ee ‘outlook of tragic grandeur."* Anyone who fllows directly in his ppath will not be found struggling to lean how co live with the furies, nor again shall we encounter an heit to Machiavelli com= pulsively washing his hands ina vain effort to remove s permanent scain, More likely, a descendant of Machiavelli will deny there has ever been blood on his hands, or wll claim cha it can easily be washed away. Rubashov, the old Bolshevik in Archur Koes let's Darkness at Noor who buries the significance of his past violent acts under a nacural lew of historical necessity, i, to Machiavelli's dliscredit, much more the descendanc ofthe opening pages of the Discourse on Lity than is Maurice Merleau-Ponty, who aggues that the cerible dialectic of humanism and cetror is unnecessery in a Scientific sense, but very necessary in « moral sense, and signals 1 modem rebirch of Greek tragedy in allies majesty, pain, and haere + TRAGIC OR NOT, Machiavelli's Romans accompany hien every where his chought leads him. Yer chey are never his only com- panions. Beside his Romans we always find his Florentins, jux- ‘aposed for purposes of deasmatie and instructive compsrso ‘Whatever begins in Machiavelli's wriings as a depiction of che Roman republic that once was, soon becomes a commentary of the Florentine republic still alive in his day. Withia his choughe there isan internal necessity co complete the praise ofthe republic tha was with a critique of the cepublic that is —~HI- THE REPUBLIC THAT IS MeAsuneD agains che Roman republic, proud Hlorence, con- vince its sophistication, euleure, and economic prowess were Lnparallled, was «puny ching, indeed. Rome ad been x glorious success, Florence wis an abject lure; Rome had been powerful, Florence was weak; Rome had been noble, Horeace was ignoble; Rome had heen virtuous, Florence was corrupt. Comparative alysis, 8 conducted by Machiavelli was an exercise in defiation The reverse sie of Machiavelli’ eulogy of Rome was a vigorous critique of Forence Tes particularly in the Disoures and Flirentne Hitory tae “Machiavelli sees forth his views on the republic of Florence. Ia two senses the Florentine Hits, Machiavelli’ ast majoc work, isthe fullmene of what the Dicurs had ssid about Florence “That carier work, burdened with the ask of expounding the pilaciples of Roman government, had time to discuss only chose Florentine and Italian events that, for Machiavelli ad his au~ dence, were recent history, che events oftheir peviod. The Flor- ‘eine History complements the Dicuss by exending the di- cssion of Floratie fies fod in that er volume backwads in time to the very beginnings of the republic of Machiavelli's birch. Secondly, the Florentine Hirory complements the Dixsurser by completing the process of demonstrating thatthe republic of Florence was the republic of Rome tuened upside down, After reading the Florentine Hivory, we know in much grace depth what the Disewzer had already eaughe, che if Rome's history lighted the way to he gzcaert republican and democratic cressa THE REPUBLIC THAT IS lures, Florence's eepublican and democratic history showed the pitils along the road eo greatness and fame. To the Dixoers, Which is » how-to-do-ie manual for republics, Machjavelli added & ow-not-o-do-it manual in his Pliemine Hisry. Writing & history of Florence, as envisioned by Machiavelli, was an expee- iment in a kind of negative policy science chat lft lee dove 45 to what constituted inferior politics. ‘The Dicuss and Florentine Hstry are also doubly linked by the personal experience they draw upon and by the projec ehey share of doing more chan merely recording the symptoms of the clsease chat aflicted Floreace. Each book pesits an underlying ‘cause accounting for Florentine ineptitude: inthe Dicaurss (and the Avs of War) Chissaniy is the culpit; in che Flrntine Hitory ic isthe ciumph of the commercial classes and demise of the nobility chac accounts for the absence of rid in the modern ex, Both books, moreover, emerge fom Machiavelli's personal ex- perience, fise as an observe, then as 4 servant, of the republic that proved 10 be merely an intercegnium so far as che Medici were concerned, the republic of 1494 t0 1512. The endpoine of Machiavelli's investigations into Florentine history is che discov ‘ery ofexplanacory causes; che searting point of Machiavelli's his- torical writings is his outlook on ehe events of his lifetime, For what his Discourses, Florentine History, and all his other comments ‘om his native city ia his various writings amount to is his primary politcal experience wrieeen large, read back into the past, and placed within a theoretical framework + WEAK, VACILLATING, indecisive leadership hid marked, 30 Machiavelli believed, che Florentine republic of 1494 t0 1312 For four years Florentine affairs were dominated by ehe religions zealot Sevonarola, whose enthusiasm and prophecy had not the same effect on Machiavelli as on the Florentine populace. Al- ‘hough eventually able co see more in Savonagola than achatlata,” THE REPUBLIC THAT IS 65 Machiavelli could never accept a state of affairs in which religion dictated co politics rather than politics to religion. Prophess, admittedly, have theit uses, for religion is the foundation of society, but i¢ was hardly acceptable chat the modecn Numa should be a dupe of his own message. Ic was all the worse that the prophet wns unatmed,*and inevitable that such a sine should fall victim to the workings, in cis case the Florentine aisto- caats, disgruntled by Savonarol’s democratic reforms, and co 2 pope who was more worldly chan the men of the world and ‘unforgiving of sanelines cae dard leave the monastery and seine the world ‘After the demise of Savonarola, the Florentine republic lasted for an additional fourteen years but did noe solve the problem of leadership. However much the worst democratic excesses were ‘curbed, an able euling class did not emerge. Instead, ia 1502, hopes for stability, once various compromises had been struck, were placed in che creation of the office of Gonfalonicr for life and in the perion of Piero Soderini, whom Machiavelli ehe pol- itician fichflly served, but on whose deeds, and lack of deeds, ‘Machiavelli the wricer heaped constant scorn. At che risk of ‘denunciation a a trator to his clas, Soderni euled by befriending the common people—a strategy Machiavelli had no reason to ‘censure; bur he could never forgive his politcal bos for following the many rather than leading ehem.* Nor could he forgive him forshacing with the populace is weakness. Surrounded by envious aristocrats, Soderint did noc have che courage co eliminate cher, Foolishly, he believed thae “with time, with goodness, . and by benefiting others he could extinguish envy.”* Hence he, like Savonarola, fell victim o envy, and is failure is all che less deserving of absolution in that he, as a politician and not a prophet, should have realized that “his works and his intention would be judged by their ourcome."* In Soderin's case as in so ‘many ochers, Machiavelli clinches an argument demonstratinga Sere ei ereree eee ee SEES che ineptitude of Florentine events and personalities by a com= parison drawn fiom ancient Rome. ‘Those who read ancient history will always observe that after a change of government, either from republic into tyranny or tyranny into republic, the enemies of present conditions must suffer some striking prosecution. Brucus slew his sons co maintain newly acquired liberty; Soderini petced them and ehus reazed he enemies who eventually oves threw his regime.” Unable 10 be decisive and violent in its internal politics, che Florentine republic Machiavelli served was equally wavering in its willingness to inflice full-scale violence upon foreign cities falling within che ambi of ies imperialist designs. While sill 2 political insider, Machiavelli wroce the Disaupse or the Pisan War, describing the methods available for taking Pisa. Lacer, in bis major writings, Pisa figures repeatedly, usually a6 an example of, the failure of nerve char caused Florence ro waste numerous op- portunities. Continuous efforts both before end during Mach- invelli's day to subjugate Pisa, a city whose port was valuable to Florentine traders, were taken by him as symbolic ofthe belicose and yet indecisive intentions of Florence.® Forever taking and shen losing Pisa, Florentine merchants never had the courage of their own imperialistic convictions—or, mote accurarely stated, theirs was the wrong kind of imperialistic creed. True grandeur and glory, the kind Rome had known and which could not be ‘counted in forins, was beyond their ken Ic was also ducing his yeas in ofice chat Machiavelli witnessed Florence's balf-heareed suppression of the rebellion in the Val- dichiana. Twice in his weitings Machiavelli used a Roman coun- rerexample to condemn ¢his prominent example of Florentine squeamishness, once in his paper On the Methad of Dealing with the Pale of Reelions Valdichiana"® and again in the Dixoares, where the incident in the Valdichiana received noteworthy at- SE OerR RRs rRE eae TasEE SEER SEEEEE) ss tention. A gentle ereatmene ofthe ural people of che Valdichians ‘met with Machiavelli's approval, but he blamed his fellow Flor- ‘entines for stopping short ofa ruthless destruction of Arezzo and its citizens. This was not how che Roman senate had deale with ‘he rebellious peoples of Latium, Citing the example ofthe ancient Romans who abjured halfway measures and did whacever was necessary to maineain theie empire, was Machiavelh’s «acti for ‘expressing the contempe he felt for the rulers of Florence. Had his couneeymen followed the example of the Romans, he main- tains, “they would have made the city of Florence great But they used a half-way policy.""' The Florentines, it seems, ‘not only filed co imicace the Romans; they might as well have been consciously striving to make themselves the opposite of cei illuserious ancestors Machiavelli's polities of grandeur was constantly fusteaced by the businessmen," whose actitudes, he believed, were so small ‘mindedly calculating and featful of tsk as to outlaw the quest for glory and fame, In office Machiavelli was the opponent of al businessmen who carried their mentality into the iance circles of politics» out of office Machiavelli used his writings to substicute councerslogans for the poicically debilitating provecbial wisdom, of timid Florentine businessmen, Only if we realize that che “middle way" was a favorite expression in Florentine political bates can we appreciate Machiavelli's untising insistence upon, choosing one dramatic course of action or another, either an ‘unequivocal “ether” or an unequivocal "or," in situations calling for political decision. Likewise Machiavelli's repeated insistence fon immediate and forceful action must be understood in che context ofa customary recourse in the politica life of his city £0 8 seracegy of “enjoying the benefic of time.”+ Least ofall could Machiavelli ever forget thatthe businessmen were largely responsible, in his opinion, for disbanding the cit jens’ militia, leaving Florence in estate of military incompetence and degradation." That a prophet should be unarmed is under-standable but that a republic should be unarmed is disgusting. and despicable. Much beter than ignoring the adages of dull businessmen was the substitution of counteradages; better still wwas che substitution of humanists, especially humanists of po- litical experience and Machiavellian persuasion, for businessmen fn ruling circles, Given the ciecurstances to which Floreace had been reduced, the best Machiavelli could do for the businessmen of his city was to mitigate theic guile by placing pare of ic on the shoulders of, the priests. Clergymen shared with businessmen the distinc of bring the bene of Florentine political life, in Machiavelli’ view, His anticlercalism, acknowledged by all his fiends and shared by many, his disdain for a corrupt clergy and papacy, marks only che fist layer of his condemeation of Christianity. In the Art of War, inthe Diseurs, and even in his poetry Machiavelli _generalized his disdain for che prelates to the poine of naming. ‘Christianity in general, the Christianiry char is true to its values ao less chan the overtly corrupe Christianity of the papacy, as a ‘general cause underlying the phenomenon of Italien corruption, ‘When Machiaveli ended his poem the First Daxenale, which described the political events of 1494 t0 1304~—the invasion of Tealy, her great sufferings, and near collapse at the hends of the “batbarians'—wich a plea eo “reopen the temple of Maes," one consideration that may have weighed heavily on his mind was thac the Florentine church of Saine John the Baprist stood, sc- ‘cording to tradition, on che ruins of what was once « temple ‘erected in honor of Mass. Speculation as to Machiavell's meaning. in his ocher writings is unnecessary. Near the end of the second book of the Avs of War Machiavelli stated in the most graphic terms che guilt of Christianity in softening conflce berween states to the point of making wars as worthless in modern times as they were worthwhile in antiquity. Not the coszupt Pope Alexander ‘VI bur Christianity in its pristine state was responsible for the flighe of greatness from Europe. Christianity’seflect on “our way of living today,” he remarks, has been to banish vrs eo osteacize it from Iealy, the very country chat had been its home in classical, times,” The conclusion seems cleae: Christian vieue is not vir it isthe very opposite, ic is corruption ‘The Dissare is even tore insistent on placing ehe blame for the woes of Florence on Christianity. Each of the theee books of this work begins wieh a denunciation of Christianity; every such denunciation is uncompromising and percains ro chat faith even when reformed, At the outset of the volume Machiavelli asks swhy the moderns have hesitated co adope the ways of Roman virtas, and answers his own question. "This I believe comes from the wenkaess inco which the present religion has brought che ‘world."“" Equally remarkable 1s the treatment of Cheistianity found in the famous first chapeer of the third book, devoced 10 the need to restore institations and ways of life, every so often, to their coruption-Cee origins. Here Machiavelli discusses, among, other things, the Franciscans and Dominicans, the reforming. orders established for the purpose of restoring Christianity to the original, simple teaching of Christ. His refusal is cotal. These reforming orders, he asserts, "having great influence with the people . . . give them co understand that it is evil to speak evil, ‘of what is evil, and that it is good to live under the prelaes’ conteol and, if prelates make errors, to leave them to God for ‘punishment. So the prelates do the worst they can, because they do not fear that punishinene which they do not see and do not believe in." Reformed Christianity delivers the world inco the hands of the worse elements of ehe human kind, che cocrupt clergy. Reformed and corrupt Christianity, in Machiavelli's view, are inseparable inseparable because every gain of the reformer, an anti-worldling, is transferred to che regular and very worldly, ‘clergyman, That is the lesson of Discourse III, r; and the same lesson may be found near ehe beginning of che second book but in e much more radical fotmn. The distinction between reformed,land corrupt Christianity is nowhere present in Discus IN, 2, ‘where Christian values per se are atacked as corrupt and con tasted with the virtuous values eashtined by pagan religion, Rarely has Christianity been more savagely attacked than in this passage. Arrayed on one side are the pagan virtues, crt, glory, _gcandeur, magnificence, ferocity, exuberance, action, health, and ‘manliness; on the other side ate the Cheistian virtues, humilicy, abjectness, contempe for human things, withdrawal, insction, suffering, and disease—and the upshot of these Christian "vir tues,” he concludes, is the womanish mankind of postcassical ‘mes, whose histories areas ignoble as Rome's was noble. Chris- tiaaity, the religion corrupe and despicable by is very nature, is ‘one major cause accoupting for what plagues Florence. + THE OTHER major cause of Florentine degradation, accounted for systematically and hiseorically inthe Florentine History, is the triumph of the commercial oligarchy, «class unskilled in the art of rule, internally divided, and lacking in vir. An aesthete such 8 Burckharde could run away fom the bourgeois nineteenth cencury he despised and enjoy hours of solace contemplating the artistic beauties of Renaissance Italy. Machiavelli, however, has almost nothing to say about the masterpieces of sculpture and ppincing produced in his day. For him beauty, along with every~ thing ese worthwhile, was primarily politcal, and he never doubted for a moment that in his bourgeois republic he was surrounded by the horror of philistinism, In the absence of political artists— ‘molders and shapers of men-—a history of Florence could not be ‘other than a tale of sadness and regret, of desirable might-have- bboens chat never were and disasters that frequently were. (Ousted from power and commissioned by his erstwhile ene- ‘mies, the Medici, to write a history of Florence, Machiavelli occupied his enforced leisure in an endeavor to prove that the political disabilities of his contemporaries were not the handiwork (‘THE REPUBLIC THAT 15 of frtuna—tha they were, rather, merely the larest discurbing, manifestation ofthe purge, centuries earlier, ofthe vrti-beatiog nobility from his city-stace. What was wrong with Florence was ‘wrong systematically aod a produce several centuries in the mal ing, "Machiavelli's Elontine Hit, full of iavenced speeches, weighty generalizations at the beginning of each book, and elaborate at tention to battles and wars, is obviously written in che genre of humanist historiography," but with a series of special wists Unlike previous histories of cities writen by humanists, Mach- iavelli's history of Florence cannot assume che tone of eulogy; thee, irony, mockery, and disdain, mixed occasionally with outright contempt, are his literary resources, and cogether they, constitute an impeessive repertoire of denunciation. Humanistic, 00, but also with a difference isthe manner in which he insists fom using the past forthe sake ofthe present; here again he rurns the tables on Bruni, Poggio, and all previous authors who, writing the history of Florence in accordance with classical canons, had derived moral inspiration from the Florentine past. In Mach- javelli’s contrary estimation, Florence had no positive message to offer postericy—only Rome ct fulfil char role—and yee che bun- sling and wasteful history of Florence need not be any less ed- ‘cational than he record of ancient Roman splendor. With un- failing eloquence Machiavelli spelled oat his reasons for eviving the memory of what he regarded as a diseppointing past If in describing the things that happened in this wasted ‘world, Ido not tell ofthe bravery of soldiers or the efficiency of generals or the love of citizens for their country, I do show with whae decepcions, with what tricks and schemes, the princes, the soldiers, the heads of che republics, inorder to keep that reputation which they did not deserve, carried ‘om cheie affairs, Ie is perhaps as useful co observe these things 1s to learn ancient history, because if rhe latter kindles freespirits t0 imitation, che former will kindle such spirits 69 avoid and get rid of present sbuses.** Not that Florentine history was one of unmitigated disaster and unrelenting failure. Stating, as Machiavelli does, chat his ‘was a “wasted {guaso}* world” may and does imply that it was not for wane of opportunity that the Hlorentine eecord was rel- sively undistinguished. A man proclaiming "I love my native ciey moce chan my soul,”* even though he kaows the scandalous past of his beloved mistress, must see in her some evidence of a ‘charm recklessly speat but not iretrievably lost. A wasted world ‘was composed of something worthwhile chat had been squandered with great profligacy. From 1250 to 1260, at the end of the chireeenth century, and again between 1381 and 1434, Florence had reached great heights in Healian politics, adding numerous formerly free cities tothe lise of the peoples she held in subjection, “Ie is noe possible to imagine how much authority and power Florence in a shore time gained” during the decade following the ‘midpoine of the chirteenth centucy, Not metely did she become head of Tuscany bus took her place among the firs cities of Ialy. . . . The Flocencines lived under this government for ten years, and in that time they compelled the Pistolese, the Aretines, and the Sienese ‘0 make alliances with them; and returning from Siena with their army, they took Voltetra.>* Sach were the fruits harvested by the government known as the Primo Popol. Equally admirable was the state of Florentine afairs several decades laer, when the centuey drew t0 a close: [Never was our city ina higher or mote prosperous sate than at that time, for she abounded in men, in riches, and in reputation. The citizens fit for arms amounted to ehirty thoussnd, and the inhabitancs fe for arms inthe surrounding, district to seventy thousand, All Tuscany, partly as subject, parcly as ally, obeyed her. Moreover, “fom £381 ¢0 1434 (Florence). « catried on with such glory 30 many wars that it added to the Florentine dominion ‘Arezz0, Pisa, Cortona, Livorno, and Monte Pulciano; and it would have done greater things if the city had kept united.”** The ‘general proposition may be put forward thar Florence “would have risen to almost any greatness if frequent and new internal dissensions had not sormented her.”2” Nevertheless, in spite of ‘dissensions which had might enough co destroy the greatest and _most powerful of cities,” Florence "semed always to grow stronger. ‘And beyond doube if Florence had had the good fortune, ‘when she freed herself fom the Empire, o take a form of gov= cenment that would have kept her united, { do noe know whae republic, modem of ancient, would have been superior co her.”™* Constantly hinting of but never realizing glorious aspiracions, the history of Florentine polities, one can well imagine, must have tantalized and annoyed Machiavelli in ehe extreme, Even as Florence underwent a profound change from patrician and ais- tocettic to plebeian and democratic rule, the one ching thot re- ‘mained constant was imperialistic lust, an urge of the spirit co which Machiavelli's forebears had never been immune.” By com= bating neighboring feudal nobles and a sometimes not so distant Holy Roman Emperor, Florence, like many another Ialian city, Ihad won her municipal freedom; later, by combating and incor porating other cities in her empite, Florence achieved che status of a great Italian power, one of several regional states, Bur never did she come close to, of even dream of, universal empire reminiscent of ancient Rome's “The contrast Machiavelli draws between Rome and Florence is not the distinction between a Machiavellian and a non-Mach- wellien republic, but rather the emotionally and aeschetically re provocative contrast of constantly magoilicent versus chronically pathetic Machiavellise. On a second look at the pass jin which Machiavelli designates Florentine experience as educa- ‘ional because it reaches how aot to conduct great enteepriss, it is worth noting thae the polities of his city, by his account, was not lacking is fair share of "deceprions,. . . tricks, and schemes."3° Bur to the same degree that an intelligent, hidden, and grand Machiavellism is admirable, so also is an unintelligent, obvious, and petty Machiavellism despicable. Beating this in mind, it is immediacely clear why Machiavelli was as contempeuous of Florentine politics as he was enamored of ancient Roman politics, Greatness, to repeat the lesson of the Divas, is impossible without fraud, and fraud "is the less to be ceesuced the more it is concealed, as was that of the Romans." By contrast, Florentine fraud, and that of fclian cities in general, was transparent, in- famous, ineffectusl, and cut off from that deeam of universal conquest that was the glory of Rome. If fraud, deceit, and dis- simulation are praiseworthy in direct proportion to the grandeur and in inverse proportion to the meanness ofthe ends they serve, then Florentine Machiavellism, so limited in vision, so unworthy even in its puny successes, was every bit as damnable as Rome's was redemptive ‘Amoralism abounded in Florentine foreign policy, as in chat of every Italian city-state, but ie was an amoralism rarely emi. niscene ofa fox, hardly ever of a lion, and never of «lion and fox combined. Dependent on mercenaries, Florence could not be 4 lion; cunning in particulars bue devoid of a masterplan of Aeception, Florence was far ftom a frserate fox. If xn animal, Florence, it seems, was a stupid bease venting its mindless anger ot pursuing ies latest passing fay. If « human, Florence, with its limited span of eccention, was a child: puerle ouspourings of cnthusissm for newly proposed projects were matched by an equally childish wane of perseverance a the frst sign of trouble. Roman democracy always acted with determination, Florentine democ- 7 a fo acy never so; actions of Roman democracy were always preceded, by carefal calculation, actions of Florentine democracy early so. ‘The other great aw of Florentine politics, and the sad reftain Cf Machiavelli's historical trace, was thee “when wars outside are finished, those inside begin." The glory that was Rome's rested ‘on che unshakeable foundation of incernal stability; the glory thac might have been Florence's perpetually eluded her and did so because of her internal defects. Factional strife and class confit, coimon sights everywhere in Tealy, were exceptionally excly ar rivals in Flotentine history, and as occurrences chronic and un- usually severe, they had soon become intolerably destructive. In Roman history class confict and the consequent democratization of polities had given birth to an excellent political structure, an, Aristotelian polity, whereas in Florentine history the regretcable ‘outcome of similar circumstances, carried co an extreme, was interminable instability, the escalation of hostilities within che city walls to the breaking point, and political decay in its most rolent form. A stranger to the blessings of stability, Florence could never know the joy of a lasting glory in foreign afars. Ancient Rome was ewice blessed (internally and externally); me- dlieval and Renaissance Florence was cwice cursed If there was one essential element chat was present in the [Roman but missing in the Florentine political context—one factor of exceptional fecundity in explaining the stark contrast of Rome with Florence-—that singular missing link was a Machiavellian ruling class. A democrat in the Florentine History as in the Dis: course, Machiavelli was convinced chat the historical ills of Flo tenting democracy could have been remedied had she not been denied a ruling class of Machiavellian stamp——had she noe lacked, that is, a laceer-day councerpart ro the Roman senators. Denied fan astute ruling class, Florence was denied internal scbilicy, rational political calculation, and noble examples fo che populace to reproduce through the psychology of imication, Denied sta-bility, calculation, and noble examples, she was denied external alory. Hers was «history of deprivation. Dissatisfied with simply calling attention to the political oid lefe by the absence of » ruling class, Machiavelli probed for « possible but frustrated Florentine analogue to the Roman sena- ‘ors, Finally he came across the objec of his aspirations, finding i in the most unlikely of places—unlikely, that is, to anyone who has read the Dicuss. From a class marked for slaughter in the Diswwria on the grounds ofits incompatibility with repub- licanism, the erstwhile feudal nobility, eransformed into an urban patriciate, was elevated in the Flérentine History to the stature of cornerstone in the structure of hopes for republican greatness. Previously, in the Discarar, Machiavelli had unmercifally €as- tigered the feadal nobility, ‘They are called genslemen who without working live in luxury on the returns from thei landed possessions, without paying any attention either to agriculture or to any other ‘occupation necessary for making a living. Such men as these are dangerous in every republic . .. , but still more dan- _zerous are they who, besides che aforesaid fortunes, com ‘mand castles and have subjects who obey them. These two kinds of men crowd the Kingdom of Naples, the city of Rome, che Romagna, and Lombardy. From this it comes thar in those lands ehere never has arisen any republic or well-ordered government, because men of these types are aleogether hostile to all fee government. ‘Without hesitation o mincing of words, Machiavelli suggested «remedy. “He who attempts ta set up a republic ina place where there are many gentlemen cannot do so unless he rst wipes them all out Whereas a nobility born of the city, such as ancient Rome's, ‘was a source of civic well-being, che feudal acbilities of Europe, standing for inequality, personal followings, and an anarchical eee epee eee ee eee tre: ae dive to subdue every other aoble femily, had no proper place within the city end belonged ¢o monarchical governments where {prince and his offcialdom—for example, the French king and. the parlements—could old them in check.» No city-state could afford to have a feudal nobility relocate fom the countryside © the urban center, unless it was a city tted of being a republic snd longing for peincely rule ‘As opposed co a feudal nobility, continues Machiavelli, «com- mercial aiscocracy such as that of Venice is all ro the good. Lam aware that my opinion chat whete chere are gentlemen a republic cannoc be organized appears contrary to the prac tice of ehe Venetian republic, in which no position can be held excepe by those who ate gentlemen, To this I answer that this instance does not oppose my belie, because the ‘gentlemen in thac republic are so rather in name than in fact; they do nos have grett incomes from landed possessions, bat theie great riches are based on trade and! movable prop- erty; moreover, none of them holds castles or has any jux risdiction over men.%* ‘An aristocracy of the Venetian variety knew how to live in peace within the walls of che city, how to act asa unified and corporate body, how co feftain from all-out contravension of republican egalitarianism. But when the feudal obles took up residence in the city of Florence, they brought feudal anarchy along wich them.” Noble family slashed the throat of noble family; the lawlessness of vendetta was continuously practiced; the over ‘weening pride of each noble made discipline, concerced action, and equality impossible. Each class within the city suffered ar the instigation of the nobiley, ‘Still, in the revised estimate of the Florentine History, chat was ‘not too high a price to pay, considering chat under the aegis of the nobility the milicary virtues and a contagious noble demeanor accompanied unwanted feudal anarchy as it entered the city,Caughe within the severely circumscribed confins of che city’s wall, feudal passion always militaristic, hungry for glory, aXe concempeuouly atrogant—would be more concentrated, pote, and explosive chan it had been in the wide-open agrarian hin- terland. Potentially, the nobility could have furnished he city ‘with excellence in arms, and its grandeur of soul cowl have been ‘cansmitted downseard by way ofthe imitaive impulse. No PES- anc in the countryside dared mimic the actions of « aobleman, bue within che city each citizen, however humble, coud sspiee to live nobly if he 9 pleased Sadly, Florentine history had unobligingly followed another course. Having called forthe heads ofthe nobles inthe Discare, Machiavelli was eventually driven to he stringe position of be- lieing the democrats of Florence in che Florine Hlivry f subduing their noble oppressors. Once the nobiliey was elimi rated, he now feared, there was no source from which the de- ‘mocracy could be infused with grandeur, and soon the democrat Spirit was manifesta a vile lowestcommon denominator equal ity, dragging che great down and forcing them to forsake tit noble senciments if they wished to survive ‘Through che people’s victories the city of Rome becaine more excellent (pitt virtwa}, because, along with nobles, men from che people could be appointed to administer the smagistacies, the armies, nd the high offices; thus, the laceet acquired the same cirtd the former bad, and that city, a she incrensed in vr, increased in power, But in Florence, since the people won, the nobles continued co be deprived of high offces, and if they wished eo get them again, they were forced in their conduct, theie spirit, and theie way of living . to be like ehe men of che people. When che nobles suffered this debasement, “the vir in arms and che boldness of spirit possessed by che nobility were destroyed, tnd these qualities could noe be rekindled in the people, where they did not exist, so thae Florence grew always weaker and more despicable,"** Grandeur and nobility of soul gave way to humble behavior nor just for the nobility but for all Florence, including. the triumphant upper middle class which was so eager to be regarded a8 a new aristocracy. If, as we have seen, the fate of the nobility was the central drama ofall Florentine history and a tragedy in one act as well, yet in another sense ic was only 2 single episode in a miserable tale ofall roo many scenes and acts. For the history of al hitherto ‘existing Florentine politics hud been the history of class strugeles, and factional incrigues. Noble and citizen, pattcian and plebeien, ‘major ond minor guild, guild master and journeyman, citizen and proletarian, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carrying on an wainterrupecd, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended in « reconstitution of the political structure of in the common rain of che contending classes. From this perspective the scaered bodies of che nobility, mutilated ia internecine intracity quacels instead of in the glory of ineercity combat, were only a few of che dowa- trodden in a much larger and thoroughly agonizing pattern of mean-spicited politics. This depressing story must be retold, thought Machiavelli, so char men will never agaia repent such foolish aad self-destructive politics. ‘The most promising place to initiate an examination of Flor- centioe domestic strife is with the nobility, the class most hated and most loved by Machiavelli, Eventually every class comes under fire for violating Machiavelli's most cherished political maxims, but che nobility is singled oue for especially harsh cen- sure, so harsh chat it iniially seems we are back in the nobilty= hating Disourie Historically, che nobility of Florence was the frst offender, the frse group to place personal and party interests above dedi ‘ation co civic virtue. In Roman history the coming of democracy ‘was accompanied by the promulgation of a body of laws, the‘Twelve Tables, copied from Greek democracy, and to these laws everyone paid homage, the nobility included. As always, Florence reversed the Roman peztern, The nobility efused to submit; even after raking up residence in the city, it continued to direct viow lence againse the classes below i and practiced vendetta, blood- feud, and kinship vengeance against its own kind, all of which brazenly eransgressed the framework of municipal legality.2° As if that were noc bad enough, the wayward nobles were also responsible for initiating the divisions that fragmented all of Florence into hostile factions. The quarel of Blacks and Whites. as originally che exclusive affaie of nable families bue with time it contaminated the whole of sociery.#© Much worse was the long- lived spit into Guelphs and Ghibellines, supporters of the papacy and the Holy Roman Empire respectively, Feom rival claimants +0 dominion overall Christendom during medieval rimes, papacy and empire had been reduced to one power among several con- tending Italian powers in the former case and in the latter to weak and disjointed sham. Under the names “Guelph” and “Ghuibelline,” neither papacy nor empire was relly to be found, bur only the ambition of rival noble factions in Florence and their ‘common sin against civic virue in looking for allies outside the iy who could help chem settle a domestic confit." Civie virtue suffered such repeated molestations by the nobility that it could never atzain full sergth of character, [Before long the insolence of the nobility was so intolerable that it united everyone situated below them on the social ladder. The ‘particular snimosities fle by various groupe for one another were remporacily set aside and replaced by the common animosity of all to the nobility, For a change, greater end lesser guilds were in agreement, and even the peasants outside the city were anxious to support measures designed to break the power of the nobility Finally, in Giano della Bella, che populace was given an enlight- ened leader, willing to act agains the nobility into which he had been born, so chat « better and more stable republic might be secured.” On the initiative ofthis exceptional man, the polieical structure of Florence was remade so as to deprive the nobility of ‘prominence in governmental affits. Under the new arrangement, known as che Ordinances of Justice, che guilds were all-powerful, fand the old nobility was degraded socially as well as politically by being forced ro enter the puilds.*> Hence emerged the humble nobility Machiavelli abhorred, a nobility chat could noe ennoble ‘the populace now hat ic had co live in accordance with pedestrian bourgeois mores if ic hoped to survive. After the aobiliey was domesticaed, the bateles within the city did noe subside but rekindled vime and again: ever a new factional aligament, ever a renewed class struggle. Although the vita of the nobility was not allowed co flow downward co the rmidale class, one thing di follow such a route of social diffusion, namely, feudal anarchy: ‘The pride and ambition of our nobles were no destroyed Due were taken... by our people, who now .. . strive £0 sin first rank in the republic. Since they have no other way to gain it than ehrough dissensions, they have divided the city once more... Unheroic bourgeois values moved upwards, enveloping the no- bes, bur the ghost of the nobility lived on in innumerable acts (of pecey self-esteem and a partern of ridiculous facionalism iad feudal valor been maintained intact, had i been segregated from feudal anarchy and passed down the social scale until uni versalized in the social psychology of the Florentines—had all these conditions been met, heroic civic virue could have flowered. [As ic was, feudal valor was uprooted, and when the dretded fruits of feudal anarchy ripened, chaos was multiplied « hundeedfold by the intensification of anarchistic feudal passions trapped wiehin the city’s walls. Discipline, so essential o Rome's and co aay civie vitewe, was impossible to maineain. Personal and dynastic quarrels shook the entice society, @ reality inimical ro the col-lecrivism of civic virtue. Crossbreeding democratic and aston cratic strains gave Rome everything and Florence nothing, neither ‘4 Machiavellian culing class, nor a democracy worth having, nor ‘even simple stability. Far from infusing Florentine democracy with greatness, the nobility dragged i into» politcal abyss. Given this scaching indictment drawn up by Machiavelli, itis incredible that he then went on to blame the democracy for manhandling the obles ‘All che Florentine democrats had done was to fulfil in their day ‘whar the Machiavelli of the Dicaurs: hoped other city-states would accomplish in his: the destruction of the nobility. One can only reconcile Machiavelli's inconsistency by saying that if he could not have a heroic democracy, then it was not always certain whether he wanted democracy at al ‘With the demise of the old nobility, a new aristocracy stepped forward, the “nobles of the people.” Recruited feom the grext ‘merchants and the leaders of the guilds, chese leading: members of the bourgeoisie were noble only by virtue of filsely assured airs, For a while they managed to stay on top by a game of what anachronistic retrospect looks very much like the divide-end- rule serategy of nineteenth-century Whiggery. Just as “thei fi- thers made use of the masses to destroy the haughtiness of the nobles, {s0} now thar the aobility bad become humble and the ‘masses haughty, the haughtiness of the lowest classes could well be checked with the aid of the nobles."«* There was democracy, bout only among the well-rondo; the democracy was theie democ racy and too much democracy was bad for goverament. Sometimes events spun out of control, and after an expensive var they instigated failed, che fat burghers had to submit co @ graduated levy of tation. Not a magnanimous leadership sworn to abide by republican egalitarianism, but a frightened and pu- sillanimous leadership was responsible for passage of this reno- vated system of taxation. In general the new arstoceacy-—really fothing more than an oligarchy with aristocratic pretensions — was vulnerable for cwo familise reasons, Fins, after consolidating, is power, the new upper stratum began co take its primacy for sranced and was soon unbearable; second, having thus severed itself from everyone below its station, the new elie added to ies weakness by ineracass quartels, confices, and feuds. In short che fnew “nobility,” learning nothing from the demise of the old, went about repeating those mistakes chat always mark a ruling. class for insuerection, Before long, ehe pattern of post-arstocraic politics was apparent; the new nobles were the “promorers of slavery” and the people were che “promocers of license."*" TIL deeds of a ruling class are always evi compounded: a vile ruling class brings the worst out ia everyone. Whether extraordinarily roble, a in Rome, of extraordinarily despicable, as in Florence, ruling clas is never a thing indifferent ‘The political evils begotten by class hosiites were sometimes unqualified. Theee episodes in particular stand out in Mach- iavelli’s history as illustrations of how far he believed che deg- ‘dation of Florentine politics could go. One was Florence's eatly encounter with a despor, the Duke of Athens, in 1343; a second, was the speech Machiavelli put in che mouth of @ disillusioned, Floreacine paceioc in 1372; and the chird was the revole of the CCiompi in 1378. Each ofthese episodes recapiculaed the wasteful past or was pregeane with the selfdescructive fucue. Holding whar was meant to be a temporary position in the Florentine republic, the Duke of Athens capitalized on the wide- sptead frustration and renewal of class antagonisms that followed, in the wake of a lose war. The aobles, not yet completely abject, ‘encouraged the Duke to declare himself prince, and eheir sug- zestion was seconded by several noceworthy upper middle-class families who, “burdened by debts they could not pay from theie ‘own property, wished to pay chem fom thar of others, and wich the slavery of cher city co free themselves from slavery ¢o theie creditors." Seizing his opporcunity, the Duke won immediate popularity by executing che leaders of the ill-fited wat againstBe ‘THe REPUBLIC THAT IS Lucca. Nobles and lower clases applatsed enthusiastically and the middle classes were too immobilized by feat to respond at all. Next, with the assistance of the old nobility and the lowest classes, dhe Dulke's office was changed from a one yeer grant to 4 position held for life. And when che Duke undertook the dis- ‘mantling of the constitutional structute, so long the shield and ‘weapon of the middle cass, ie became perfectly evidene that the premonitions of the bourgeoisie were well-founded, Faithful co classical models in his techniques of historical writ= ing, Machiavelli constructs from his own imagination « speech by a Florentine who hopes to dissuade the Duke from his tans parear designs You seek to make a slave ofa city that has always lived free. Hiave you considered how important and how strong in a city like this is the name of libery, which no force crushes, ao time wears way, and ao gain councerbalances? Consider, my lord, whae great forces ace needed to hold as a slave so great a ci. Not even the winning of « great Italian empice could possibly ‘ompensite che Floreatines for the oss of their liberty ‘What actions do you intend yours shall be thit can coun terpoise the sweecness of free government... ? Not if you should joia co chis state all of Tuscany, and if every day you should recurn into this city triumphant over your enemies; because al that glory would be not hers but yours, and the cicizens would gain aoe subjeces but fellow slaves ‘The Duke is further informed that che political absolutism he ‘raves cannot be bolsered by a solid social foundation. AS soon 18 the nobles have wreaked veageance om the middle clas, they will withdraw their support, and the fickle plebeians who form the other pilla ofthe Duke's power ae pt co cunge their minds at a moment's notice. Abandoned and isolated, che Duke could TH REPUNLIC THAT IS 8 not be a prince bus only a tyrant, and, like all eyranes, his hands would soon be soiled by the blood of innocents, and his own person would be in constant danger. So the patriotic Florentine informs the Duke in eruly prophetic words. But until the time when the fulilment of prophecy is at hind, the Duke has the lase word, To all charges that he is robbing Florence of her liberty he has one treachant reply: "He said it was not his purpose 0 take away the ciey’s liberty, but co give ie back again, because only disunited cities were slaves and united ones fre." Both accuser and accused, the patriotic Florentine and the Duke, were correct. A city excessively disunited is not free, but neither can unity be had from the absolute power of a single person. Initially the darling of large segments of Florentine so- ciety, che Duke, in his lse for unlimited power, alienaed classes ins seady progression until at last he seood alone, completely powerful and completely weak. Hardly had tenure for life beea offered him than he curned against che nobles as well as che ‘middle class, crushing both indiscriminacely under an immense burden of tssation, Ifthe Duke had his way, no one in the entire icy would be noble, wealthy, or secure excepehiemelf, To this end he forge an alliance of suppore consisting, feorn within, of the lowest classes, ehe anenfianchised and noncitizens, and, from without, of the peoples of cities long held in subjection to Flor- ence. Other unpleasant consequences of bis reiga included an influx of Frenchmen into che city who flaunted thee alien ways, much to the annoyance of the natives; worse still, and a blunder Machiavelli ated as parciculaely egregious, stupid, and inflam ratory, the Duke and his henchmen violated Florentine women repentely.2° OF che Duke's reiga i¢ mig be said chat the "se- verity and kindness he had pretended were transformed into pride and cruelty, s0 chat many citizens... were fined or pa to death for tortured in strange ways,” and the only ones saved from oppres- sion were those whom Florence had overcome in batle—ehase ‘hose oppresion was essential to the grandeur of Florence.”So erratic and unjust was the Duke's government that con- spiracies were brewing against him ar every level of the social scale, top to bottom; indeed, the history ofthe Duke's teiga, ia ne sense, reads as a case study of the principles articulated ia Discoares tit, 6, "On Conspiracy,” and might be placed under a subbeading worded “How co provoke conspiracies,” At last Flot- fence rid herself of a tyrant. Yer, for all the satisfaction he took. in relating che overthcow of the Duke, Machiavelli refused ¢o construe this event as a vindication of the city's free and demo- cratic spire. Rather it was bue one more event confirming his picture of the Florentines as a people “who cannot keep theie liberty and yer cannot endute servicade"®*—a phrase borrowed from the Histories of Tacitus,” where ic was used to characterize the degraded Romans of the early Empite, who could not be Citizens but would noe be subjects To read between the lines, the entire history of the Duke's brief rule may be viewed as 2 premonition of Florence's later submission to the Medici, whose polticel longevity was due to ‘wo considerations. More devious than the Duke, the Medici ‘observed republican sieuals and forms even as they czcumvented republican substance. The second source of the strengeh of the Medici was derived, ironically, ftom the strengeh of theie op- pponenes. Never absolute rulers, the Medici and their circle were too involved in placaing the populace to permit serious dissension to break ous amoag their own numbers.» Florence could discard the Duke of Athens, bat all she gained was a breathing space, and not a permanent exempcion from the coming of che prince. When the Medici prince encered che city ata lave date, inau grating a period of counterfeit republicanism, lberey* and glory depared, imposcors taking cheie place, Jn truth the Medici prince, rahe than entering the city from the outside, as did the Duke of Athens at an earlier date, was an entirely homegrowa product, and exemplified Machiavelli's rule ‘hac ambition expressed ehrough private means, notably by build- eee eee Lae ee ena one ing a personal and ostensibly sonpolicical following, signaled the presence of an il-regulated, corruptible republic ready to decline nto tyranny.®” Hardly the worst of tyrants, usually tbe eo hide their eyranny, the Medici nevertheless revealed what they were by their understanding ofehe proces of “renewal.” Every 0 often, it is true, the Flotence of the Medici did return to its pristine first principles—noe, however, eo the frst principles of the ce- public, bur to the first principles of che Medici “Those who managed the government of Florence from 1434 ‘to 1494 commonly said that every five years they needed ro revise the goverament. ... By revising the government they meant inspiring such terror and such fear in the people as they had inspiced on fist caking charge... * Under the Medici, the violence that almost always accompanies ‘renewal meant a rededication to corruption rather than a recovery of virtue A brief period of turbulence followed on the heels of the ex- pulsion of the Duke of Athens in 1343. Externally, the rise of the Florentines againse theie individual eyrant was the signal for 4 rise of foreign subjects against thei collective master—-the city of Florence.® Internally, a compromise divided the government beewcen nobles and burghers, bur proved co be short-lived ‘The city would have been quiet if the nobles had been content to live with the modesty demanded by life as citi zens, bue they did the opposite, because in private life they tolerated no equals, and in che magistracies they were de~ ‘ermined to be lords, and every day there was some instance of theie arrogance and pride, This offended che people, who lamented that for one tyrane who had been removed a thou- sand had sprung up. From the ensuing confusion there emerged a new consticution, ‘more democeatic than any preceding ie, which lasted from 1345,w 1982, lwo the eb govcamesal pate ch leet Builds ere absorbed, whichis anther way o ying hae he ‘as «democracy no only of great merchandisers ieee ee chson of heats ras matched bythe dese cation the mobility frm Pvatn pols, snes tae Machel shows aoe th sights eof ht ens or che coming of democicy tat as writen lage Int eine on Roman poles He could at ele that snything ble could ever came fom the democncy ofthe humble, the pe Airy, the economy pence How very degraded Florence ad Dome isthe theme ofa soeech sppoeliy delivered in 372 by ero bi oan In this speech, on f many tha uma the mone moran evens Spiced inthe Flin Hiss, Mache naginny proagoist recites wth reason te ey of is aie ce tes, eis an extensors ell wrth e-cesing ec inte Machivelfs wounded republican pe seamed ies che ange ofa ee indictment the ov pater of Foren poles, Libery, equality, a neni, reve the word embloned on the emblems of repbi, bein lnc ben pened Beyond engnton, oF 30 wea ttre in this rele speech. Instead of bry, thee ae peso allowing, tion, Alin, and lies Instead of eur among ret mc, here isthe we equal of corupin. Intend faery he broesond ae me, shri the fern of mrngaeing Tere is among the cen,” the Foveaine pao bey coop, “whe sion ar Sendly ce ung st ‘ho ae share in sone wickedes undertaken eter apie thir iy oe agin inden" Chenin the try a Grek coupon, Thucydides had need har worsened he ieaning, new an perverted defn taking the ple of ld tnd vias meanings he same tee ne cco Sale historian of Roman corruption; and aow Machiavelli appears co bhave made an identical observation about Florentine corruption, (One of the principal sources of Rome's unity was the power of religious belief and che extraordinary efficacy ofeaths in binding. together the populace. In Florence, on the contrary, "because religion and the fear of God have been extinguished in all mes, fn oath aad a pledge are valuable as far as they are profitable, for ‘men employ them not with the purpose of observing them, but +0 use them as means for deceiving more easly," sighs Mach- ivell’s patriotic speaker. From Machiavelli's viewpoine, religion does and should deceive, since its deceptions, when correctly used, forge communal solidarity; bat in Florence, always the antithesis, ‘of Rome, religion had become & weapon wielded by one faction ‘against another, Factionalism, unrepentant factionalism, was the sin of Florence and it dragged everyone into the mice, even the bese: "The wicked adhere to factions through avarice .., ehe good through ne cessity.” A man alone in a factious society is a man extremely vulnerable. By a political version of Gresham's law, the good are cither driven out of devalued uncil they reach the level of the bad. “The good, erusting in theit innocence, do nor seek, like the wicked, for those who will unlawfully defend and honor them; hence che fll undefended and unhonored.” Young and old alike, men of every class and station, are debased and scricken by a common malady in a city "sustaining herself by means of factions rather thua laws." Corruption of such magnitude was bound co affec the ability of Florence to asere herself against other states. Though corrup- tion is « disease of the inner pars of the body politic, its effecs ate visible in che extemal acions ofthat body, is freiga policy ‘The winners in factional stoggles, generalizes the spokesman of Florentine patriotism, “make laws and starutes not for the public benefr but for their own; hence wars, eeuces, alliances are decided not for the common glory but for the pleasure of a few." In ancient Rome the wars proposed by the ruling class co divert theprople were always fought with the common glory of Rome consesty in mind, and ough success. In Florence ee wars acinxcaed by the fulers were fought forthe gloy ofthe few, fought unsuccesly, and evel the many sw through the sham: Repesteiyin the Flrntine History Machiavelli makes the tate- rent tha "te whole city was under ams. "9 Virtually the sume seatement may be found in the Dicer, where we read that “the whole city, both the noble and the ignoble, weve employed in war. Pethaps nothing so well summarizes che difference between Florence and Rome as thee two nec id tions; because in the Roman cae they describe an entire city armed for glorious deeds in hate apn other cites, while in the Florentine case they describe a city ingloriculy at war with ise. Like every government preceding it, the regime of 1343 t0 1382 was a volatile and unstable compound, always in danger of explosion or mote gridual decomposition. The outbreak of hos- ilies in 1378 berween major and minor guilds, traders and arcisans, was, chen, nothing out of the ordinary, and even the involvement of the urban plebes was not in iteelf « novel phe- ‘nomenon. Many times before the plebeians had been mobilized, answering the summons of one of another party, only co be victimized by their erstwhile ally once the victory was assured Yet the plebeian polities of 1378 did have its unique side. This ‘ime the poor and miserable wretches were out t0 secute their own good and by whatever measures were necessary. Scum of the earth, these vulgar refugees from the countzyside had aot found Liberty awaicing them within the ciey’s walls, but rather a wool industry ready and eager to grind and wasce cheie bodies and spicts. Denied permission co organize as « guild, so essential if they were to gain access to the politics of peaceful group bat-

You might also like

• MACdowell Law in Classical Athens

  

  100% (1)

  MACdowell Law in Classical Athens

  140 pages
• Mill and Liberalism, Second Edition PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Mill and Liberalism, Second Edition PDF

  216 pages
• Radical Enlightenment - Philosophy and The Making of Modernity (1650-1750), Jonathan Israel

  

  No ratings yet

  Radical Enlightenment - Philosophy and The Making of Modernity (1650-1750), Jonathan Israel

  847 pages
• Georges Sorel - Sorel - Reflections On Violence (1999, Cambridge University Press)

  

  50% (2)

  Georges Sorel - Sorel - Reflections On Violence (1999, Cambridge University Press)

  69 pages
• Karl Loewenstein (Auth.) - The Governance of ROME (1973, Springer Netherlands)

  

  100% (1)

  Karl Loewenstein (Auth.) - The Governance of ROME (1973, Springer Netherlands)

  510 pages
• What Is Political Philosophy? by Leo Strauss

  

  100% (2)

  What Is Political Philosophy? by Leo Strauss

  30 pages
• Hanna Fenichel Pitkin Fortune Is A Woman Gender and Politics in The Thought of Nicollo Machiavelli With A New Afterword PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Hanna Fenichel Pitkin Fortune Is A Woman Gender and Politics in The Thought of Nicollo Machiavelli With A New Afterword PDF

  388 pages
• Pitkin - Fortune Is A Woman - Gender and Politics in Machiavelli PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Pitkin - Fortune Is A Woman - Gender and Politics in Machiavelli PDF

  388 pages
• MOV STEIN Lorenz Von History of Social Movement in France - Compressed Text 2

  

  No ratings yet

  MOV STEIN Lorenz Von History of Social Movement in France - Compressed Text 2

  372 pages
• Machiavelli's Paradox - Trapping or Teaching The Prince

  

  100% (1)

  Machiavelli's Paradox - Trapping or Teaching The Prince

  13 pages
• Bangalir Itihas Adiparba (A History of The Bengali People Early Period) by Niharranjan Roy PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Bangalir Itihas Adiparba (A History of The Bengali People Early Period) by Niharranjan Roy PDF

  876 pages
• Neusner-Parthian Political History

  

  No ratings yet

  Neusner-Parthian Political History

  20 pages
• Liberal Temper in Greek Politics - BW

  

  No ratings yet

  Liberal Temper in Greek Politics - BW

  452 pages
• (M. I. Finley) Politics in The Ancient World

  

  No ratings yet

  (M. I. Finley) Politics in The Ancient World

  164 pages
• SHUGART, Matthew Søberg, CAREY, John M. - Presidents and Assemblies - Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics

  

  No ratings yet

  SHUGART, Matthew Søberg, CAREY, John M. - Presidents and Assemblies - Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics

  331 pages
• John P. McCormick Machiavellian Democracy-155-202 PDF

  

  100% (1)

  John P. McCormick Machiavellian Democracy-155-202 PDF

  48 pages
• FRAUSTO, Obed - The Power of The Metaphysical Artifact

  

  No ratings yet

  FRAUSTO, Obed - The Power of The Metaphysical Artifact

  246 pages
• (I Tatti Studies in Italian Renaissance History) Alison Brown - The Return of Lucretius To Renaissance Florence-Harvard University Press (2010)

  

  No ratings yet

  (I Tatti Studies in Italian Renaissance History) Alison Brown - The Return of Lucretius To Renaissance Florence-Harvard University Press (2010)

  158 pages
• The Venetians in Athens, 1687-1688 (1940)

  

  No ratings yet

  The Venetians in Athens, 1687-1688 (1940)

  119 pages
• Strauss and Straussianism From The Ancients To Moderns - Devigne

  

  No ratings yet

  Strauss and Straussianism From The Ancients To Moderns - Devigne

  25 pages
• Anne Crippen - Love & Marriage, Jane Austen

  

  No ratings yet

  Anne Crippen - Love & Marriage, Jane Austen

  310 pages
• David Hume's Political Philosophy - The Farce of Sovereign Authority (Social Contract)

  

  100% (1)

  David Hume's Political Philosophy - The Farce of Sovereign Authority (Social Contract)

  7 pages
• Saul Newman - "Derrida's Deconstruction of Authority"

  

  No ratings yet

  Saul Newman - "Derrida's Deconstruction of Authority"

  23 pages
• Klever Spinozistic Hume

  

  No ratings yet

  Klever Spinozistic Hume

  114 pages
• Ambitus and Electoral Fraud

  

  No ratings yet

  Ambitus and Electoral Fraud

  131 pages
• Aristotle - Politics

  

  No ratings yet

  Aristotle - Politics

  192 pages
• Two Conceptions of Citizenship

  

  No ratings yet

  Two Conceptions of Citizenship

  17 pages
• Jacques Rancière Ten Thesis On Politics

  

  No ratings yet

  Jacques Rancière Ten Thesis On Politics

  13 pages
• John P. McCormick, Maquiavellian Democracy (2001) PDF

  

  100% (1)

  John P. McCormick, Maquiavellian Democracy (2001) PDF

  18 pages
• A Mind and Its Time The Development of Isaiah Berlin S Political Thought 1st Edition Joshua L. Cherniss

  

  No ratings yet

  A Mind and Its Time The Development of Isaiah Berlin S Political Thought 1st Edition Joshua L. Cherniss

  48 pages
• Bloom - ''Rousseau On Equality of The Sexes'' (1986) PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Bloom - ''Rousseau On Equality of The Sexes'' (1986) PDF

  21 pages
• Schall Metaphysics Theology and PT

  

  No ratings yet

  Schall Metaphysics Theology and PT

  25 pages
• Cartesian Philosophy Broad Questions by E 53

  

  No ratings yet

  Cartesian Philosophy Broad Questions by E 53

  7 pages
• Allan Bloom - The Political Philosophy of Isocrate PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Allan Bloom - The Political Philosophy of Isocrate PDF

  237 pages
• Interpretation, Vol 30-2

  

  No ratings yet

  Interpretation, Vol 30-2

  106 pages
• Luca Baccelli - Political Imagination, Conflict and Democracy. Machiavelli's Republican Realism PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Luca Baccelli - Political Imagination, Conflict and Democracy. Machiavelli's Republican Realism PDF

  22 pages
• Whiteboard Oct 21, 2024

  

  No ratings yet

  Whiteboard Oct 21, 2024

  14 pages
• Raymond Plant 1

  

  100% (2)

  Raymond Plant 1

  14 pages
• The Monstrous Agathocles

  

  No ratings yet

  The Monstrous Agathocles

  43 pages
• Constructing - Us - Ideology, Coalition P - Bawn - Kathleen

  

  No ratings yet

  Constructing - Us - Ideology, Coalition P - Bawn - Kathleen

  33 pages
• The Dynamic of The American Dream - 2020

  

  No ratings yet

  The Dynamic of The American Dream - 2020

  15 pages
• LEO STRAUSS ''Religion & The Commonweal'' (Text.1963)

  

  No ratings yet

  LEO STRAUSS ''Religion & The Commonweal'' (Text.1963)

  30 pages
• Panem Et Circenses

  

  No ratings yet

  Panem Et Circenses

  6 pages
• Vlastos, Equality and Justice in Early Greek Cosmologies

  

  No ratings yet

  Vlastos, Equality and Justice in Early Greek Cosmologies

  24 pages
• Citizen Machiavelli

  

  No ratings yet

  Citizen Machiavelli

  7 pages
• Machiavelli, Guicciardini

  

  No ratings yet

  Machiavelli, Guicciardini

  19 pages
• HAUPT HG - Comparative History - IESBS 2001 2397-04pdf

  

  100% (1)

  HAUPT HG - Comparative History - IESBS 2001 2397-04pdf

  7 pages
• Michael Mann Militarizmin Tipleri

  

  No ratings yet

  Michael Mann Militarizmin Tipleri

  11 pages
• John Loke

  

  No ratings yet

  John Loke

  17 pages
• Brunt Stoicism and Principate

  

  No ratings yet

  Brunt Stoicism and Principate

  30 pages
• The Organic State by G. R. G. Mure

  

  No ratings yet

  The Organic State by G. R. G. Mure

  15 pages
• McCormick - Defending The People From The Professors

  

  No ratings yet

  McCormick - Defending The People From The Professors

  8 pages
• The Struggle With Time: Kari Palonen

  

  0% (1)

  The Struggle With Time: Kari Palonen

  4 pages
• Wolfson - Friedrich Meinecke (1862-1954) PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Wolfson - Friedrich Meinecke (1862-1954) PDF

  16 pages
• Introduction To Schmitt's 'The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations'

  

  No ratings yet

  Introduction To Schmitt's 'The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations'

  9 pages
• Little, Religious Poverty and The Profit Economy

  

  No ratings yet

  Little, Religious Poverty and The Profit Economy

  3 pages
• The Question of Machiavelli

  

  No ratings yet

  The Question of Machiavelli

  5 pages
• Queen - Fortuna or Virtu

  

  No ratings yet

  Queen - Fortuna or Virtu

  8 pages
• Beyond Decolonizing: Global Intellectual History and Reconstruction of A Comparative Method

  

  No ratings yet

  Beyond Decolonizing: Global Intellectual History and Reconstruction of A Comparative Method

  2 pages
• The Revolutionary Tradition and Its Lost Treasure

  

  No ratings yet

  The Revolutionary Tradition and Its Lost Treasure

  3 pages