The Reality of Machiavelli and Present Day Politicos

 

 

 

     Niccolo Machiavelli is a mysterious man, so much is known about his work such as The Prince, Mandrogola, and Discourse for instance but little is know about the personality and character of the man himself.  So the million-dollar question is who was Machiavelli?  Many historians and scholars around the globe have been trying to shed some light on the life and pursuits of Niccolo Machiavelli trying to give the rest of the world an insight into the life of a brilliant man.  Unfortunately not much has been uncovered, however a major dilemma has come to light.  Is the true Niccolo Machiavelli, the same Machiavelli one thinks of today?  For instance the definition of Machiavellian in the dictionary is:

 

1 : of or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism

2 : suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli;

specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith

-          Machiavellian noun (Britannica Online)

The definition dictates that Machiavelli was a cunning and immoral person who was unable to keep his word.  In a sense by this definition, Niccolo Machiavelli seems like a modern day Stalin or Castro!  If someone called you a Machiavellian person, by definition it is hardly a compliment.  However through what remaining material culture that we have concerning Machiavelli it is fairly obvious that the definition associated with man is a possible misnomer. 

     So why do people think of Niccolo Machiavelli as a ruthless man?  As noted before it is mainly due to the lack of knowledge pertaining to his life.  The information we do have attributed to Machiavelli pertains to his works such as the deceitful comedy Mandrogola.  Obviously throughout Machiavelli’s professional work, he makes his political views clear and up-front.  There is obviously a conflict between the character and motives of the renaissance Florentine politician.  Was he able to take his political views and methods and project them in to reality?  Was Machiavelli an activist when it came to enacting what he preached?  Was he a man true to his own ideals?  In many instances his humanistic plans fell through the floor and ended up to be complete utter blunders.  A good example of Machiavellian plan that was a complete failure, was the time Machiavelli commissioned Michelangelo Buonarroti to construct a canal to divert the Arno River from reaching Pisa, thus starving the city.  Nothing became of the plan and it ended up to be an embarrassment (Rubinstein 74).    

     These questions are part of the paradox that surrounds the character of Niccolo Machiavelli.  I will attempt to shed some light on this complicated subject to hopefully give the reader an insight of who the man named Niccolo Machiavelli really was.  In a sense this work will investigate the rift between Niccolo Machiavelli the politician and Machiavelli the human being.  Are these two characters one in the same or was Machiavelli putting on a false façade that fooled his contemporaries and continues to fool scholars and historians today. 

Many contemporary scholars speak of certain politicians as modern day Machiavelli’s.  This train of thought also creates a modern day dilemma concerning what kind of person Machiavelli was.  Many articles and books have been written about Niccolo Machiavelli’s life and comparing it to the lives of other political leaders through out time.  Do these works hold any face?  To put it in other words, have many critics over time distorted Machiavelli’s life after his death and why?  By looking at some materials it is fairly obvious that many authors only attribute Machiavelli to his work in The Prince.  These critics never bring in to the picture that the work could be a form of literature written for the purpose to reestablish loyalty towards the Medici family.  Other authors after Machiavelli’s life merely mistake him for Caesare Borgia.  (Insert Article Citing Here).  So by looking at current works and contemporary works by Machiavelli, one can gain an insight to who Machiavelli was and if he and his political views are being emulated today.  It may very well turn out that Niccolo Machiavelli was nothing more than a brilliant spin doctor.   

Perhaps after studies such as this one and the many others that are in drafting, the dictionaries of the world may have to be altered to project the true meaning of being Machiavellian.

     The most important evidence that remains of Niccolo Machiavelli's life, are his personal letters.  In these letters many insights can be created.  Not only have letters that Machiavelli wrote to other people survive, but responses also survive.  Many argue today that letter writing is a lost art form, and by looking at the prose and structure of a simple letter written by Niccolo Machiavelli they have ample evidence to prove their point.  By just studying the structure and technique of Machiavelli’s letters it is obvious that he was a man with a brilliant and cunning mind.  However I do not wish to focus on the prose of the letters, instead the content and what is said in the letters is more important. 

     Analyzing the letter to see a personal aspect of Niccolo Machiavelli is almost as difficult as analyzing his professional works.  Mail during Renaissance Florence was not private mail as we have today.  Back then the various couriers readily looked upon mail and sometimes it was shared with other people.  Because Machiavelli knew of this, at times he deliberately made his letters satirical and far fetched.  Fortunately letters do exist where he lets down his guard and apparently writes the truth.

There are many surviving letters written to Machiavelli, but there are few in comparison written by Machiavelli himself.  However those that show a dialogue between Machiavelli and his acquaintances, clearly show that, in many cases, that Niccolo was involved in quite a few tightly bound relationships.  One of the most notable relationships is with Francesco Vettori.  In one of his letters to Vettori written in 1513 he writes:

               

 

To the Magnificent Ambassador Francesco

Vettori, with the Supreme Pontiff.

In Rome.

Magnificent Lord Ambassador:

 

…I regret any thought you might have that I

     may have that I may be angry— not on my own

     behalf, because I have resigned myself to

     desiring passionately nothing further, but

     on your behalf.  I implore you to follow

     the example of the others who make a place

     for themselves through importunity and

     cunning rather than intellect and judicious-

     ness… Once and for all, I am telling you

     not to go to any trouble concerning the

     things I ask from you, because if I do

     not get them I shall not suffer for it.

    

     If you find that commenting upon matters

     bores you because you realize that they

     frequently turn out differently from the

     opinions and ideas we have, you are right—

     because the same thing has happened to me.

     All the same, if I could talk to you, I

     could not help but fill your head

     with castles in air, because Fortune

has seen to it that since I do not know

how to talk about either the silk or the

wool trade, or profits or losses

     I have to talk about politics.

 

     If I could disentangle myself from Florentine

     territory, I too, would certainly go down

     there to see if the pope is at home; but,

     among so many requests for pardon, mine

     fell to the floor because of my negligence.

     I shall wait until September.

 

     I should like you to advise me whether or

     not you think it would be appropriate for

     me to write him [Cardinal Soderini]a letter

     request a recommendation to His Holiness. 

     Or would it be better for you to speak on

     my behalf directly with the cardinal?  Or

     if neither should be done, perhaps you could

     give me a brief reply to this matter…

 

                        In Florence, 9 April 1513

             Niccolo Machiavelli, former Secretary

(Atkinson 225)

 

 

     From this one letter many possible insights can be made.  Does this sound like the Machiavelli that is professed to be cruel, scheming and ruthless?  Hardly.  First of all, during the time he wrote the letter he was currently in exile and he had been tortured.  In the letter Machiavelli is inches away from begging at the feet of his political friend Vettori.  Was Niccolo’s groveling genuine or was it part of a plan to get out of exile?  In other dialogues Machiavelli and Vettori carry on, the suffering of Machiavelli seems genuine.

     However one must take in to account the character-defining paragraph where Machiavelli writes that he can only talk about politics.  What does this statement actually mean?  Does it mean that Machiavelli is not capable of being truthful or sincere?  In the context it is clear that Niccolo is bringing up the situation that he is currently in because he knows of nothing else to discuss.  On the other hand he could also mean this statement of his to apply out of context, meaning that he only has knowledge of politics.  Professor John M. Najemy argues that… (Atkinson 500).

     When the letter is looked at as a whole it is obvious that the letter is an attempted power play by Machiavelli.  He wants his exile to end and he is hitting Vettori with humanistic sincerity.  Machiavelli is not using trickery or threats of power to influence Vettori.  Instead he trying to get sympathy from Vettori; Machiavelli even hits Vettori with an excerpt from Dante in the beginning of his letter.  To understand this letter better a response from Vettori is needed.  Fortunately, Vettori and Machiavelli remain open to quite a few latter exchanges. 

Through out their conversations via letters, it seems that they gain a mutual respect for each other even though Machiavelli’s later attempts to lobby Vettori for a job fail.  Why does Machiavelli continue to write to Vettori when it is obvious that Vettori will not do any large favors for Machiavelli?  Does a true friendship develop?  Again this whole lengthy exchange seems like an attempt by Machiavelli to better his position, but it fails and fails poorly.  Once again it is one of Machiavelli’s failed gaffes.  While his manipulation of Vettori is seen as a failure by both parties Machiavelli persists on being sincere and respectful.  (More analysis needed on letters to and replies from Vettori and other people quite possibly Biagio).

While these letters show Machiavelli’s humanistic side, his work The Prince, if it is a reflection of his character, shows otherwise.  The Prince is one of Machiavelli’s most notorious works.  Many people when they hear the name Machiavelli associate The Prince to Machiavelli in one way or another.  Those people who do not know of The Prince know the catch phrase, ”The ends justify the means,” which is attributed to The Prince although it is never stated within the work itself.

(*Paragraph(s) on analysis of the Prince and certain passages that back as evidence proving my argument *).

The dilemma of the work is whether or not Machiavelli was sincere about what he wrote.  The work was meant as a present to the Medici family showing that Machiavelli was still loyal to the family.  Again like the letters to Vettori The Prince was meant as a political gesture towards another party, hoping that they would accept and reward Machiavelli’s generosity and intuition.  Once again in the long run Machiavelli’s attempt to politic his way to a desired position failed.           

       (*Allude to Discourses and note how it too was a ruthless work and how it parallels to The Prince*)

Niccolo Machiavelli was a pure Florentine Republican, he believed in the power of the people.  Why would he then instruct rulers and nobles to abuse their own power to keep these noble people in check?  Machiavelli militaristically believed in the average citizen.  He felt that they were loyal and lacked the corruptness that mercenaries were plagued with.  He wrote a whole work describing his ideology concerning warfare; it is known as The Art of War.  In this work he puts strong emphasis and fervor on the citizen army.  He felt that a community militia of local men would have more fervor and morale in a battle fighting for their state, thus remaining pure and honest.  (*Refer to Art of War*) 

During the early years of the sixteenth-century, Florence was involved in a war campaign to take over Pisa.  The actions of the condottieri showed major procrastination to the point that the Florentine armies were in disarray. (*back evidence from Art of War {he was able to take over Pisa later to have his militia destroyed and humiliated by the Medici’s*).          

 

(*Use the Mandrogola as evidence of a humanistic work, it was written for his mistress shows that he is obviously witty… what did his contemporaries think of his work?  It was one of his few successes*)

(*allude to present day accurate and inaccurate politicians characterized as being Machiavellian show their political views and how they relate to Machiavelli… lastly note their ability to bring their views to reality and ponder if they are what Machiavelli may have wished to be*) 

 

(Conclusion stating that Machiavelli may have been a great talker and thinker but was ultimately unable to enact or did not bring to reality his political views.  Also linking other political figures (recent and non) to Machiavelli’s character and ability.  Leave a last thought of why Machiavelli is thought of for the most part as a negative figure and not of a brilliant mind who was trying to make an ascension in to high society Florence and ultimately barring his talent was unable to make the transition).  He was just a guy trying to make a buck!  If he had enacted what he preached then he may have well succeeded in his endeavors, however if he did then we wold not be speaking of him as a brilliant man instead—an immoral lunatic.)