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)
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 Niccolos 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 Machiavellis 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 Machiavellis 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 Machiavellis humanistic side, his work The Prince, if it is a reflection of his character, shows otherwise. The Prince is one of Machiavellis 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 Machiavellis generosity and intuition. Once again in the long run Machiavellis 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*)
(*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 Machiavellis 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 insteadan immoral lunatic.)