Machiavelli and the Italian Renaissance
Niccolo Machiavelli.
| Professeur(s) | Alexis Keller[1][2][3] |
|---|---|
| Cours | History of Legal and Political Thought: The Foundations of Modern Legal and Political Thought 1500 - 1850 |
Lectures
- Machiavelli and the Italian Renaissance
- The era of the Reformation
- The birth of the modern concept of the state
- John Locke and the Civil Government Debate
- Montesquieu and the definition of the Free State
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the new social contract
- The Federalist and American political theory
- John Stuart Mill, Democracy and the Limits of the Liberal State
We are going to tackle the first foundation on which Hobbes will build his theory of the state, this man is Machiavelli. Machiavelli is important because he brings to political thought and philosophy a whole reflection on the aims of the state, the very foundations of the 'respublica', and he will bring a number of arguments that Hobbes will take up and use later.
Biography
Nicolas Machiavelli was born in Florence on 3 May 1469 into a well-to-do family, attached by his father to the guild of notaries and judges; his paternal forefathers held numerous positions in the government and administration of the Republic.
Of his training, we know little about his initiation to the Latin humanities and mathematics and, under the impetus of his father, a lawyer, he studied law.
Although Machiavelli's youth coincided with the prestigious reign of the most famous of the Medici, Lorenzo the Magnificent (1469-1492), his entry into public life immediately followed the dramatic fall of the theocratic regime of the Dominican monk Jerome Savonarola (1494-1498), who had taken over from the unfortunate successor of Lorenzo, Pierre de Medici (1492-1494).
In June 1498, barely fifteen days after Savonarola's death at the stake, Machiavelli was appointed "Secretary of the Second Chancellery" of Florence and on 14 July 1498 he was appointed Secretary of the "Ten of the Supreme Authority" (Dieci di Balia), a position that was at the same time the head of an office of the Ministry of the Interior and a representative of the external mission.
It was in this capacity - which he held until 1512 when the Republican regime collapsed with the return of the Medici - that Machiavelli assumed important legations in Italy, under Catherine Sforza (1499), of Caesar Borgia (1502) and Pope Julius II (1506), but also in France with King Louis XII (1500, 1504, 1510, 1511), and in the Germanic countries with Emperor Maximilian (1507-1508), crossing Switzerland from Geneva to Constance on this occasion. Linked to the republican regime, in particular to the Gonfalonier Pierre Soderini (1502-1512), he was compromised with the latter at the time of his fall with the return of the Medici to Florence and dismissed from all his functions in November 1512; suspected of conspiracy, arrested, imprisoned and subjected to torture in February 1513, Machiavelli was banished from Florence and henceforth placed under house arrest in his country estate near San Casciano.
After 14 years of public life, Machiavelli began a forced retirement of almost 15 years, except for a few rare and ephemeral ones who returned to the Medici (1521, 1526, 1527); it was then that he composed his main works of political thought ("The Prince" [1513/1532]); the "Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Live" [1512-1519/1531], "Of Polemology" (The Art of War (1519-1520/1521) and of history with "The History of Florence" (1520-1525/1532).
Machiavelli died on 21 June 1527 and was buried in the Church of Santa Croce. His tomb bears the following epitaph: « Nicolas Machiavelli: no praise can equal this name alone ». (Tanto nomini nullum par elogium). Machiavelli, drawing on scholastic and humanist legacies, is above all a humanist. He was born in Florence, the cradle of humanism, and he will be marked by it. He will also distance himself from this tradition, but he is profoundly humanist in his education.
He studies humanity; what are the humanities? Machiavelli will study Latin, rhetoric, but above all history. Machiavelli, like all humanists, will be obsessed by history, haunted by history and more precisely the history of Rome.
In Machiavelli's second discourse, we can see that Rome is omnipresent, he develops his argumentation from the Roman experience; this obsession with ancient history, with Roman history and more precisely with the Roman Republic is a constant of humanism and humanist education. It is a statement of machiavellian thought. He was obsessed by the history of Rome, he is also haunted by Roman philosophy, i.e. authors who wrote about freedom, citizenship, human nature, such as Sallustus, Livy and Cicero, who is the master of thought of every self-respecting jurist, humanists and Machiavelli.
Machiavelli came from a well-established Florentine bourgeois family, which, after his humanist education, opened the doors to what is today called a diplomatic career. He was to join the chancellery of Florence as a diplomat.
A philosophy drawn from a wide diplomatic experience
The second element of his biography and which it is important to keep in mind in order to understand his philosophy is that it is from his diplomatic experience that from 1498 onwards he will draw the political lessons, the moral lessons, the philosophical lessons of his practical experience.
There is a very close link between his practical experience and his theoretical reflection, he is certainly not the only one, but for him this is very particularly marked; one cannot understand Machiavelli and his philosophy if one does not reflect and if one is not interested in his diplomatic experience.
His diplomatic experience consists of various missions, four of which are special, his last mission in 1508 to the Emperor in Germany. These four missions are important because after each one he will draw a moral from history that he will include in the first work of philosophy that is truly important for us, which is "The Prince".
First experience: perception in politics
The first diplomatic experience, Machiavelli, a young diplomat, was sent in July 1500 to the French court to represent and defend the interests of Florence. At the French court where Louis XII reigns, he is sent by the great dignitaries of the Republic of Florence with a diplomatic and political objective which is to ensure the neutrality of France in the quarrel between Florence and Pisa which is the other great city of Tuscany which with Milan, Venice and Siena try to rival Florence, Pisa is rather under the Spanish influence and it is a question of ensuring the neutrality of the Court of France and Louis XII.
He presented his letters of regency, settling down and staying at the Court of France for almost nine months to defend Florence's position. He painfully obtains the support of France, but he is struck by two things: he sends letters to Florence asking for a reaction, because France would like to support Florence only under certain conditions or at least remain neutral towards Pisa.
He does not get any answer from Florence, when the answer finally arrives after several months, it is in itself released because basically, in substance, Florence's answer is to say "we are Florence, we can bring a lot to France, but not the other way round".
Time is superior is the first political lesson that Machiavelli draws from his experience at the French court is twofold.
First of all, Florence was not quick enough to react, it is important for a head of state to show responsiveness. The second thing that strikes him is the discrepancy between the perception of its importance and its real importance. In other words, what strikes Machiavelli is that Florence has a different idea of itself which is completely out of step with what people really think of Florence at the French Court.
What strikes him is that the government of Florence is convinced that it is the centre of the world, that everyone only looks at the great Florence, the discrepancy between the perception of its importance and the reality of the facts has marked Machiavelli. The first lesson is that one should never overestimate its importance on the international stage, there is politics and there is the perception that others have of this politics.
The issue of perception in politics is of paramount importance to Machiavelli.
Second experience: duplicity and treachery
La deuxième expérience pratique qu’il a de la diplomatie est une expérience qu’il fait en 1502, il est envoyé auprès de César Borgia qui est le fils du pape Alexandre VI ; César Borgia qui est le duc de Romagne, une province proche de Rome dont Florence craint également les velléités conquérantes. Machiavel est envoyé afin d’observer les intentions de César Borgia envers Florence.
The second lesson is that he is fascinated by Borgia, but at the same time he is frightened, he discovers a man of fierce cruelty, of a "Machiavellian" vision and above all capable of cruelty and extremely marked duplicity.
Duplicity and treachery are certainly not founding values of politics, but they can be useful for someone who wants to stay in power. Machiavelli is not the father of treachery in politics and duplicity, he is a man who paradoxically has a high idea of the state and the statesman, he only notes that sometimes being naive and idealistic as a statesman does not necessarily allow one to achieve one's political goals.
Machiavelli would, moreover, witness the fall of Caesar Borgia, who would himself be betrayed by Alexander VI's successor, Julius II, who would betray the son of his predecessor. Machiavelli will learn the lesson that one must sometimes be careful, but never make politics out of it because it leads to a pyre.
Third experience: courage and virtue
The third experience is the mission that Machiavelli undertook in 1506 with Julius II. The new pope who succeeded Alexander VI was tempted by an alliance with Spain against Florence and France, Florence being traditionally France's ally. Machiavelli was sent to the Court of the Holy Father to try to find out what Julius II's intentions were.
What he observed at the Court of Rome was a man extremely aware of the balance of power who showed great courage and daring in politics; Julius II took courageous and daring decisions, ready to change his alliance for the interests of the Church.
Machiavelli notes that Julius II has only one priority, which is the interests of Rome, which he defends with great courage.
The third lesson is that courage is an indispensable virtue of power. This virtue is celebrated in "The Prince" in an extremely important and constant way.
Fourth experience: strong in its decisions
The last experience dates back to 1508 and 1510 of a diplomatic experiment in the Holy Roman Empire governed by an elected emperor and not heir to power who is Emperor Maximilian in order to ensure the neutrality of the Holy Roman Empire.
It should be noted that the Holy Roman Germanic Empire in the 16th century descended as far as Milan, occupying lands that go deep into present-day Italy. Ensuring Maximilian's good graces is politically useful for Florence.
Machiavelli goes to Maximilian's court and observes two things: firstly the emperor's weakness, he regularly changes his opinion, he is "too kind to his entourage" and if he is weak then he is susceptible to influence by his advisers, his courtiers.
In other words, Machiavelli sees power in the hands of a weak man under the influence of courtiers who make him make very bad decisions.
What strikes Machiavelli most in his German experience is the emperor's lack of personal judgement. It is striking that a man at the head of an empire is incapable of having his own judgement.
Summary
Can we draw a moral from the history of these four experiences? Is there a lesson that encompasses all four?
A reading of Machiavelli's diplomatic documents reveals that what struck him in these four experiences is that none of the protagonists, kings, heads of state, emperors, whom he met, were able to adapt to the circumstances, to anticipate in politics. What strikes Machiavellian as much in Louis XII, Caesar Borgia, Julius II as in Maximilian is the inability to adapt to circumstances, and for Machiavelli it is the fundamental weakness of their powers.
It is through adaptation that the politician can impose his vision and last in politics today. What strikes him is that Julius II has been betrayed, Caesar Borgia is dead, Maximilian is weak and will be overthrown, Louis XII will not continue in power and will be overthrown by his cousin, none will have succeeded in adapting to the circumstances.
With this in mind, Machiavelli began writing his first major theoretical work of political philosophy entitled "The Prince" - "De Principatibus" - which he completed in December 1513 under special circumstances.
In 1511, Julius II allied himself with Spain and took advantage of the presence of Spanish troops to overthrow the Republic of Florence led by a group of Florentine patricians; in 1511 - 1512, the Republic of Florence was abolished and the Medici returned to power under the aegis of Julius and the Spaniards. Machiavelli was removed from power and was released at the end of 1512 to write his first work.
Reports on Things from Germany, 1508
It is clear from this report that there are arguments that Machiavelli will use again in "The Prince".
« I know that those who learn and those who have seen the events are full of confusion and are lost in various conjectures; they do not know why the nineteen thousand men promised by the Empire were not seen, why Germany did not react to the loss of her honour, or why the Emperor was so mistaken. Everyone is therefore uncertain as to what to fear or hope for in the future, and as to the direction of things to come. »
Machiavelli reflected on the political future of Germany and the management of power in Germany, taking the German case as a typical ideal from which he would reflect on the relationship between the governed - the rulers and above all on the relationship between one state and another.
« Everyone I've heard about it agrees that if the Emperor were to benefit from one of two things: that he would change his nature or that Germany would really help him, then he would achieve all his aims in Italy, if we consider the condition of Italy. »
Basically, Machiavelli says that the emperor is missing two essential things that prevent him from being a statesman, he has the wrong nature, he is too weak and then Germany doesn't really help him.
Behind this idea there is another idea of which Machiavelli will make an important theory. It's not Germany that doesn't help him, but the circumstances, the political environment in Germany that doesn't help him, the weak power of the emperor is linked and due to his nature, but also to the circumstances that surround him, be they pontical or military. It is because he sees these two weaknesses that Machiavelli is very critical of the Emperor.
« The Emperor asks no one for advice and is advised by everyone; he wants to do everything at his own pace and does nothing his own way. For, although he never spontaneously reveals his secrets to anyone, when a problem comes to light, he is distracted from his decision by those around him and distanced from his original plan. »
We see the famous criticism about the courtiers. This weakness, this danger of being influenced by its courtiers and citizens is particularly noted in the following excerpt:
« The kind and good nature of the Emperor makes each of his relatives deceive him. One of his relatives told me that any man and anything can deceive him once, when he has noticed it. »
The key words in this paragraph are "kind" and "good nature". Machiavelli notes that being good and kind is not necessarily a quality in politics, of course on a human level, but when one is a statesman, for a politician being good and kind is not necessarily to his advantage in politics.
« In order to do your job well, you have to say what you think about both things. War is measured by men, money, organisation and fortune, and whoever has more of these things, you must believe that he will win. »
A word appears here very clearly, a word that he will turn into a real theory, an idea to which he will dedicate chapter XXV of the Prince, this word is the word "fortune". It always denounces the weakness of the Prince.
The Fortuna/Virtù ratio
There are two essential ideas here, the first is that if the nature of the emperor is weak and therefore has no power, it is necessary to have a strong statesman and to work on a political system that gives strength to power, and therefore it is necessary to think about the human virtues that give strength to power, how to change this state of affairs, how to prevent weak men and women from becoming statesmen or stateswomen.
The second is the following, we may have to force the will, the political power to dominate our opponents, but if we don't have fortune on our side we don't succeed on the political side. It's not fortune in the sense of wealth, but the "fortuna" which is a Roman goddess, the goddess of destiny, of luck.
If fortune doesn't look at us valiantly, if we're unlucky in the political enterprise, we can't succeed; we must seduce this woman: the "fortuna". To seduce a woman, you need a certain number of qualities, and to seduce the goddess Fortuna, you also need a certain number of qualities.
Machiavelli is haunted by the difficulties that statesmen have in adapting to the political events of the moment. Machiavelli in "The Prince" seeks to discover what qualities are needed to stay in power. The Prince is an attempt to answer the question of nature, of the qualities needed to stay in power, these qualities are multiple and are not essentially 'Machiavellian', they are in line with the humanistic virtues he knew in his education.
Basically, in Chapter VI, Machiavelli shows very well that there are different ways of conquering power, there is a personal way by one's own means whether political or military, there are also monarchies or principalities conquered by the arms of others.
The first six chapters of the Prince are devoted to the different possible scenarios for the conquest of power. These are the least interesting chapters from the perspective of a course on power and the state.
From Chapter VII onwards, Machiavelli examines the central question of the Prince, which is how to retain power once it has been conquered, whether by legitimate or illegitimate means or by force. Machiavelli asks the question, once power has been conquered, how can power be retained, what qualities are needed, what virtues are needed?
He is going to introduce a binomial that he will keep all his life, he is going to answer the question in a double way, a certain number of qualities are needed, but to obtain these qualities it is necessary to seduce the "fortuna". In other words, there is a part that we master and a part that we don't master, which is luck. Thus, Machiavelli is going to describe to us what are the virtues necessary to seduce this goddess, to be lucky in order to be able to stay in power.
Machiavelli's question is never what are the noblest virtues to radiate his power, but the questions he asks himself are what are the virtues necessary for the "fortuna" to allow us to keep this power. There are qualities that we can control, the idea that there is somewhere an element of fatality in political power, but there is also a dimension that we cannot control. You can't control everything. It's an interesting lesson, certain cardinal virtues are necessary, it is the fatal dimension that we must have a little luck, we must conquer this fortune. In chapter XXV of the "Prince", Machiavelli addresses it.
He takes up the very traditional humanist conception of the "fortuna", he is not the first to say that one must seduce the "fortuna" to remain in power. Machiavelli will take up the humanist conception of fortune. There is a combination of virtue and fortune.
His definition of fortune is threefold, he gives an anti-Christian vision of fortune, i.e. he clearly has the idea that fortune is controllable. It is controllable in the sense that one can seduce it, one can conquer it.
Why anti-Christian? Christian philosophy says that providence is known only to God and that we have no control over God's plans. Machiavelli moves away from this, we can, if we have the right virtues, control our destiny a little: the control of our own destiny is possible if we possess certain qualities.
Machiavelli will give fortune an almost heroic connotation, he will feminise fortune. This shows very well that he really gives the feminine dimension to this goddess. He also insists on the fact that fortune alone is useless, he has a conception of fortune that only works in relation to virtue. These three elements form Machiavelli's vision of fortune.
How to maintain a state, how to stay in power, how to succeed in asserting political power? You need virtues, but you also need to master fortune.
Il Principe / De Principatibus
The Prince, Chapter XXV "How much power fortune has over human things and how one can resist it", 1513
It is an important chapter, and together with chapter XV it is perhaps the most important chapter.
The title questions his ability to control his own destiny. The theologians of the time reacted strongly at that time, because only God could control destiny. Machiavelli believes that it is possible to control one's own destiny.
« I am well aware that many people have thought, and still think, that God and fortune govern the things of this world in such a way that all human prudence cannot stop or regulate its course: from which one can conclude that it is useless to deal with it with so much sorrow, and that there is nothing to do but to submit and let everything be led by fate. This opinion has spread in our time mainly as a consequence of the variety of great events that we have cited, that we are still witnessing, and that we could not foresee - so I am quite inclined to share it.
Nevertheless, not being able to admit that our free will is reduced to nothing, I imagine that it may be true that fortune disposes of half of our shares, but leaves about the other half in our power. I compare it to an impetuous river which, when it overflows, floods the plains, overturns trees and buildings, takes away land on one side and carries it away to another (...) »
Many people claim that we do not control our own destiny. For this reason, they might judge that there is no need to exhaust oneself in too many things, but to leave oneself to a few chances; those who think that we do not control our destiny advocate a kind of passivity in politics, if chance decides everything then what is the point? Machiavelli refutes this deterministic vision of history.
« This opinion has mainly spread in our time as a consequence of the variety of great events that we have cited, that we are still witnessing, and that we could not foresee. »
Because we can't explain what is happening nowadays, these men leave it to chance.
« [...] so I am quite willing to share it. Nevertheless, not being able to admit that our free will is reduced to nothing. »
For Machiavelli, men and women are capable of mastering and directing, of deciding their own destiny because there is free will. As we speak, a number of theologians continue to challenge this.
« […] I suppose it may be true that fortune has half of our shares, but leaves about half of them in our power. I compare it to an impetuous river which, when it overflows, floods the plains, overturns trees and buildings, takes away land on one side and carries it away to another. »
Fortune is an impetuous river, our destiny is not easy to control it has in the first part of this chapter XXV a stance against the Christian tradition which thought that we did not have free will.
« The same is true of fortune, which above all shows its power where no resistance has been prepared, and carries its fury where it knows there is no obstacle willing to stop it. »
We can't resist fortune where, with great difficulty, there is an uncontrolled part of our destiny, fortune is an important part of it.
« Limiting myself to these general ideas on the resistance that can be put up against fortune, and coming to more specific observations, I note first of all that it is not extraordinary to see a prince prosper one day and fail the next, without, however, having changed either his character or his conduct. »
Machiavelli tells us to look around us, heads of state are disappearing because they haven't changed their policies, but because the "fortuna" has left them.
« It seems to me that this is because, as I have already established at some length, a prince who relies entirely on fortune falls as it varies. It still seems to me that a prince is either happy or unhappy, depending on whether his conduct is or is not in conformity with the times in which he reigns. »
We have to know how to adapt, we need a certain number of qualities that will give us the "fortuna" and allow us to adapt.
The rest of the paragraph takes up the idea of the plurality of possibilities, of different destinies, and that we must know how to adapt. The "fortuna" is a woman, feminised in the language of Machiavelli; at the end of chapter XXV we can clearly see this very masculine dimension of power.
« I therefore conclude that, fortune changing, and men persisting in the same manner of acting, they are happy as long as this manner agrees with fortune; but that as soon as this agreement ceases, they become unhappy. »
I think, moreover, that it is better to be impetuous than circumspect, because fortune is a woman: to keep her in subjection, she must be treated harshly; she gives in more to men who use violence than to those who act coldly: that is why she is always a friend of young people, who are less reserved, more carried away, and who command with more audacity.
This is a very masculine conception of fortune which is a woman who is impetuous and in need of impetuosity; a prince who exploits impetuosity has every chance of attracting fortune. To seduce the woman who must be beaten into submission, a certain number of qualities are required, but what are they?
All "The Prince" appears from chapter XIII to XVIII which are chapters where Machiavelli explains the qualities required to seduce this woman that is virtue.
One of the chapters is important, it is chapter XV, because it is in chapter XV that Machiavelli develops the new virtues, the virtues of modern times. Machiavelli takes up the humanist argument, a statesman must be wise, must be ideally just, moderate and firm, which are the cardinal virtues of humanists: justice, wisdom, moderation, firmness.
In chapter XV, he rejects and overturns these humanist and very classical virtues, today it seems that he proposes other political values that are important; Machiavelli breaks with the classical model of humanist values and proposes a new catalogue of virtues.
The Prince, Chapter XV " Things for which men and especially princes are praised or blamed ", 1513
This chapter is the one in which Machiavelli repudiates, rejects the humanist tradition which is his own. In order to seduce fortune, a certain number of qualities are needed. Machiavelli questions us about these qualities and whether they are still valid?
In chapter XV, he distances himself from the humanist tradition, he announces the rupture.
« It remains to be seen how a prince should use it and behave, either towards his subjects or towards his friends. So many writers have spoken of it, that perhaps I will be accused of presumption if I speak of it again; all the more so as in dealing with this subject I will be straying from the common road. But, with the intention that I should write things that will be useful to those who read me, it seemed to me that it was better to stop at the reality of things than to indulge in vain speculation.
Many people have imagined republics and principalities such as we have never seen or known. But what is the point of these imaginations? It is so far from the way we live to the way we should live that by studying only the latter, we learn to ruin ourselves rather than to preserve ourselves. […] »
A prince who wants to maintain himself and learn not to be always good, and use it well or badly, according to necessity. He takes verbal precautions and announces his break-up. This is what Machiavelli teaches us and a simple truth, but completely new for his time.
We should be less interested in the normative dimension of power, that is to say the dimension of what must be, than in power as it is. In other words, the 'just' and the 'good' are less important than the 'useful', what is important is the reality of the power we are confronted with and not a political ideal.
We can see very clearly that he criticises the almost 'idealistic' humanist vision of power, he moves away from the 'just' vision of 'moderation'. For Machiavelli, leaders are far from the virtues of the humanities, so a state must be thought of on the basis of what is and what is not founded on an ideal. This very important theoretical argument will have repercussions in history.
« (…) and he who wants to be a good man in everything and everywhere cannot fail to perish in the midst of so many wicked people.
A prince who wishes to maintain himself must therefore learn not to be always good, and use it well or badly, according to necessity. »
To say at the time to learn to be no good was revolutionary, it overturned the political values of the time. Machiavelli showed by the phrase to learn not to be good, basically he explained his position.
« It would be very beautiful, no doubt, and everyone would agree, if all the good qualities I have just mentioned were to be found in a prince. But, as this is hardly possible, and as the human condition does not include him, he must at least have the prudence to flee from those shameful vices which would cause him to lose his States. As for the other vices, I advise him to guard against them if he can; but if he cannot, there will be no great disadvantage in allowing himself to do so with less restraint; he must not even fear that he will be accused of certain defects without which it would be difficult for him to maintain himself; for, on close examination, it is found that, as there are certain qualities which appear to be virtues and which would make the prince's ruin, so there are others which appear to be vices, and from which may nevertheless result his preservation and well-being. »
It's a very simple idea, but absolutely fundamental. There is power with its perfectly noble ideals and then there is the reality of political life, these are two notions that are sometimes incompatible because there is a real dimension to power and an immaterial dimension linked to the perception that one has of this power.
Machiavelli's great novelty is to distinguish power from the perception of this power. When he says that one must sometimes appear to be good, wise even if one is not; it is the idea that power is made of an immaterial dimension and a real perception are two different things, it is a binary dimension of power. Machiavelli has built his vision of the qualities of the Prince around the idea that there is power, but that it is linked to the perception we have of this power.
There is the reality of power and the perception we have of that power.
Many politicians are weak and give the impression of being strong and vice versa; we owe this dual dimension of power to Machiavelli, who made it a central point of his theory.
Chapters XVI, XVII, XVIII and XXIII explain and develop the virtues necessary for the prince to seduce fortune and retain power.
In this chapter XVI "Of liberality and parsimony", one must know how to be generous and sometimes less parsimonious; according to chapter XVII sometimes one must be cruel "Of cruelty and pity; and if it is better to be loved than feared, or the opposite", the title is quite symptomatic, sometimes it is better to be feared than loved.
Chapter XXIII entitled "How to flee from flatterers" refers to Machiavelli's German experience of not being lulled by courtiers.
In chapter XVIII "How Princes Should Keep Their Words" Machiavelli introduces a distinction between what he calls lion and fox, strength and cunning (p.154). Machiavelli suggests that in order to seduce fortune, in order to remain in power one must be both a lion, which is strength, and a fox, which is to say, one must know how to use cunning.
He alludes to his political experience, which marked him in particular with Caesar Borgia. Sometimes you have to use cunning and sometimes you have to use force.
Once "The Prince" had been completed, once these virtues had been explained, once the qualities of the holder of power had been reaffirmed, Machiavelli in early 1514 would try to return to power, he would try to entrust his letter "The Prince" to the Medici in order to return to power. Unfortunately, he will not succeed, his book, which will be so successful afterwards, will end up in oblivion.
Machiavelli did not succeed in returning to power, in regaining an important political function, from 1515 - 1516 he joined a group of humanists with whom he had distanced himself, trying to reflect on a question that was a little different from the question of how to remain in power.
The fall of the Republic of Florence: Speech on the first decade of Titus Livius
The Republic of Florence disappeared in 1511, the Medici came back to power, why? How is it that a republic has not managed to maintain itself? It can be explained by the games of international alliances, but according to these humanists this is not enough, they no longer want to think about the quality of the prince, but rather why the republican regime disappeared, why Florence sank, why the republican regime disappeared?
To do this, they plunge into the history of Florence, but above all into the history of Rome. He looks into the history of the Republic of Rome for questions he asks himself: why the republican regime in Florence, but more generally why republican regimes fail and sink, and what keeps them going? In other words, the question of this group of humanists is haunted by an important question: what are the conditions for the existence and prosperity of a republic? From the history of Rome, some lessons can be drawn.
Machiavelli had written another very important work entitled the "Discourse on the First Decade of Titus Livius".
There are somewhere two important works by Machiavelli, one of which is the Discourse on Titus-Life, which nuances the speech of the "Prince". Immersing oneself in the complexity of the work allows one to have a slightly different point of view. Machiavelli from 1514 - 1515 asks himself another question, he will begin to write the Discourse of the first decade of Livy and is haunted by the following question: how can republican regimes with the image of Rome in mind and by extension republican regimes endure?
In other words, what makes republics that these regimes do not corrupt themselves?
When in 1512 - 1513 the Republic of Florence was abolished and then replaced by the Medici, Machiavelli wondered why Florence was lost and whether there were any standard ideals that could be used to theorise the greatness and decadence of republican regimes? He is haunted by the idea of the foundations and causes of the permanence of the republics.
He has the example of the Roman Republic which disappeared in 27 A.D., he has the example of Florence, he has the example of Venice, and he wonders about the political conditions which allow a republic to endure and to maintain the freedom and equality of its citizens.
This implies asking a second subsidiary question, he spoke of the virtues of the Prince in "The Prince", but are there public virtues for the whole social body, in other words are there conditions under which the social body, in other words do citizens not have to have qualities in order to promote the common good?
The speeches seek to answer this series of questions:
- condition for the existence of a republic?
- human conditions, quality of citizens, should they have a certain number of virtues?
- are there dangers of corruption in the republic and if so, which ones?
These are the three main questions Machiavelli reflects on when he writes his speeches. For Machiavelli, based on the example of Venice, Florence and Rome, it can be inferred that a number of conditions must be inferred for republics to last. Thus, we can see the type of regime Machiavelli favoured.
The government according to Machiavelli
The first condition is that it is first of all necessary for those in power to demonstrate a certain 'political responsibility', which must be wise, moderate and fair.
In "The Prince", he says that these are not sufficient conditions, somewhere he finds the humanist ideals that he had discarded in "The Prince", but while in the speeches he reaffirms, and this is the first condition for the existence of any republic, that the rulers must show virtues, but humanist virtues, wisdom, moderation, equity, and greatness of soul.
The first condition is that these classical humanist virtues must still be found in order for the republic to return.
The second condition is that a republic must be politically and constitutionally well organised, the political constitution must be very solid. What is needed? It simply needs a constitution that imitates, takes up the model that is a source of inspiration for everyone, the Roman model, the constitution of a republic must be mixed. In other words, there has to be a need for a solid republic based on a mixed constitution which is the Roman model.
In Machiavelli's time, it was very common to find the idea of a mixed constitution again. A mixed constitution is in Machiavelli's image, his discourse is a constitution based on three important elements of any political society: the monarchical element, the aristocratic element and the democratic element. There has to be a power that is divided between the monarchical dimension, which is a man or a woman, the aristocratic dimension, i.e. an assembly that brings together a certain elite, and then the popular dimension, which brings together representatives of the people in a more general way.
Rome was founded on this model, the consules represented the monarchical element, the senate represented the aristocratic element and the comices represented the military as well as the more popular circles. The model of the Roman constitution that all the historians of Rome have called "mixed constitution" is a model that integrates these three dimensions.
This model has been taken up by a great many legal and political theorists, the American constitution of 1787 is also based on these constituent elements of power, it is a model that is in fact a Roman model that has irrigated the entire history of philosophy and has left its mark on the history of political thought.
It is this model of a mixed constitution, because mixed between different elements, which is a constitutional order that is not a monarchy, nor an aristocracy, nor a democracy, but which is all three at the same time. It's a model that has left its mark on people's minds over several centuries, especially on the American constituents.
Machiavelli adds something new to this second condition by saying that for the system to work, for the political organisation based on a mixed constitution to work, it is crucial that political factions exist or are set up that clash. There is the idea of a political party, Machiavelli breaks with a tradition that there should be stability and unity around those in power, humanists defended the ideal of unity and stability.
Machiavelli would take up part of the theory again, adding that factions could confront each other, "freedom comes out of conflict". He fears like the plague those regimes where everyone agrees with everyone else. Machiavelli advocates disunity rather than political union, which he sees as one of the ways of preventing corruption from taking hold. Machiavelli praises political dissent, different opinions must be expressed and animate political life, such a constitution is not enough if it is not animated, animation is this form of disunity, a form of defence of the idea of debate.
The third condition given is the need to develop religious worship, but not religion, because, like the Romans, he was impressed by the sociological function of religion, he was impressed to see the Roman genius to instrumentalise religion, which in a way allows the constitution of Roman citizenship, a good Roman citizen practises the worship of gods.
Machiavelli was not interested in religious truths, but understood the social function of religion as a constructor of civil religion, which is love of the party and the republic; this feeling of belonging to a common culture is an element and a feeling that must be cultivated. Among the French there is the cult of love for the republic, the same goes for the Americans, it is something extremely strong which fundamentally, for Machiavelli, is a possibility which is to use the religious fact as a federator and unifier of an ideology of the citizen. Machiavelli seeks to use the religious fact in order to build citizenship, to build love for the republic, to build what Rousseau calls "the new man".
For Machiavelli, the cult of religion makes it possible to give coherence to a state, at present there is civic education in some schools, which is a kind of religion of citizenship, it is the function of religion as unifying the political body and the social body. Education for citizenship is a form of religion that needs to be developed like the Roman religion that succeeded in developing this Roman citizenship, in other words, religious worship has a social function that needs to be exploited in order to build modern citizenship, love of practice and love of the republic.
The fourth condition for the existence of a republic is the need to have a political regime based on law. In other words, it is the importance of law or laws in any republic, laws are needed to hold and circumscribe principles just as to circumscribe the people, it believes in the virtues of law as the guarantor of the political freedom of citizens.
Machiavelli thinks and deeply believes that the very existence of laws guarantees social and political order and a certain form of political equality as well. The notion will later become important, namely that of equality before the law, which is very dear to Machiavelli's heart, there is only a republic based on legal laws and a coherent set of laws; these laws are only legitimate and likely to guarantee freedom if everyone is involved in their organisation.
According to Machiavelli's reasoning, the law is the guarantor of the political freedom of citizens. A free republic is a republic if and only if the law voted and decided by the citizens is put in place.
There is a debate that has been irrigating contemporary political philosophy for a long time on the relationship between law and freedom, with many so-called liberal authors tending to say that the more laws there are, the less freedom there is, the very expression of laws is the state. It is a discourse that is basically taken up and declined in different forms, there are cleavages between liberals communitarian perspective and other philosophies that try to move the cursor.
Machiavelli had an inverting idea that is resurfacing today, laws are not a guarantee of servitude, in other words one can be free thanks to laws. The idea that too many laws kill freedom for Machiavelli is nonsense; one is not free against the law, but one is not free because there are few or no laws as Hobbes postulates, one is in fact free because there are laws. This way of thinking is very important in contemporary philosophy because there are a number of debates on this subject.
Machiavelli postulates that one is free as a citizen because of the law, it may encroach on individual freedoms, but it guarantees them. The notion of equality before the law for Machiavelli is at the very heart of the existence of a republic, there is only one republic in which citizens are equal before the law even if it impinges on personal and individual freedoms.
The fifth condition for the existence of the republic, which is a condition that appeals to the foreign policy of any republic, Machiavelli, curiously enough, will defend the idea that a republic must defend its existence at all costs. He will even go so far as to defend the idea that for its survival it can launch into a preventive war. In other words, following the Roman example, he thinks that the ideal of the republic in a scale of values is the supreme good, the absolute ideal. The existence and maintenance and preservation of the republic is so important that this value and this regime must be defended at all costs, even at the price of a conquering foreign policy defending the idea of a preventive war.
Preemptive wars" are for Machiavelli quite permissible, war is right from this point of view.
One must be prepared to make any sacrifice to defend this idea, in this military-style opinion Machiavelli presents another argument with the existence of a militia army. Machiavelli in his book "The Art of War" questions the status of the armies of his time in which he comments in detail on the army of the Swiss Confederation because in 1515 -1520 the Swiss were mercenaries.
Machiavelli finds this questionable, if he admires the principle of the citizen-soldier, which he believes is necessary for the very existence of a republic, he has very harsh words against Swiss mercenaries. For him the ideal republic is built on the idea of the citizen-soldier and not on the idea of mercenarism, a citizen in love with his republic will be much more inclined to defend his republic than a mercenary who will go to the limit towards the one who will pay him more. This idea of the citizen-soldier or more commonly militia army is constitutive of what will later be called the republican ideology, there are only republics based on the principle of the citizen-soldier and not on mercenarism.
Basically, Machiavelli comes full circle in his speeches and proposes a model of an ideal type of republic based on the aforementioned notions.
A sixth condition is knowledge of history. For Machiavelli, it is very important for a ruler to have historical depth in decision-making, i.e. the feeling of being part of a long-term political project. In other words, Machiavelli believes that a republic can only survive if its rulers base their political decisions not only on laws, but also on the history of the republic.
Only then can the republic not become corrupt and last.
Discours sur la première décade de Tite-Live
Discours sur la première décade de Tite-Live, Livre premier, Avant-Propos
« j'ai formé le dessein de m'élancer dans une route qui n'a pas encore été frayée; et s'il est vrai que je doive y rencontrer bien des ennuis et des difficultés, j'espère y trouver aussi nia récompense dans l'approbation de ceux qui jetteront sur mon entreprise un regard favorable. »
Quelque part, il y a un sentiment de fatalité chez Machiavel, il est conscient qu’il va défendre la République alors que la république de Florence est morte, toutes les théories de la république ne sont pas prises en considération.
« La médecine elle-même n'est-elle pas l'expérience faite par les médecins des anciens temps, et d'après laquelle les médecins de nos jours établissent leurs jugements? Toutefois, lorsqu'il s'est agi d'asseoir l'ordre dans une république, de maintenir les États, de gouverner les royaumes, de régler les armées, d'administrer la guerre, de rendre la justice aux sujets, on n'a encore vu ni prince, ni république, ni capitaine, ni citoyens s'appuyer de l'exemple de l'antiquité. Je crois en trouver la cause moins encore dans cette faiblesse où les vices de notre éducation actuelle ont plongé le monde, et dans ces maux qu'a faits à tant d'États et de villes chrétiennes une paresse orgueilleuse, que dans l'ignorance du véritable esprit de l'histoire, qui nous empêche en la lisant d'en saisir le sens réel et de nourrir notre esprit de la substance qu'elle renferme. Il en résulte que ceux qui lisent se bornent au plaisir de voir passer sous leurs yeux cette foule d'événements qu'elle dépeint, sans jamais songer à les imiter, jugeant cette imitation non seulement difficile, mais même impossible. »
Le premier argument de Machiavel est que l’histoire nous donne des leçons, l’histoire est un guide qu’il faut suivre.
Discours sur la première décade de Tite-Live, Chapitre II, De combien d’espèces sont les États et quelle fut celle de la République romaine
« Voulant faire connaître quelles furent les formes du gouvernement de Rome, et par quel concours de circonstances elles atteignirent à la perfection, je dirai comme ceux qui ont écrit sur l'organisation des États, qu'il existe trois espèces de gouvernements, appelés monarchique, aristocratique ou populaire. »
Ce paragraphe correspond à la constitution mixte, au fond ce qu’il appelle l’État ou la République romaine c’est la constitution de République romaine qu’on qualifie de constitution mixte.
Machiavel dit que les grands philosophes, les grands théoriciens du politique ont enseigné qu’il existe trois manières de catégoriser les régimes politiques : catégorie de la monarchie, catégorie de l’aristocratie, catégorie de la démocratie.
Lorsqu’il parle de la monarchie, à quel régime pense-t-il ? Lorsqu’il parle de monarchie, et à ce moment de l‘histoire existent beaucoup de monarchies, il pense à la France, lorsqu’il parle d’aristocratie, il pense à Venise gouvernée par les douze doges vénitiens soit un petit noyau de familles aristocratiques, lorsqu’il emploie le terme démocratie, il pense à Athènes. Quelque part, Machiavel dit que l’idéal politique, la constitution idéale est un mélange de monarchie française, d’aristocratie vénitienne et de démocratie athénienne.
Ce mélange hybride est la fameuse constitution mixte.
« Je dis donc que, toutes ces formes de gouvernements offrent des inconvénients égaux : les trois premières, parce qu'elles n'ont pas d'éléments de durée; les trois autres, par le principe de corruption qu'elles renferment. Aussi tous les législateurs renommés par leur sagesse, ayant reconnu le vice inhérent à chacun, ont évité d'employer uniquement un de ces modes de gouvernement; ils en ont choisi un qui participait de tous, le jugeant plus solide et plus stable, parce que le prince, les grands et le peuple, gouvernant ensemble l'État, pouvaient plus facilement se surveiller entre eux. »
Il y a ici l’idée essentielle que le XVIIIème siècle théorisera, l’idée que tout pouvoir corrompt est que « le pouvoir doit arrêter le pouvoir » comme le dit Montesquieu. C’est l’émergence du principe de la séparation des pouvoirs et plus précisément la balance des pouvoirs. À Athènes, le fait que les non-citoyens de peuvent pas voter ferait que ce serait une aristocratie et non une démocratie ; la première confusion est qu’il ne faut pas regarder Athènes avec nos yeux contemporains, Athènes est une démocratie dans le sens ou jusqu’à l’avènement du suffrage universel on définit ce qu’est une démocratie - pour Planton et Aristote - non pas par le principe de l’élection, l’élection est l’élément qui caractérise l’aristocratie, mais sur le tirage au sort qui est la caractéristique première de la démocratie, les athéniens tiraient au sort ceux qui allaient gouverner la cité pour un certain temps.
Dans l’histoire de la philosophie politique, le tirage au sort est la caractéristique de la démocratie et des régimes démocratiques ce qui pourrait nous faire penser que nous ne vivons pas dans une démocratie, car c’est le principe de l’élection qui supplante le tirage au sort.
Au XVIIème, un débat eut lieu quant à savoir s’il fallait utiliser le tirage au sort, certains pensaient que l’intelligence et les capacités devaient arriver au pouvoir. Il faut savoir que le principe de l’élection est un principe éminemment attaché au régime aristocratique, la démocratie est fondée sur le tirage au sort, de pures démocraties au sens athénien du terme il n’en existe plus.
Selon Rousseau « la démocratie est un régime pour les dieux et est impossible à mettre en place », il pensait cela qu’étant fondé sur un tirage au sort cela est donc difficile à mettre en place.
Discours sur la première décade de Tite-Live, Chapitre IV, Comment la désunion entre la plèbe et le sénat rendit libre et puissant la République romaine
Machiavel observe que Rome a réussi à se maintenir parce qu’il existait des « partis politiques » même si cela est un anachronisme.
« Je ne nierai point que la fortune et la discipline n'aient contribué à la puissance des Romains ; mais on aurait dû faire attention qu'une discipline excellente n'est que la conséquence nécessaire des bonnes lois, et que partout où elle règne, la fortune, à son tour, ne tarde pas à faire briller ses faveurs.
Mais venons-en aux autres particularités de cette cité. Je dis que ceux qui blâment les dissensions continuelles des grands et du peuple me paraissent désapprouver les causes mêmes qui conservèrent la liberté de Rome, et qu'ils prêtent plus d'attention aux cris et aux rumeurs que ces dissensions faisaient naître, qu'aux effets salutaires qu'elles produisaient. »
Les troubles, les dissensions, les querelles politiques sont garantes de la liberté politique, mais la liberté nécessite un certain nombre de concessions. Dissension ne veut pas dire qu’il ne faut éduquer à la citoyenneté.
Discours sur la première décade de Tite-Live, Chapitre XVI, Un peuple accoutumé à vivre sous l’autorité d’un prince conserve difficilement sa liberté, si par hasard il devient libre
Le mot corruption revient toute temps, c‘est la corruption de la citoyenneté, l’idée qu’une république se perd si nous perdons l’âme de la république, ce n’est pas parce qu’on a une constitution libre qu’il ne faut pas veiller a qu’elle soit appliquée.
Discours sur la première décade de Tite-Live, Chapitre XVII, Devenu libre, un peuple corrompu peut très difficilement conserver sa liberté
Il faut faire attention au peuple qui se corrompt en privilégiant l’intérêt particulier sur l’intérêt général.
Discours sur la première décade de Tite-Lie, Livre premier, Avant-Propos
« Peut-être mériterai-je que l’on me compte parmi ceux qui se trompent, si dans ces Discours je m’étends sur les louanges des anciens Romains, et si j’exerce ma censure sur le siècle où nous vivons. Certes, si la vertu qui régnait en ces temps, et si le vice qui souille tout de nos jours, n’était pas plus manifeste que la clarté du soleil, je parlerais avec plus de retenue, dans la crainte de partager l’erreur dont j’accuse les autres ; mais la chose est tellement évidente, qu’elle frappe tous les yeux. J’oserai donc exposer sans détour ce que je pense de ces temps et des nôtres, afin que l’esprit des jeunes gens qui liront mes écrits puisse fuir l’exemple des uns et imiter les autres toutes les fois que la fortune leur en présentera l’occasion. C’est le devoir d’un honnête homme d’indiquer aux autres le bien que la rigueur du temps et de la fortune ne lui permet pas de faire lui-même, dans l’espoir que, parmi tous ceux qui sont capables de le comprendre, il s’en trouvera un qui, chéri du ciel, pourra parvenir à l’opérer.
J’ai traité dans le livre précédent des mesures prises par les Romains relativement au gouvernement intérieur de la république ; je parlerai dans celui-ci de la conduite que tint ce peuple pour accroître son empire. »
Machiavel, très clairement, montre que son objectif est de nous proposer une leçon, un régime politique fondé sur les leçons du passé. Il y a, au fond, chez lui, une idée essentielle, centrale qui est que tout régime politique qui n’est pas fondé sur l’histoire sur la connaissance et la maitrise du passé est condamné à périr. Ce passage contient les mots de vice, vertu et fortune, cette première idée est importante, l’histoire est le moteur de nos actions et doit le rester.
La deuxième morale politique est l’idée qu’au fond, pour Machiavel, la nature humaine est une nature par essence corrompue. Pour Machiavel, il règne un scepticisme sur la capacité de la nature humaine à véritablement séduire cette fortune, en d’autres termes, Machiavel nous montre une vision assez pessimiste du monde, il nous donne un certain nombre de leçons, mais il conclut qu’il n’est pas certain qu’on puisse y arriver, car les vices de la société contemporaine dans laquelle il écrit sont trop importants.
Son message est de prendre les leçons du passé, imiter les régimes politiques du passé, mais il ne faut pas se faire d’illusions sur la nature humaine. Il y a une forme de vision pessimiste du monde un peu désespérante chez Machiavel. Il faut se battre pour la République, s’engager pour la République, mais rester lucide sur la capacité à la réformer et à la conserver parce que la nature humaine étant ainsi faite, la république finira par sombrer.
Pour Montesquieu, « tout régime périra, Rome a bien péri ». Machiavel aurait pu dire exactement la même chose deux siècles et demi plus tôt. Cette vision presque désespérante du monde ou plutôt de l’État et de la nature humaine permet d’introduire le deuxième pilier des fondements de l’État moderne.
Si Machiavel, même dans une vision un peu désespérante du pouvoir, offre un certain nombre d’arguments - constitution mixte, vertu du citoyen, engagement civique -, le deuxième socle qui se met en place au moment même où Machiavel publie Le Prince et les discours est la pensée de la Reforme qui est aussi un peu pessimiste.
Annexes
- Le Prince. //fr.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Le_Prince&oldid=3941016.
- Discours sur la première décade de Tite-Live. //fr.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Discours_sur_la_premi%C3%A8re_d%C3%A9cade_de_Tite-Live&oldid=4030302.