Page 4 :
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Laughing Lion and, the Strutting Fox, , LEXINGTON B O O K S, A d i v i s i o n of, R O W M A N & LITTLEFIELD P U B L I S H E R S , INC., Lanham Boulder New York Toronto Plymouth, UK

Page 5 :
LEXINGTON BOOKS, A division of Rowrnan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc., 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, MD 20706, , Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom, Copyright 63 2009 by Lexington Books, , AN rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any, means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,, without the prior permission of the publisher., British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, Belliotti, Raymond A., 1948Niccolo Machiavelli : the laughing lion and the strutting fox / Raymond Angelo, Belliotti., p. cm., ) and index., Includes bibliographical references (p., ISBN-13: 978-0-7391-3062-9 (cloth : alk. paper), ISBN- 10: 0-739 1-3062-5 (cloth : alk. paper), ISBN-1 3: 978-0-7391-3064-3 (electronic), ISBN-10: 0-739 1-3064-1 (electronic), 1. Machiavelli, Niccolo, 1469-1 527. Principe. 2. Political science-Philosophy. 3., Political ethics. I. Title., JC143.M3946B45 2009, 320.14~22, 2008031336, Printed in the United States of America, @"The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American, National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library, Materials, ANSINIS0 239.48-1 992.

Page 8 :
Contents, Preface, Acknowledgments, Introduction: Machiavelli's Life and Times, Chapter One: The Prince, , ix, xiii, xv, 1, , Chapter Two: The Discourses, , 31, , Chapter Three: Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 63, , Chapter Four: Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 99, , Chapter Five: Ends and Means, , 137, , Chapter Six: Machiavelli's Final Letter, , 177, , Appendix A: Texts and Their Abbreviations, , 181, , Appendix B: Biographical Notes: Medici Scorecard, , 185, , Bibliography, , 187, , Index, , 193, , About the Author, , 197

Page 10 :
Preface, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC), Roman statesman and philosopher,, remarked that moral wrongs are performed by either force or by fraud. Both, methods are unworthy of human beings and are, instead, the trademarks of, beasts: fraud flows from the cunning fox, force from the ferocious lion. Niccolb, Machiavelli (1469-1527), Florentine politician and social theorist, rejected the, classical Greek notion that peace and harmony were the natural goals of human, beings and their political structures. Citizens and their states, on the contrary,, exist in relentless struggle, conflict, and turmoil. Enduring glory, not static serenity, is the greatest worldly prize., As a result, Machiavelli celebrates the guile of the fox and the power of the, lion as crucial skills for successful statecraft. Human governors have much to, learn from the animal kingdom. Machiavelli's fox, however, is never merely, cunning. He struts and preens, at least when so doing does not jeopardize his, goals. Machiavelli's lion is never merely forceful. He roars with self-celebratory, laughter, at least when so doing invigorates his spirit and facilitates his ends., This book is an interpretation, analysis, and critique of the political theory, Machiavelli advanced in The Prince and The Discourses. Traditionally, Machiavelli is taken to be a theorist who separated morality from politics or who championed Roman (pagan) morality over conventional (Christian) morality. I demonstrate why both of these interpretations are unpersuasive. Instead, I locate, Machiavelli's innovation in his tacit understanding of the perhaps irresolvable, moral conflicts that exist within political leaders who fulfill the duties of their, ofices while accepting the authority of absolute moral principles. Throughout, the work, I refer to Machiavelli's lesser read works-such as the Florentine Histories, Art of War, Lfe of Castruccio Castracani, Mandragola-to support my, argument., Chapter 1 is a description and explanation of The Prince: the qualities he, must emulate, the political principles he should follow, and the motivation that, spurs his labors. I also analyze the nature of Machiavelli's key concepts: fortuna, virtic, necessitd, and gloria., Chapter 2 is a description and explanation of The Discourses: why republics, are generally preferable to principalities; what features a republic should embody; why republics must expand territory and influence; why international relations are a series of zero-sum contests; the ways republics differ from tyrannies;, the need for one strong man to found or reform a corrupt state; and the inseparable connection between the self-interest of political leaders--the quest for enduring glory-and the self-interest of citizens and subjects-the need for security, order, and political freedom.

Page 11 :
x, , Preface, , Chapter 3 examines the link between The Prince, where Machiavelli celebrates principalities, and The Discourses, where he champions republics. What, were Machiavelli's motives and purposes in writing The Prince? To gain employment? To satirize tyranny? To fool the Medici and lead them to ruin? To, scientifically study politics? To unite Italy by sounding a nationalistic call to, arms? To remedy his own existential crisis? To show the way to practice evil?, To separate morality from politics? To replace conventional morality with pagan, morality? Chapter 3 asks and answers these questions and more. This study connects the first two chapters and paves the way for the remainder of the book., Chapter 4 deepens our understanding of Machiavelli's favorite and most, despised political principles by delving into the lives of his top ten and bottom, ten historical and mythological figures. This chapter supports the historical context required to understand Machiavelli's work and adds concrete narratives to, his abstract ideas., Chapter 5 analyzes the relationship of ends and means in Machiavelli. Did, Machiavelli hold that the good end justifies the means necessary to attain it?, What is the problem of "dirty hands" in politics? Did Machiavelli understand the, issue? Did he resolve it? What strengths and weaknesses saturate Machiavelli's, political theory? What is the difference between an excuse and a justification?, Why is that difference important to understanding Machiavelli's work? Can, Machiavelli, contrary to popular belief, be viewed as contributing to critical issues in moral philosophy?, Chapter 6 contains Machiavelli's final letter. I imagine him in heaven, not, hell, commenting briefly on world affairs and explaining why the United States, of America is the best example of a republic that has followed Machiavellian, principles and flourished thereby., The book places Machiavelli in historical context but argues that his implicit understanding of moral conflicts is well ahead of his time. Instead of arguing for the autonomy of politics, Machiavelli grapples with the special problems, of role-differentiated morality, where the duties of public office confront the, imperatives of conventional morality. Machiavelli is a moral pessimist who insists that politicians must "risk their souls" when performing their public responsibilities. As a result, the combination of virtuous private person and honorable public officer is rare., Politicians and military leaders must dirty their hands in service to their, constituents. This is especially the case when one strong man founds a state or, reforms a corrupt state. History washes away-that is, excuses-many of the, horrifying deeds that are required in such cases., The book does not try to domesticate Machiavelli and picture him as a liberal humanist inclined only toward fkee govenunent. Nor does it paint him as a, cynical huckster of evil. Instead, the book offers a balanced understanding of the, Florentine, with special focus on his insights and his myopias. Machiavelli's, view of human nature and his conclusion that international affairs have always

Page 12 :
Preface, , xi, , been and will always be a series of zero-sum contests leading him to stunning, discoveries and glaring errors, alike.

Page 14 :
Acknowledgments, I owe debts of gratitude to Joanne Foeller for her exceptional word processing,, editing, and indexing skills, and unvarying good cheer; to Jessica Bradfield and, Patrick Dillon, the team at Lexington Books who shepherded the work through, the acquisitions process; to Bill Jacobs, a terrific philosopher and wonderful, colleague, whose discussions with me about Machiavelli over thirty years ago, inspired much of this book; and to my family-Marcia, Angelo, and Vittoriafor everything.

Page 16 :
Introduction, , Machiavelli's Life and Times, The scholarly consensus is that Machiavelli wrote The Prince between July and, December of 1513, with the possibility that the dedication and final chapter, were added as late as 1516. He wrote The Discourses from 1513 to 1517, although some historians argue it was composed mostly from 1515 to 1516, with, late adjustments in 1517. A few scholars claim that The Discourses were not, completed until 1519.' The Art of War was completed by 1517 and published in, 1521; the only one of Machiavelli's major works issued during his lifetime. Machiavelli's first and best-received play, La Mandragola, was written from 1518, to 1519. The Life of Castruccio Castracani was completed by 1520 and The, Florentine Histories in 1526. The Prince was not published until 1532, and The, Discourses were published in 1532. By 1559, Machiavelli's books, all contaminated by the evil allegedly celebrated in The Prince, were placed on the Roman, Catholic Church's Index of Prohibited Books. Machiavelli also penned two sorts, of letters: official correspondence, The Legations, when he was secretary of the, Committee of Ten; and informal letters he wrote to his political associates and, friends. Among the recipients of the latter were Francesco Vettori, ambassador, of the Medici-controlled Florentine republic to Rome; Francesco Guicciardini,, Biagio Buonaccorsi, Filippo Casavecchia, Agostino Vespucci, and Francesco, del Nero., Niccolb Machiavelli was born in Florence in 1469, the year that Lorenzo, deYMedici("the Magnificent") rose to power in the city. His father, Bernardo,, was a lawyer who had opposed the rule of the ruling hereditary Medici family, and who had promoted republican governments-understood as political control, by some of the city's most prominent citizens. The Machiavellis were wellrespected but far from wealthy. They were not, however, as impoverished as, Niccolb sometimes suggested. From what little information is available, Niccolb, enjoyed an untroubled, secure, warm childhood. Bernardo had helped compile, the index for an edition of Livy's history of the early Roman republic and the, publisher rewarded him with a copy of the text. Niccolb enjoyed a solid education and, although unfamiliar with Greek, read the classical Greek and Roman, authors in Latin. Niccolb would later extensively use his father's copy of Livy's, history in his own writing. He was also enamored of modem authors such as, Petrarch and Dante Alighieri., In 1478, when Machiavelli was nine years old, the Pazzi, a wealthy family, with an ancient Florentine lineage, plotted to oust Lorenzo the Magnificent and, assume control of Florence. Part of the scheme was economic. The Medici bank, was the most influential in Florence and much of the Medici family influence, was grounded in its capability of controlling the purse strings. Most of the tradi-

Page 17 :
xvi, , Introduction, , tional Medici political power in Florence, in fact, was grounded in the family's, economic advantage and shrewd manipulation of the electoral process. The, Pazzi succeeded in having the papal bank account, the grandest in Italy, transferred from the Medici bank to its control. The Pazzi accomplished this by currying the favor of Pope Sixtus IV, who harbored dynastic ambitions. The Medici, had earlier refused to finance one of the pope's adventures. This hardened Sixtus's resolve to destroy the Medici. Pursuant to that aspiration, the pope supported an enemy of the Medici as archbishop of Pisa, a port city controlled by, Florence., The Pazzi hired assassins to murder Lorenzo and his brother, Giuliano, in, the cathedral during a Holy Week mass. When the altar bells rang during the, Eucharist, the assassins struck. Giuliano was slain, but Lorenzo, wounded, escaped into the sacristy. The Pazzi, a case study in premature celebration, scurried to the Palazzo della Signoria to seize power, while their minions rode, through the streets of Florence shouting, "Liberty, liberty!", Once the Florentine masses learned of the treachery, the brief reign of the, Pazzi evaporated. The people admired Lorenzo and loved Giuliano. The Pazzi, conspirators, enjoying the hospitality of the governmental palace, were arrested, and their supporters were rounded up. The Pazzi and the archbishop of Pisa,, who had a role in the plot, were executed and their corpses were untastefully, displayed in the windows of the Palazzo della Signoria. The palaces of the, schemers and their supporters were looted and burned. The people stormed, through the streets shouting the anthem of the Medici., Pope Sixtus, disappointed that the plot failed and stunned by the murder of, the archbishop, demanded that L o r e m be turned over to papal control. The, Florentines refused and the pope dispatched his lackey, King Ferrante of Naples,, to attack Florence and seize Lorenzo. Florence, as usual, was unprepared for, war, and the Neapolitan army met no resistance. Lorenzo escaped, sailed to, Naples, and convinced the king that the pope's annexation of Florence to his, territories would also disadvantage Naples. After protracted negotiations, the, War of the Pazzi Conspiracy ended in 1480. Lorenzo returned to Florence. The, people greeted him as a conquering hero. The Pazzi conspiracy and its aftermath, had profound effects on Machiavelli. He comments on this period of Florentine, history frequently in his writings., Lorenzo, understandably, was deeply affected by the Pazzi experience and, the murder of his brother. Feeling more insecure, he traveled only with armed, bodyguards. He began to act more like a domineering prince instead of an avuncular pahone. He began to treat state revenues as personal resources in contrast, to the Medici tradition of promoting Florence with Medici funds. Lorenzo constricted the city's constitution to increase his power and the authority of his confidants., In 1492, every child knows that "Columbus sailed the ocean blue." But, fewer remember that Lorenzo the Magnificent died. His son, Piero, assumed, political control. Two years later, the French, under King Charles VIII, invaded, Florence. Piero, less capable than his father, bungled the defense of the city.

Page 18 :
Introduction, , xvii, , Check that: Piero was not merely less capable than his father; he was immature, and stone cold inept. He had unwisely supported Naples in its dispute with Milan and France, virtually ensuring an invasion of Florence. When the attack occurred, Florence surrendered with almost no resistance, losing its control of Pisa, as well. Piero was forced into exile and republican government was restored in, Florence. Machiavelli was twenty-five years old., The brief, brilliant, deranged influence of Girolamo Savonarola followed., Savonarola, a Dominican friar, was as austere as the rations at Auschwitz, as, zealous as red ants at a picnic, and as driven as Donald Trump in sight of a dollar. Although inelegant and gloomy, Savonarola was a spellbinding orator who, not only felt his apocalyptic sermons but lived them. From 1490, working out of, the monastery of San Marco, he spewed his fire and brimstone, criticizing the, wicked ways of Florentines and the paganism of Lorenzo. Savonarola warned of, an angry God whose imminent, final judgments would hurl terrible vengeance, upon the sordid Florentines. The people, wracked by guilt and riddled with insecurities, listened and cowered., The French invasions of 1494 presented opportunity. Savonarola revealed, that Charles VIII had been sent by God to punish Italy, purify the Church, and, prepare the way for the second coming of Christ. Savonarola supported republicanism as a prelude to theocracy. He and his sanctimonious, puritanical disciples, were able to outlaw horse races, dice and card games, dancing, carnivals, and, brothels. Homosexuality became a capital offense. Torture and excessive punishment for moral offenses were instituted. Savonarola's main sources of entertainment were bonfires of the vanities in which everything from mirrors to the, works of Boccaccio were immolated. Spiritual repression suffocated the city., Isaac Newton's third law of motion assures us that for every action there is, an equal, opposite reaction. Traditional Catholics, rival Franciscans, bankers,, secular humanists, Medici holdouts, and miscellaneous others all had reasons to, resent Savonarola's mercurial leap to power. Sectarian bitterness ensued between the Arrabbiati ("Hotheads") and the Piagnoni ("Sobbers"), the label that, the Hotheads affixed to Savonarola's supporters who were renowned for weeping during the Dominican's sermons. Savonarola descended from power even, more quickly than he had risen. As Machiavelli would later report, the friar was, astonishingly inflexible and lacked an army. His defeat was inevitable. Eventually, the Franciscans challenged Savonarola to prove his status as a prophet. In a, contest worthy of the World Wrestling Federation, an ordeal by fire was proposed: a Franciscan and Savonarola would walk through flames and God would, protect the favored son. Savonarola, unable to refbse precisely the type of zany, challenge that was his stock and trade, accepted. But on "game day'' he quibbled, and nibbled over the terms and conditions of the ordeal for hours, while the entire city, including Machiavelli, waited anxiously for the advertised main event., Finally, God rendered His verdict: rained poured and the fires were extinguished. The people, finally recognizing Savonarola as a sincere but deluded, fanatic, arrested him. He was soon tortured, hanged, and burned in 1498.

Page 19 :
xviii, , Introduction, , Machiavelli had a measure of admiration for Savonarola's ability to rouse a, crowd and rally supporters, but also perceived his fatal flaws and doomed ideology. Merchant aristocrats regained political control of Florence at Savonarola's, death. Machiavelli, at age twenty-nine, was appointed as secretary to the Second, Chancery of the Republic of Florence and a member of the Council of Ten of, Liberty and Peace. He was one of the more important administrators in the city,, an administrator specializing in foreign and military affairs. Machiavelli,, though, was not an elected official. He was a state employee, not an independent, politician., From 1498 through 1512, Machiavelli made over two dozen diplomatic, missions to Italian city-states and European powers. This experience greatly, influenced his conclusions about international military and political affairs. Machiavelli's conviction hardened that Italy was culturally superior to the barbaric,, better-organized monarchies of northern Europe. Italy itself was divided into, regional loyalties: Venice, Milan, Florence, the Papal States, and the Kingdom, of Naples were the main players. Machiavelli understood that foreign armies too, easily threatened the balance of power on the Italian peninsula. He looked to the, glories of the ancient Roman republic for additional lessons on military and political matters. Those two sources-his experiences as a diplomat and his interpretations of Roman history-would animate his thinking and writing., Pivotal to Machiavelli's political education was his diplomatic mission to, Cesare Borgia, illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VI, who was consolidating, his power in Northern Italy through force, fiaud, and theatrical bluffs. Machiavelli was dispatched to jolly up Borgia, and to advance and safeguard Florentine, interests. He saw in Borgia a decisive, fearless, ruthless, often brutal commander. Backed by the power and influence of his father, Borgia had mastered, the unforgiving techniques that had served foreigners so well in Italy. Machiavelli clearly admired Borgia's skills in foreign affairs-he was a conquerorand in internal relations--he supposedly reformed Romagna (P 7; Leg. 11.15:, 7/26/02; Leg. 11.10: 10/13/02; Leg. 11.36: 11/3/02; Leg. 11.50: 11/20/02; Leg., 11.82: 12/26/02; Ltr. 247: 1/31/15; AW VII 194). Cesare advised Machiavelli, that Florence was hamstrung by waffling, compromise, and delay. Florence, as, with all cities in crisis, needed a strong man to lead resolutely. Machiavelli was, greatly impressed by Borgia in his heyday, although he was ambivalent about, the advice he rendered., In 1502, Machiavelli married Marietta di Ludovico Corsini. His wife, proved to be undemanding and uncommonly understanding. She bore six children, one of whom died soon after birth. Also in 1502, Piero Soderini was, elected gonfaloniere b vita, chief magistrate of the Florentine republic. Machiavelli became one of his closest ministers. So close was Machiavelli to Soderini, that he was known as il mannerino di Soderini ("Soderini's bobo"). Machiavelli, had genuine affection for Soderini, but later became disenchanted with the gonfaloniere 's indecisiveness and squeamishness., Soon thereafter, Machiavelli was sent again to Cesare Borgia. As Kenneth, Bartlett reports:

Page 20 :
Introduction, , xix, , [Machiavelli] saw Cesare Borgia in action. He saw an Italian who appeared to, be taking events into his own hands and directing them using the same techniques as the barbarians . . . here was an Italian who may, in fact, have been, able to learn the lessons and to do something to protect Italy against those savages . . . Machiavelli became entranced once more with Cesare. He was entranced by his energy, by his ruthlessness, and by his single-mindedness. Cesare would not let anything-not pity, not religion, not oaths or promisesinterfere with what he saw as necessary policy. Machiavelli didn't particularly, like this, but he also realized that perhaps it was the only solution to the situation of ~ t a l ~ . " ~, Machiavelli observed the unreliable nature of mercenary troops, which, seemed to vacillate between treacherous and cowardly actions. He also noted the, danger of auxiliary troops, which were loyal to their homeland not to the country, that employed them. Machiavelli was enthralled by the accounts of the Roman, historian, Livy, who celebrated the citizen armies of volunteers that had energized Roman expansion. Such armies were not only militarily effective but they, amplified patriotism, discipline, common identity, and civic virtue. Machiavelli, petitioned Soderini. The gonfaloniere put Machiavelli in charge of military operations. The citizen army that was recruited, however, consisted mainly of politically disenfranchised rural peasants who lacked a strong stake in the Florentine republic. In 1508, Machiavelli was put in charge of the war against Pisa,, which had been waged sporadically for over a decade. He directed the sea and, land blockage that brought about Pisays surrender in 1509. The citizen army,, over ten-thousand strong, appeared to be a success., Soon thereafter, however, events spiraled uncontrollably and disastrously., In 1511, the Holy League of Mantua-led by the Papal States, Spain, some German regions, and some Italian city-states-was formed to oust the French fiom, Italy. Florence, though, was allied closely with France. What should it do? Soderini fumbled, mumbled, and bumbled. He avoided serious participation in the, dispute, eventually sending only a token force to France. As Machiavelli had, predicted, both sides ended up despising Florence. Regardless of who won the, war, Florence would suffer the sting of retribution., Within a year, the Holy League had largely defeated the French. Just outside of Florence, an elite force of Spanish veterans attacked Prato. Machiavelli's, large militia was ensconced within the thick walls of a fortress. Spanish artillery, assaulted the fortress and penetrated its walls. Machiavelli's marauders threw, down their weapons and ran helter-skelter into the countryside. Over fourthousand people were slaughtered in Prato. No obstacle to the Holy League's, triumphant entry into Florence remained., Soderini's prospects for remaining gonfaloniere b vita were zero. The "vita", turned out to be only a decade. He resigned and scampered into exile. Machiavelli resented the aristocratic political class he served. The haughty nobles often, criticized him while failing to appreciate the sensitive diplomatic positions in, which they placed him. All the while, he-more honest, capable, and patriotic

Page 21 :
xx, , Introduction, , than they-was dischargeable at their whim as he labored at their pleasure Ltr., 176: 1/29/09). Moreover, the aristocrats generally hindered republican government with their amplified sense of entitlement, cynical skepticism, and deflated, commitment to the common good. They were too weak to consolidate an alternate view of politics but pesky enough to swing the balance between republicanism and Medician principality. For Machiavelli, such aristocrats were the most, annoying segment in Florentine society. The aristocrats viewed Machiavelli, similarly., In his Ricordo ai Palleshi (Memorandum to Supporters of the Medici), written in late October or early November 1512, Machiavelli cautioned the Medici, against publicizing the alleged misdeeds of Piero Soderini. Doing so, would, only embolden the aristocrats who had long opposed Soderini. A wiser course of, action was available: Expose aristocratic excesses to the people; invite the people to despise the aristocrats; and make the aristocrats dependent on the Medici, rulers. In that missive, Machiavelli stigmatized the aristocrats as "those who, play the whore between the people and the Medici." The diatribe backfired. The, Medici were currying the favor of the aristocrats to buttress their return to, power. Machiavelli's vitriol hastened his own fall from political grace. The aristocrats grinned., With Soderini's capitulation, Machiavelli would soon be between jobs., Giovanni de'Medici, the second son of Lorenzo the Magnificent, took control of, Florence. Giovanni had strongly served the Holy League and was rewarded for, his prescience. In 1513, Giovanni was elected Pope Leo X. The Florentine republic was no longer. Giuliano de'Medici, youngest son of Lorenzo the Magnificent, was governor of Florence., Machiavelli was not only canned, but he was soon implicated, apparently, falsely, in a plot to overthrow the Medici. His name was included in a list in the, possession of a Medici opponent. He was imprisoned and tortured with the, strappado. Sebastian de Grazia gracefully describes the brutality:, Your wrists are tied behind your back and bound to a rope hanging from a pulley. The other end of the rope is pulled down and you are hoisted up to a ceiling, arms yanked up behind, your body turning almost horizontally, its weight, borne by twisted arms and shoulders. Then the rope is released and you plunge, almost to the floor, the halt virtually tearing your arms out of their sockets. The, process is then repeated, four times being a rough average for interrogative purpose~.~, The strappado was crude, but earned an impressive record: Almost everyone subjected to this torture confessed even though they knew that an admission, of guilt was typically followed by an execution. For those with an unrefined, sense of matching penalties to crimes, the strappado was an unmitigated success. Need a perpetrator? Send the accused to the strappado. Granted the notion, of the "voluntariness" of the confession was stretched beyond recognition, but, the strappado sure did cut down on police work.

Page 22 :
Introduction, , xxi, , Machiavelli survived six (count 'em) yanks of the strappado and twentytwo days in manacles. He did not confess and from all accounts conducted hirnself honorably and courageously. Machiavelli later wrote that: "I should like you, to get this pleasure from these troubles of mine, that I have borne them so, straightforwardly that I am proud of myself for it and consider myself more of a, man than I believed I was" (Ltr. 206: 3/18/13). Machiavelli was released as part, of a general amnesty accompanying the election of Pope Leo X. With no prospects, few resources, and much to fear, he left Florence and retired to a small, family farm near San Casciano, about seven miles outside the city. When the, weather cooperated, he could view the tower of the P a l a m della Signoria, the, seat of Florentine political authority, now so far from his grasp. In 1513, Machiavelli was relegated to Palookaville., While in exile, Machiavelli hunted, farmed, squabbled with local merchants, hung out in taverns, played card and dice games, and wrote. His two, most famous pen pals were Francesco Vettori, Florentine ambassador in Rome,, and Francesco Guicciardini, the papal governor of Romagna. Machiavelli also, participated in political discussions in the Rucellai Gardens, presided over by his, republican friend, Cosimo Rucellai., Many of the ideas compiled in The Prince were rehearsed in Machiavelli's, correspondence with Vettori. In a letter, dated December 10, 1513, Machiavelli, poignantly details a typical day in his life which culminates in the evening as he, dons courtly garments and "converses" with great ancient writers. He also announces in that letter the completion of The Prince and his intention to dedicate, the work to Giuliano delMedici, who was briefly the governor of Florence prior, to being named a cardinal when his brother was elected as Pope (Ltr. 224:, 12/10/13). Machiavelli eventually dedicated The Prince to Lorenzo de'Medici,, grandson of the Magnificent, who was the Duke of Urbino and the de facto ruler, of Florence once Giuliano left for Rome., Machiavelli also wrote The Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius, ("The Discourses'~,The Art of War, La Mandragola (The Mandrake), The Life, of Castruccio Castracani, several plays, and numerous poems. Throughout this, period, he longed to return to political ofice and implement the principles he, had derived. Despite his maneuverings and his implorations to his friends Vettori and Guicciardini, Machiavelli's resume remained unsolicited., Finally, Cardinal Giulio de'Medici commissioned Machiavelli to write The, Florentine Histories. Machiavelli was eager to work and hoped it would lead to, a return to politics, but he was anxious about describing the Florentine republic,, 1494-1512. He assumed that he was expected to curry the favor of the Medici, and sully the republican era. Yet, he was an integral part of that republican government for fourteen years. Machiavelli solved the problem with characteristic, aplomb: he ended the book at 1492, the year Lorenzo the Magnificent perished., Moreover, he finessed his account of Medici rule, honestly praising their foreign, policy and paying less attention to the loss of liberty attending the Magnificent's, final decade of rule. In 1525, Machiavelli traveled to Rome to present the work

Page 23 :
xxii, , Introduction, , to Giulio, who had been elected Pope Clement VII two years earlier., The pope received Machiavelli's labors warmly and offered Machiavelli a, return to Florence. By 1526, Machiavelli was given minor work related to the, defensive structures in Florence. He thirsted for more critical assignments., Events conspired against him., The following year, the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, sacked Rome, an, event that eviscerated the power of the Medici. Machiavelli and others had implored the pope to heavily fortify Rome in preparation for the emperor's unwelcomed arrival. Instead, Clement VII negotiated a series of truces with Charles V, and released his own troops to save money. The result was completely predictable: The emperor, sensing easy pickings, ignored his promises, broke the peace,, and stormed into Rome. The imperial army included mostly undisciplined barbarians who savagely despoiled the city. For over a week, Charles's cutthroats, murdered, raped, looted, ransacked, and kidnapped. Pope Clement VII retreated, to safety. About fifty thousand Romans either fled or were slaughtered. The foreigners left only decay, disease, and despair behind them., As a direct result of the sack of Rome, the Medici were, once again, expelled from Florence in 1527. Machiavelli was convinced that the revitalized, republic that emerged would thirst for his services. But Machiavelli was now, associated with the Medici, whose benefits he had cadged. No job offer was, forthcoming. He was fifty-eight years old, without hope and redemption. Machiavelli had not tasted the enduring glory he so relentlessly sought., Niccolb Machiavelli died later that year and was buried in Santa Croce, a, Franciscan church in Florence that also contains the bodies of Michelangelo and, Galileo, and a memorial to Dante. Thousands of tourists stroll through Santa, Croce every week. They take photos of his grave. The epitaph on his tombstone, reads, "Tanto nomini nullum par elogium" ("To such a name no eulogy is, equal")., , Notes, 1. See, for example, Eric W. Cochrane, "Machiavelli: 1940-1960," Journal of Modern History 33 (1961): 131-133; John H. Geerken, ''Machiavelli Studies since 1969,", Journal of the History ofldeas 37 (1976): 357-359., 2. Kenneth Bartlett, The Italian Renaissance: Part Three (Chantilly, V A : The, , Teaching Company, 2005), 103-1 04,105., 3. Sebastian De Grazia, Machiavelli in Hell (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Press, 1989), 36.

Page 24 :
Chapter One, , The Prince, The Prince is a handbook for rulers on the art of successful statecraft; or it is a, patriotic call for Italian unification; or it is a technical book on politics not intended for any particular people or locale; or it is a job application on behalf of, an author who is unemployed; or it is a self-inflicted wound by an author who is, psychologically exhausted but who desperately needs to feel alive; or it is a scientific manual on politics; or it is the first, autocratic political stage of a process, that will end with self-government; or it is a satire on the duplicity of princes, intended to alert and educate the masses; or it is a politically subversive text, designed to dupe the Medici and restore republican government to Florence; or, it is an instruction guide for success through evil, perhaps inspired by the devil, himself; or it is any of another half-dozen or so plausible interpretations., Whatever intentions, purposes, and methods animate The Prince, what is, undeniable is the ongoing influence this concise treatise exudes. The term "Machiavellian"-connoting manipulation, conniving, duplicity, and, less fiequently, coercion to achieve one's goals-is derived fiom The Prince. The image of a successful chief executive, corporate leader, politician, military, commander, head athletic coach, or crafty teacher adopting Machiavellian techniques to create and exploit images and appearances for his or her own increased, power remains vivid. Unsurprisingly, even when Machiavellianism is disparaged it is with a wink and a nod as we bestow grudging admiration on the sheer, cunning and breathtaking ingenuity ascribed to Machiavelli's work., , The Dedication, The Prince is dedicated to the Duke of Urbino, Lorenzo de'Medici (1492-1 519),, grandson of Lorenzo the Magnificent (1449-1492), son of Piero (1471-1503),, and nephew of Giovanni (1475-1521) who was elected Pope Leo X in 1513., Machiavelli first intended to present The Prince to Giuliano de'Medici (14781516), Lorenzo's uncle, who assumed control of Florence in 1512, when the, Holy League defeated the French and ousted the republic. But Giuliano died in, 1516 and Lorenzo rose to power., Machiavelli observes that those currying a prince's favor must present him, with a gift they consider among their most valuable. Horses, armor, gems, gold, cloth, and the like are the usual fare. Machiavelli's gift must symbolize his desire to render service to Lorenzo. His understanding of the lives and actions of

Page 25 :
2, , Chapter One, , great men, sharpened by a study of the classics and by his experiences in politics, is Machiavelli's most treasured contribution. The Prince summarizes and, describes Machiavelli's conclusions on these matters (P ded.), He acknowledges that The Prince is an unworthy offering, but implores, Lorenzo to accept the gift. Machiavelli is not in a position to present anything, greater and the knowledge contained therein is the culmination of years of study, and labor accompanied by grave suffering and perils. The author notes that he, wrote The Prince without needless rhetorical flourishes or pretentious literary, adornments. He refuses to win approval for the book on the basis of clever, seductive style: the diverse historical examples and importance of the issues, should suffice. Machiavelli hopes his efforts will not seem presumptuous. Just, as landscape painters must work from the valley if they are to capture mountains, only a person of modest origins can accurately understand the actions of, rulers. Machiavelli reminds Lorenzo that a cruel fate has inflicted undeserved, suffering upon him. Yet he deeply yearns that Lorenzo will attain the greatness, that his good fortune and character promise (P ded.), The conventional rendering of the dedication views it as a compendium of, literary custom, job-probing, and thinly veiled messages. The false modestygosh, 1 know this gift is unworthy, but please accept it from someone who has, no resplendent material possessions to offer-fits the expectations of the period., Likewise, the elevation of Lorenzo's personal character and its contrast to Machiavelli's poor luck and unmerited suffering establish a suitable distance between subject and ruler., Machiavelli, though, makes it clear that he is available and willing to obediently serve Lorenzo's interests. Moreover, he has the political experience and, classical training which can vivify Lorenzo's rule. He sees from the valley,, Lorenzo scans from the lofty heights of power, and together they could develop, a formidable political relationship. Alone, each of them is incomplete: Machiavelli lacks a position, Lorenzo needs savvy ministers. Machiavelli cannot brag, directly about his political resume. After all, he was part of the republican government that opposed a principality in Florence. Although Machiavelli does not, hammer the point, he is telling Lorenzo that he deeply desires and is uniquely, qualified for a position as Lorenzo's consigliere. He will serve loyally and well., He will facilitate Lorenzo's quest for enduring glory. That Lorenzo's uncle is, the pope will not hurt their proposed joint venture one iota., , Virtu, Few words in a political text have generated as much controversy as Machiavelli's use of virtir. Typically, translators caution readers not to associate the, term with moral virtue. That warning, though, is misleading because at times, Machiavelli does speak of moral virtir. This, however, is not the primary way he, uses the term. Virtir has been, more or less accurately, translated as efficiency,

Page 26 :
The Prince, , 3, , skill, strength, excellence, discipline, manliness, admirable qualities, ability,, virtue, effectiveness, will power, exceptional qualities, vigor, greatness, courage,, intelligence, and a host of related attributes., Consider the English word "good." We are familiar with good people, good, books, good knives, good cooks, good sex, good cars, good presentations, good, times, good athletes, good singers, good teachers, and the like. "Good" sometimes but not always connotes "moral rectitude." At other times, "good" describes a person, event, or object that performs its function well. The word "excellent" does the same. In ordinary discourse we are rarely confused because, context determines the meaning of such words. For example, we do not scratch, our heads in puzzlement over how a car can manifest moral goodness. We understand, instead, that a good car is a vehicle that rarely breaks down, runs, smoothly, and is easy to maintain., For Machiavelli, virtir connotes an excellence relevant to a person's function. Human beings inhabit a world of scarce resources and keen competition, that coalesces uncomfortably with our bottomless ambitions and passions., Worse, we are susceptible to the whims of Fortuna, which often conspire, against our best-devised stratagems. Only people embodying virtir are able to, cope with Fortuna, confront adversity with renewed purpose, imagine and pursue grand deeds, and maintain their resolve and passion in a relentlessly competitive world., Specifically, Machiavelli refers to military virtir, political virtir, civic virtir,, moral virtir, and artistic virtir (P 7; P 8; P 12; P 14; P 15; P 19; P 21; P 25; P, 26).' The qualities of excellence defining each type will differ. Military commanders require discipline, bravery, single-mindedness, drive, skill, energy,, military skill and knowledge, and the gumption to ignore conventional morality, when necessary. Political leaders need many of the same qualities, but also a, special shrewdness and prudence in dealing with foreign threats and internal, plots. The attributes of the lion, in order to frighten wolves, and the fox, in order, to evade traps, are crucial (P 18). Civic virtir is the hallmark of a sound republic., Citizens, initially motivated by self-interest and personal aggrandizement, are, shaped by good laws, strong arms, and sound education into sewing the common good of an expansionist state. By moral virtir, Machiavelli means exercising the values of conventional morality. Artistic virtir defines excellence in literature and the arts. The greatest men-those able to found, reform, preserve,, and expand healthy political units-must exude military and political virtir. Such, leaders must effectively size up the prevailing situation; reflect on the available, choices, priorities, and probable consequences; and act decisively and successfully. Citizens in a healthy political unit must exhibit civic and moral virtic if the, unit is to continue to flourish., Clearly, for Machiavelli the most important forms are military and political, virtir. A sound political unit, grounded in good laws and strong arms, is a prerequisite for the rigorous education needed to promote civic and moral virtir., The opposite of virtic is corruption. Corruption, for Machiavelli, is weakness:, ozio (sloth or idleness), civic and moral decay, lack of discipline, softness, ti-

Page 27 :
4, , Chapter One, , midity, muted will, resignation, inability to compete, hesitancy, indecisiveness,, an animo efleminato., Much ink has been squirted discussing Machiavelli's description of the notorious Agathocles of Sicily, king of Syracuse. Within the space of a few sentences, Machiavelli seems to contradict his own words:, One ought not, of course, to call it virtic to massacre one's fellow citizens, to, betray one's friends, to break one's word, to be without mercy and without religion. By such means one can acquire power but not glory. If one considers the, virtic Agathocles demonstrated in braving and facing down danger, and the, strength of character he showed . . . then there seems to be no reason why he, should be judged less admirable than any of the finest generals. But on the, other hand, his inhuman cruelty and brutality . . . mean it would be wrong to, praise him as one of the finest of men . . . one can attribute neither to fortune, nor to virtzl his accomplishments, which owed nothing to either (P 8)., At fust blush, the paragraph is worthy of double-talk artists such as Casey, Stengel or Doctor Irwin Corey. Did Agathocles embody and exercise virtir or, not? I interpret the passage as attributing military virtir to Agathocles, in response to his undeniable courage and resolve in rising up through the military, ranks and seizing power. He lacked, however, political virtir because he misused, power and meted out gratuitous cruelties. Also, he was without civic and moral, virtir. We should not attribute his transient success to luck or to political virtir or, to moral virtir. As a side bar, Machiavelli claims that the "finest of men" are not, inhumanely cruel and that acquiring power is not enough to merit glory. He preserves a distinction between tyrants and princes. A concern for enduring glory, should inform a prince's deeds., Harvey Mansfield argues that "Agathocles has virtir but cannot be said to, have virtir. It is not enough to say that he uses the word in different "senses"; he, uses it in two contradictory senses as to whether it includes or excludes evil, deeds. What could be more clear, more essential, and more inconsistent than, thaty2, Mansfield's outrage misses the mark. Surely, moral virtir excludes, almost, always, evil deeds (although extreme cases include choices between degrees of, evil). Just as surely, military and political virtir include "evil well-used" (P 8). At, times, military and political leaders must transgress absolute moral principles in, order to advance their highest goals: founding, reforming, preserving, and expanding a worthy state. In the chapters that follow, these distinctions will become clearer. That one form of virtir aspires to exclude evil deeds but other, forms of virtir include evil well-used is no more a contradiction than saying a, good knife cuts sharply while a good doctor heals cuts is a contradiction., The more troubling aspect of the chapter arrives later when Machiavelli,, after earlier stigmatizing the excessiveness of Agathocles's methods, includes, Agathocles among those who used evil well: "Those who use cruelty well may, indeed find both God and their subjects are prepared to let bygones be bygones,, as was the case with Agathocles" (P 8). One possibility is that Machiavelli takes

Page 28 :
The Prince, , 5, , Agathocles to have used evil well in military matters, but to have used evil, wrongly in political matters. Beginning from humble origins, Agathocles rose to, military power and displayed virtic in so doing, which required evil well-used., His political career was marred by excesses, cruelties and betrayals that Machiavelli derides. In short, Agathocles was a political destroyer of his city, a tyrant., That Agathocles was ruthless in obtaining military power does not faze Machiavelli; that Agathocles was excessively cruel once he had political power, that he, acted as a tyrant instead of a Machiavellian prince, merits condemnation., Agathocles, lacking prudence, represents ravenous ambition untempered by an, understanding of what constitutes enduring glory., , Fortuna, Machiavelli sometimes writes as if Fortuna is a personified, natural force that, consciously and capriciously plays with the circumstances of human beings. At, other times, he writes as iffortuna is only the set of circumstances within which, human beings must operate and choose alternatives (P 25)., Although he entertains and admits being drawn to the proposition that the, affairs of the world are governed completely by Fortuna, he rejects that view., Citing the existence of free will, Machiavelli carves a spot for human agency, and prudence. Fortuna, he speculates controls only about fifty percent of human, actions. Wise human beings can take proactive and reactive measures to soften, Fortuna's fury. In an example reminiscent of Hurricane Katrina's devastation of, New Orleans, Machiavelli describes how precautions can be taken against natural disasters. By building strong, effective barriers and banks, human beings, cannot prevent torrential rivers from rising, but we can soften the amount of, damage. Likewise, once a natural disaster has struck we can erect the fortifications required to anticipate and mollify the next occurrence. The Gulf Coast had, insuff~cientbarriers and inadequate levees. As a result, Hurricane Katrina devastated the area frighteningly. That Hurricane Katrina struck was unavoidable, but, the amount of damage was a function of the lack of human foresight and preparation., The message to individual rulers is even crisper. Do not depend on past, favorable fortuna. Your fortunes will change. No person will enjoy positive fortuna forever. Leaders must be flexible and adjust their policies as circumstances, permit. If a ruler's attributes and actions are not compatible with present needs, then he will fail. Sometimes caution wins the day. Sometimes boldness succeeds. The character of the times is dispositive. If a man continues behaving in, his customary way, then eventually he will be defeated when unfavorable fortuna appears. Only if a man could alter his character as time and the situation, warrant, would his luck be consistently favorable. Next comes the shocker: But, Machiavelli has not found a man of such great prudence. Men are either unable, to go beyond their fixed characters or are unable to convince themselves to

Page 29 :
6, , Chapter One, , change because their past style has been so successful. Fortuna changes, but, men cannot adjust enough., Fortuna, like all women for Machiavelli, is both threatening and malleable., She is capricious and thus beyond the deterministic schemes of fate; but also, subject to being overwhelmed by bold, masculine action. Unlike other women,, though, Fortuna has an endless bag of relentless tricks, while even the greatest, men are limited by their relatively-fixed characters and the seductions of past, success., Machiavelli does not explicitly spell out the conclusion of this argument:, All men must fail in the long run. The worst of us will supplicate ourselves before Fortuna and submit meekly in defeat. The best of us will defeat Fortuna, most of the time. None of us will defeat Fortuna all of the time. Even those of, the grandest virtir, if they live long enough, will eventually confront fortuna so, unfavorable that they will fail due to inherent limitations on human flexibility of, character. Men flourish when their character and actions mesh with circumstances fashioned by Fortuna. Men fail when their character and actions are out, of step with the times. As a guideline, Machiavelli advises that boldness and, ruthlessness are preferable to caution: "For Fortuna is a lady. It is necessary, if, you want to master her, to beat her and strike her. And one sees she more often, submits to those who act boldly than to those who proceed in a calculating fashion" (P 25)., Machiavelli astutely grasps that success requires a happy marriage between, a man's character and his situation. For example, the question, "Would Russo be, a great president?" should be replaced by "Would Russo be a great president at, this time under these circumstances?'A person's temperamental range and his, ability to adapt to fortune are limited. Instead of seeking a great ruler as such we, are better advised to assess carefully the prevailing context and select the person, best suited to flourish in that environment., Machiavelli's sagacious, famous call for flexibility and adaptability as crucial to military and political success is deflated by the dreary, insightful conclusion that human beings must fail in the end. This does not mean enduring glory,, the highest prize for Machiavelli, is impossible. Far from it. Part of that glory is, fighting the strong lifelong battle against an unconquerable foe, refusing the, easy consolations of lesser men and relishing the contest as an opportunity to, manifest one's mettle. We are born of dust and to dust we shall return. But along, the way, if we retain our nerve, energize our spirit, activate our understanding,, and greet the world with brio and virtir, we, too, may earn a measure of glory., Machiavelli was more flexible and adaptable than most human beings. His, willingness to adapt to his times is reflected in his willingness to serve republics, and principalities, as the circumstances warranted. In the end, Fortuna ground, him down and he was not trusted completely by advocates of either form of, government. He died disillusioned, the product of high expectations and unfulfilled political promise. Although he did not live long enough to know and experience it, Machiavelli eventually earned enduring glory as a writer, theorist,

Page 30 :
The Prince, , 7, , and provocateur-a deserved response to his artistic virtir. Fittingly, Machiavelli's life mirrors his teachings on the caprices and power of Fortuna., , Glory and the Quest for Immortality, For Machiavelli, the highest ends of governments are expansion and glory; the, highest end for human beings is glory. Machiavelli's infrequently noted tragic, view of life accepts that the only way to soften our mortality and finitude is to, earn an enduring biographical life. Grand military and political projects in service to a healthy government are the typical routes to deserve such glory. People, of great passion and ambition hunger for recognition that endures beyond their, lifetimes. This motivation, whether consciously felt or not, is critical to Machiavelli's political prescriptions., Glory is a type of external validation-it depends on the judgments of contemporaries and of posterity-and thus rests on the values and understandings of, evaluator^.^ For Machiavelli, glory can be temporary or permanent. Although, Machiavelli discusses the notion of glory more thoroughly in The Discourses, he, does not ignore the topic in The Prince (P 7; P 8; P 14; P 24; P 26). The greatest, glory is bestowed on those who found, reform, or lead religions; next are those, who found republics or principalities; then those who lead armies that expand, the territorial holdings of their native land; next are exemplary practitioners of, literature and art; and, finally, all others who earn glory through achievements in, their professions and occupations (D I 10)., Success is not sufficient to confer glory in politics. Favorable fortuna may, well have caused that triumph. The principles upon which one acted and one's, virtir are most critical. Machiavelli understands that one can lose admirably and, thereby merit glory. Machiavelli denies Agathocles glory because of his villainous methods and tyrannical aspirations (P 8). Machiavelli claims that men seek, glory and wealth (P 25), but, more precisely, he is referring only to certain men,, those with grandezza d'animo (nobility of passion). He understood keenly that, most of us lead obscure, quiet lives that do not vie for, much less attain, enduring glory. Even among politicians and military careerists, glory is earned by, only a few., Gloria . . . may be aptly defined as "very great fame or honor that is generally, recognized, acquired through extraordinary merits or talents, through valorous, deeds or great enterprises." Glory is a reputation for great deeds in the public, spheres4, , I will return to the theme of glory when I discuss The Discourses. In The, Prince, Machiavelli is addressing those who would dismiss the false comforts,, easy conformities, tepid projects, trivial idleness, and unbearable softness of, animo efleminato. Instead, he dares those with grandezza d'anim-those, glory, hounds whom Machiavelli admires and joins-to accept the challenge and com-

Page 31 :
8, , Chapter One, , Pete for the only reward that persists beyond a life span and that spits in the eyes, of the dogs of mortality., , Two Human Temperaments, Two conflicting parties, representing two opposing temperaments, compose civil, principalities and can assist or hinder a prince's rise to power. The people desire, not to be oppressed, while the nobles or aristocracy want to dominate (P 9). A, prince must earn the support of one or the other of these groups. To win over the, people, he must promise to neutralize the nobles. To lure the nobles, he must, promise to oppress the masses. Machiavelli advises princes to align themselves, with the people. First, he rejects the ancient proverb that "he who builds on the, people builds on mud." True, a private citizen who depends on the masses will, be disappointed, but not a wise prince. Such a prince, who does not buckle under, adversity, is well-prepared and courageous, and is able to buoy the spirits of the, people, will be rewarded. Second, the people will demand less fiom a prince, than will the aristocrats. The people ask only that they not be oppressed, while, nobles harbor higher expectations that may conflict with the prince's agenda., Many nobles fantasize that they are equals to the prince-a self-image that, makes them difficult to command. Third, the'people are more numerous than the, nobles. Against a hostile people a prince cannot be safe. But a prince can neutralize an antagonistic aristocracy, up to and including wiping them out. Fourth,, nobles will be more likely to hatch schemes against the prince, while the masses,, embodying less ambition and passion, will merely abandon the prince in worst, case scenarios. Fifth, the people, expecting little, are more likely to be grateful, for the prince's protection than are nobles who will resist the prince when it is, expedient (P 9)., Machiavelli's counsel to win the support of the people, either initially or after gaining power, should not be taken as an enthusiastic endorsement of the, masses. His conclusions follow fiom pragmatic considerations: the people are, more numerous, less dangerous, less ambitious, harbor fewer expectations, and, are more likely to be grateful than are the haughtiest aristocrats., As always, Machiavelli highlights the need to appeal to self-interest. The, people must understand that their well-being is tied to the flourishing of the, prince. The prince must demonstrate that he is responsible for their enhanced, security and order. The destruction of or a harm to the prince must be viewed as, jeopardizing the well-being of the people. Loyalty to the prince, as always, is, grounded on perceptions of self-interest: "He who builds on the conviction that, he is loved by others and that love will issue in selfless allegiance builds on air.", , The Prince's Training and Machiavelli's Counsel, A passel of slogans capture the gist of Machiavelli's advice to princes.

Page 32 :
The Prince, , 9, , Free yourse~fiomthe imperatives of conventional morality, Because of the unbridgeable chasm between how people live and how they, ought to live, princes who insist on acting on moral ideals will destroy themselves. Princes who refuse to transgress conventional morality at critical times, will fall because so many people lack moral rectitude. Princes must learn how to, be not good, understand when to use that knowledge and when not to use it, in, accord with necessity (P 15; P 18)., Machiavelli recognizes a host of moral virtues: generosity, philanthropy,, mercy, truthfulness, boldness, kindliness, chastity, reliability, tolerance, cheerfulness, and religiosity. But he insists that no prince can embody or fully practice all of these moral virtues because of the human condition and human behavior which do not permit doing so if one is to be successful. A prince does need to, avoid being tagged with too many of the correlated vices if doing so jeopardizes, his position: miserliness, greediness, cruelness, untruthfulness, cowardliness,, pridefulness, lasciviousness, untrustworthiness, intolerance, hardness, and faithlessness (P 15; P 18)., In general, a prince should follow conventional morality where he can, but, recognize that necessity ofien militates that adhering to what are commonly, called vices facilitate the ends of the state and prince, while practicing what are, called virtues may harm or destroy those ends (P 15; P 18; P 19)., People are mystified by appearances. They judge the actions of everyone,, especially those of princes, by their results. If a prince succeeds in founding,, preserving, reforming, or expanding the power of the state-and thereby enhancing the well-being of its citizens-his methods will be evaluated favorably, (P 18). As I will explain in detail later, Machiavelli is not championing the normative view that "good ends justify any means." Instead, he is describing the, way the majority of people will be blinded by results when judging the ways, those ends were attained. He suggests that if their self-interest was promoted by, the results, people will rationalize away the wrongness of the means. For Machiavelli, as I will also explain later, the wrongness of the means persists even, though the prince was warranted in performing the act. A prince's default position is following the scruples of conventional morality. But necessitbthe basic, human inclination toward self-interest; the scarcity of natural resources; the actual behavior of the vast majority of people; the zero-sum nature of international, affairs; and the vicissitudes of Fortuna-will often require transgressing the, imperatives of conventional morality as the only way to attain paramount political ends: founding, preserving, reforming, or expanding the state. A healthy, state is required if the prince is to achieve glory and the people are to enjoy security, order, and develop civic virth., Only if the world was as philosophers such as Plato imagined it could be, would the marriage of strict reliance on conventional morality and international, politics thrive.

Page 33 :
10, , Chapter One, , But the activities of the world stray wildly from such ideals and princes who, suppose otherwise are fools who will soon relinquish whatever political power, they temporarily grasp., Use cool, dispassionate reason to assess opportunities andpossibilities, and, to select your methodr, , In the context of advising the prince on securing a grand reputation, Machiavelli warns him not to be fooled into thinking he can always choose safe, options. Every choice involves risks and safeguards against one peril which increases the probability of another danger happening. The wise prince understands the art of evaluating the seriousness and probability of the various disadvantages and in selecting the least dangerous (P 2 1)., Machiavelli acutely senses that safety, comfort, and iron-tight security are, unavailable to a prince. He must, instead, identify his options, apply a costbenefit analysis to each, and select the least dangerous-the one with the highest, probability for significant success and the lowest chance of ending in disasteras the correct move. There is complete safety, if at all, only in the womb and the, tomb. Princes who are risk-adverse lack the enlarged spirit required for success., To aspire to never err is to surrender at the outset. The best princes are not those, who make the fewest mistakes, but those who have the highest balance of momentous successes minus miscues. Of course, the prince must also avoid devastating defeats that seal his doom. Above all, the prince must maintain his poise, and sharpen his talents when those around him are panicking and witless., Cultivate the loyalty of the masses, , Machiavelli understood implicitly the difference between the coercive and, directive functions of law. Law's coercive power is its threat of punishment:, human beings, other things being equal, seek to avoid the pains and suffering of, retribution for their misdeeds. But coercive power is insufficient. If the only, reason citizens have for obeying law or complying with the prince's decrees is, fear of punishment, then once that sword is no longer dangling over their heads, they will break the law with impunity. That is, they will disobey in those circumstances where the probability of getting caught is low and the benefits to, them are reasonably high., Law's directive power kicks in when citizens internalize the values expressed by legal prohibitions and prescriptions: when citizens accept those values as their own and no longer perceive them as externally imposed. Machiavelli's relentless call for strong arms and sound laws underscores the need for, the prince to bring order, stability, and security to the state (P 12). A wellordered state is the prerequisite for the socialization process that promotes the, habits, traditions-the necessities-that advance the directive hnction of law., Remember, human beings are naturally inclined toward wickedness; they will, toe the righteous line only when strong-armed by necessity (P 15; P 18; P 23).

Page 34 :
The Prince, , 11, , Only when citizens accept for themselves that the prince's rule and his laws are, appropriate, acceptable, and, yes, even necessary will the state no longer be corrupt. A tyrant can call upon the coercive power of his reign even more easily, than a prince can. But the tyrant, lacking the loyalty of the masses, rules over a, corrupt polity where the directive power of law is absent. The authority of the, tyrant is based entirely on might. When Fortuna turns against him, the tyrant, will most likely fall swiftly and certainly., The difference between a law with both coercive and directive power, and a, law with only coercive power, is easily illustrated. For most of us, laws prohibiting murder bear both coercive and directive power: I fear the severe punishment, that accompanies being found guilty of murder, but independently of that fear I, accept that murder is wrong. I would not murder another person even if I' could, do so and escape punishment. I have internalized the values constituting the, prohibition on murder and have accepted them as my own. On the other hand,, for me at least, the sixty-five mile-per-hour speed limit on the New York State, Thruway bears only coercive power. I fear the punishment of yet another speeding ticket-the cost of the fine, the inconvenience of paying or bargaining down, the penalty, the unbearable evening squandered at driver's reform school--but I, have no misgivings about driving over sixty-five if I suspect I can do so without, getting nabbed by a state trooper. Assuming excellent driving conditions, typical, traffic patterns, fine road conditions, and the like, I know that I can drive over, sixty-five safely and efficiently. Moreover, the speed law is enforced sporadically-early and late in the month seem like heavy quota times-and with discretion: no one is ticketed for traveling, say, sixty-seven in a sixty-five mile-perhour zone. The usual "trooper's number" seems to be seventy-seven or seventyeight. Thus, the state itself does not reinforce the alleged values of the speed, limit. To do so would mean a vast increase in the number of tickets and in the, amount of time the police expend in monitoring traffic. Where punishment is, swift and certain the law is strengthened in both its coercive and directive hnctions. Judging from the habits of other drivers, I feel safe in concluding that the, 65 mile-per-hour speed limit on the New York State Thruway has little or no, directive power for around 95 percent of operators of motor vehicles., My point is that Machiavelli understood all of this. For a prince to merely, hold his subjects in fear is not enough. He must win their loyalty: he must transform what citizens first take as external rule into an internally accepted regime., As has been sketched above and will be detailed below, the cornerstones of the, program include showing the people how their self-interest is inextricably bound, to the well-being of the prince; recruiting a strong army and instituting sound, laws; neutralizing the ambition of the nobles; implementing disciplined education; cultivating appropriate habits and customs; enlarging the prince's reputation; and demonstrating that the system works through grand military triumphs, and a sharp system of internal rewards and punishments., Understand, though, that Machiavelli is not championing "power to the, people." The people are strongly inclined toward evil; they are turned to the, good only by necessity; they judge mainly by appearances; they evaluate actions

Page 35 :
12, , Chapter One, , only by results; they seek merely to avoid being oppressed; they will desert the, prince if he is defeated or captured; and, thus, they lack grandezza d'animo. The, people may be small-timers, but their well-being and collective loyalty are pivotal to the prince's successful reign and to his ascension to enduring glory., Restrain your erotic and material lusts, , The prince must exemplify the traits he wishes his citizens to embody. First,, indolence is prohibited. The prince must train physically and be prepared mentally. Second, the prince must be disciplined and immune to the rush to luxuries., Third, the prince must attend most of all to military affairs. A prince must be, armed and personally command his soldiers (P 14). Fourth, the prince must refiain fiom abusing the women and seizing the property of his citizens and subjects (P 17; P 19). Such princely excesses invite the hatred of the masses, the, one sure trigger of the prince's demise. Fifth, he must not exude animo efleminato: he cannot act erratically, cowardly, indecisively, or timidly. To do so earns, the contempt of the people. The people may themselves embody animo efleminato, but few recognize their limitations and all expect more of their leaders., The prince, instead, must demonstrate grandezza d'animo: he must reveal the, greatness of his actions, dignified strength, resoluteness, and endurance (P 19)., The prince, unlike Machiavelli himself, should be a patron of the arts and, sciences. He should recognize accomplished artists, scientists, and encourage, farmers, businessmen, and craftsmen in their respective trades. Workers must be, assured that their labors will be rewarded and their property will be safe. Of, course, the prince is especially keen on those who benefit his state and enlarge, the public coffers (P 2 1)., The prince should sponsor fairs and festivals at the appropriate times of the, year. He should not be removed fiom the people. Instead, he mingles with guild, and neighborhood members. But he must never cast aside his cloak of authority, and dignity (P 2 1, FH VIII 10). Playing the fool is acceptable for common folk, and minstrels, but not for the head of state. Princes must be flexible, resolute,, spirited, and worthy adversaries for Fortuna., In sum, the prince must be a hard man. Founding, reforming, preserving,, and expanding a state are not hobbies. Machiavelli correctly senses that a genuine leader must be a role model. To earn the enduring glory he seeks, the prince, cannot be a poser. The attributes of the prince must not be based on smoke and, mirrors. The great bluffer and master of deception will ultimately be only as, successful as his character permits. If the prince is not the real deal, his enemies,, his people, and the ever-present Fortuna will snatch his power and grind him, into oblivion. History will consign such a ruler to the dross bin of losers., Keep your behavior in tune with the times, , I have addressed this above. A quick recap is appropriate here. The prince, should not stake his claim on past favorable fortuna. Fortuna is a trickster and

Page 36 :
The Prince, , 13, , cannot remain constant. Rulers must be adaptable and conform their actions to, present circumstances. Some princes, the least able, are effective only occasionally. Most princes, typical rulers, are more often successful because their temperaments suit more conditions. Only the greatest princes are flexible enough to, succeed in numerous situations. Only such rulers bear the military and political, virtd required for founding, reforming, preserving, or expanding a healthy state., Only they merit the enduring glory that marks the best human lives. But Machiavelli's tragic view of life whispers that men are unable to adapt to all circumstances. Their fixed character and dispositions or past success militate that, their elasticity is limited. But the situations contrived by Fortuna are boundless., Although boldness is preferable to timidity, it cannot redeem us from our fate:, All men, if given enough time, will fail in the end (P 25)., A softer reading of Machiavelli's words would state his conclusion conditionally: If the prince is not flexible, if he does not adapt himself to changing, contexts, his power will perish. If a prince could adjust his temperament and, policies with the requirements of the times, his luck would never change. This, interpretation holds out the possibility that a prince of such admirable malleability might emerge and, if so, his fortunes would always be rosy. I emphasize,, instead, Machiavelli's conviction that he has not found a man so prudent and, flexible that he can accommodate himself to all of Fortuna's caprices. If Machiavelli had intended to highlight the softer reading, he would have offered, historical or mythological examples in support. Instead, he presents only the, case of Pope Julius 11: "He did not live long enough to experience failure. But if, the times had changed so that it was necessary to proceed with caution, he, would have been destroyed. He would never have been able to change the style, of behavior to which his character inclined him" (P 25)., Establish strong armies and sound laws, , A prince can hue mercenary forces, align himself with auxiliary soldiers, or, train his own army. Of these, the last is by far the best strategy. Mercenaries are, worthless. When war is not being waged they are eager to be hired and drain a, prince's finances. When war arrives, they scatter like scalded cats. They are ambitious, undisciplined, disloyal, ostentatious among allies, but cowardly among, enemies. Mercenaries have no motive to aid a prince's cause other than their, desire to snatch a paycheck. Their leaders are faithless and often seek independent power. Worse, when they do fight they have proved ineffective (P 12)., Auxiliaries are the forces belonging to another strong man which a prince, has brought in to defend his state. They are as useless as mercenaries, but more, dangerous. If they lose, the prince loses. If they win, they are likely to injure the, prince who hired them. Auxiliaries do have loyalties, but only to their own, country and ruler, not to the prince who requested their aid. Whereas mercenaries are indifferent and lazy, auxiliaries are eager but predatory (P 13)., A successfbl prince must recruit, train, and lead his own troops. A prince's, reputation for strength must be based on his actual military capabilities. The

Page 37 :
Chapter One, , 14, , prince's troops can include his subjects or citizens or dependents. To lose with, his own men is preferable to winning with soldiers belonging to someone else or, those who are hired guns (P 13). As always, the prince should be self-sustaining, and rely as little as possible upon outsiders (P 10). The best foundation for success is a loyal, disciplined army which is united in defense of the homeland (P, 26). Machiavelli offers several historical examples of princes, such as Cesare, Borgia and Hiero of Syracuse, who learned the hard way that one's own men are, superior to mercenaries and auxiliaries (P 13). A strong army, beyond establishing a robust defense of the homeland is the base from which a state builds, order and stability, which in turn are required to develop sound laws. Machiavelli sees reciprocal benefits between military and civil institutions (P 12). Only, if strong arms and sound laws are in place can a state cultivate civic virtir and, begin to compete effectively in international affairs., , Controversially, Machiavelli advises a new prince, as a general but not ironclad rule, not to disarm his subjects. When a prince disarms his subjects he, courts their anger and, possibly, their hatred. Also, if he finds them unarmed, he, should arm them. When a prince arms subjects he wins their loyalty and they, become his partisans (P 20). One exception occurs when a prince annexes a, province to his state. These subjects should be disarmed, at least those who were, not the prince's allies during the conquest (P 20; P 13). Allowing subjects to, retain their arms or arming those who were previously disarmed presents dangers to the prince. Plots, conspiracies, and treacheries are more easily hatched, where the perpetrators have access to weaponry. Machiavelli judges that, typically, the risk is worth the rewards to the prince: avoiding an angry, hateful, populace; nurturing loyalty; demonstrating confidence and strength; and promoting vigor in the people., Gain knowledge of war, , A prince must be armed, but to be dangerous he must lead his own troops., He cannot lead an indolent life and retain respect. The quickest way to lose, power and relinquish your state is to shy from learning and practicing the art of, war. The unarmed man is compelled to obey the armed man. The prince must, train himself for war by hunting. Hunting accustoms the body to hardships and, forces the prince to confiont nature's topography. While engaging in sport, the, prince can study terrain and imagine military attacks and defenses. The geography he observes will be similar to sites upon which he may have to do battle, later. Knowing his own country better also allows the prince to better defend it, from potential foreign dominators (P 14)., The prince must also study history. By observing and mimicking the methods of men with undeniable military virtir, the prince follows a long and honorable tradition: Alexander the Great imitated Achilles; Julius Caesar imitated, Alexander; Scipio imitated Cyrus. He who ignores history when it comes to, military matters invites disaster (P 14).

Page 38 :
The Prince, , IS, , The wise prince commands his troops. He acts as a general in the field. The, well-ordered republic commissions a citizen. The prince's knowledge and training are not simply theoretical. Only in this way do healthy states advance their, causes (P 12)., Machiavelli was well familiar with a gifted prophet who ignored military, affairs: Savonarola. Once the people began to turn against him, the unarmed, ruler had no way of repelling opposition or of regenerating the faith of former, allies. He ended as all politicians who are indifferent to the military must: tortured, hung, and burned (P 6)., Operate within the real as it is, , Machiavelli cautions the prince to rule as Machiavelli writes: focus on real, problems, avoid abstractions and utopianism, and emphasize practicality (P 15)., The world of philosophers' imaginations is creative but useless for the purposes, of earthly governments. Princes who delude themselves or appeal to comforting, fantasies about human nature doom themselves and their homelands. History, will not judge kindly dreamers posing as rulers., The way men live strays radically from the way they profess to live or, should live. The prince who imagines ideal polities or operates invariably according to the scruples of conventional morality sows the seeds of his own destruction. The many who are not good will cannibalize a goody-two-shoes ruler, who operates under abstract principles instead of strategic cunning. Again, the, prince must learn how to be not good (P 15)., If natural resources are scarce, the ambition of glory-seekers is expansive,, and world affairs consists of a series of zero-sum contests, then the prince must, draw a tight circle around his area of concern-his state and citizens-and advance their interests to the detriment of those outside that circle. For Machiavelli, this is the nature of the world and of human beings. Care for the wellbeing of citizens or the common good does not extend beyond the state's borders. Glory is conferred in response to grand political and military achievements. These triumphs involve winners and losers. One sure way of losing is to, operate from principles and values which lack currency in the world as it is and, as it functions., Foster a good reputation, earn respect, but act expediently, A prince should actually embody praiseworthy qualities, not just seem to, have them (P 18). But possessing so many grand characteristics is impossible (P, 15). A prince, then, should follow some practical guidelines., The prince must avoid being considered fickle, indecisive, cowardly-all, reflections of animo effeminate. Exuding strength, firmness, decisiveness, and, largeness of vision-the attributes of grandezza d'animeare required to discourage enemies and win allies. Again, a prince who is not hated has few legitimate concerns. One such wony is from foreign enemies; the antidote is able

Page 39 :
16, , Chapter One, , soldiers and strong arms. If the prince can soften threats of foreign invasion he, will also increase order and stability within his state. The likelihood of internal, agitators forming conspiracies against the prince will decrease. If the people are, pleased with the prince's rule, potential conspirators will lose their motivation to, strike because they will understand that their actions will not be applauded by, the masses. In any event, almost all conspiracies fail. Most conspirators are malcontents who will rat out their fellow conspirators if expedient. The people most, likely to join a conspiracy are also the ones most apt to betray it. If the prince, has the goodwill of the people conspirators also must fear retaliation if they succeed. If, on the other hand, the people hate the prince then he should fear everyone and everything (P 19)., The reputations of princes are amplified when the populace observes them, overcoming resistance and surmounting obstacles. A prince will not need to look, far to find enemies casting envious, covetous eyes on his territory. Defeating, these blackguards, through the arts of force and fraud, will elevate a prince. A, prince must also assess the motives of those who aided his rise to power. If they, did so out of allegiance to him, fine. But if they helped him fiom disdain of the, previous ruler, the new prince should be wary. Are his allies unrepentant malcontents? Or are they malleable enough to be loyal to him (P 20)? His evaluations and judgments, as ever, will partly measure his political virtic., In general, the prince will gain esteem through grand enterprises. Impressive military victories, expansion of territory, stirring defenses of the homeland, are the most obvious candidates. But internal affairs are also important. The, prince must reward exceptional efforts and punish vile deeds. The people take, their cue from the prince: they will emulate rewarded actions in the hope of garnering benefits and they will avoid punished deeds in order to skirt pain (P 21)., Also important to the prince's reputation is his choice of associates. For example, a prince who allies himself with a ruler who is more powerful than himself courts danger and loses esteem. If the alliance triumphs, the stronger party, to it may turn on the prince and usurp his power (P 21). A prince is also evaluated by his choice of ministers. An impeccable inner circle is critical to his success and to his respect (P 22; P 23)., Like a proficient poker player, the prince tries to conceal the real strength of, his holdings. Sometimes he wants to give the impression his position is stronger, than it is in order to forestall robust internal opposition or external attack. At, other times, he may feign vulnerability in order to invite aggression which he, can easily quell. The deception in all cases is designed to amplify his overall, standing. But no one, poker player or politician, can succeed through bluffs, only. A fm basis of strength, not merely its illusion, is required. For princes, a, strong military, a well-ordered polity, and avoiding the hatred of the people are, prerequisites for continued success. No one can fool all of the people all of the, time. Certain qualities of character and tangible institutions form the ballast of, the prince's abilities to coerce and defraud the other players in the deadly game.

Page 40 :
The Prince, , 17, , Understand the critical e n h of the state, , The ends of the state are the personal glory of the prince and the enhanced, well-being of the citizens (P 26). Machiavelli is clear in The Prince and even, more emphatic in The Discourses that these ends require territorial expansion (P, 3; P 7; D 11 2; D 11 4; D 11 6; D I1 9; D I1 21). Numerous commentators have, concluded that the well-being of citizens is only a means to the glory of the, ruler, which is paramount; that the personal power of the prince, not the good of, the state or the people, is the only true goal of a Machiavellian ruler.', Such a reading is unfair. Rulers gather glory because they have founded, reformed, preserved, or expanded healthy states. A healthy state has strong arms,, sound laws, and rigorous education. The state must expand because on Machiavelli7suncompromising world view the only other choice is enslavement. True,, the prince burns with ambizione (ambition) and unabashedly aspires to enduring, glory. That glory can be attained only by invigorating the state and enlarging the, common good., Does it follow that the well-being of citizens is only a regrettable, but required, means to what the prince really wants? The connection between attaining, glory and benefiting the people is too tight to separate neatly. The prince's deepest aspiration springs, true enough, from self-interest. But he comes to understand that what is in his self-interest cannot be gained selfishly. If selfishness is, ignoring the interests of others when one should not, then the prince must shun it, in order to satisfy his self-interest in enduring glory. That one cannot, in Machiavelli's view, attain glory selfishly speaks volumes. Achieving personal glory, and advancing the common good mirror the pretensions of love and marriageyou cannot have one without the other. From the standpoint of the people, the, glory of the prince is a means to the common good. None of this assumes that, the prince has purely altruistic motives or even that his heart necessarily aches, for the plight of his people. But a Machiavellian prince must rise above selfishness, must recognize the inexorable connection between advancing the wellbeing of the people and attaining personal glory, and must, accordingly, cast, aside all inclinations toward tyranny. Accordingly, the well-being of citizens is, part of the definition of personal glory, rather than merely a means of attaining, it., Remember: It is better to be feared than to be loved, but avoid being hated, , The prince should strive to be considered merciful and not cruel. But being, merciful is trickier than it may seem. Cesare Borgia was thought cruel but his, methods united and reformed the Romagna. A more squeamish prince, desiring, a reputation for mercy, would have been gentler. The result would have been, continued disorder and corruption which would have been more harmful to the, state in the long run. Cruelty and mercy, then, are not always what they initially, appear to be. Being considered cruel will not jeopardize the prince's authority if

Page 41 :
18, , Chapter One, , in so doing he advances the order and security of the state, and the well-being of, the people (P 17)., For the prince, being both feared and loved by the people is the best situation. But accomplishing both simultaneously is uncommon. If the prince cannot, join these two emotions in his people, it is better to be feared than to be loved., This is the case because of human nature. People are generally ungrateful, cowardly, selfish, deceptive, greedy, and inconstant. As long as the prince serves, their interests, they pledge loyalty and offer extravagant promises. They talk a, big game during high times, but come up tiny in adverse situations. Love is an, emotion that binds people through obligation. People, who are basically wicked, and self-interested, will renege on such a duty when expedient. Fear has a, greater hold because it includes dread of punishment. Love, then, appeals to the, better angels of our natures, making it thoroughly discretionary and unreliable., Fear addresses our consistent aversion to coercion, suffering, and physical harm,, making it completely reliable and predictable. Also, whether citizens fear the, prince is more under his control than whether they love him. Accordingly, the, fear of his subjects, again, is more predictable, reliable, and controllable than is, the love of his subjects (P 17; P 18)., At all costs, a prince must avoid being hated (P 17; P 19). The people will, hate a prince only if the ruler confiscates their property or their women. When, the prince has to kill he should be able to articulate persuasive reasons and to, make a clear case. Above all, he must not seize the property of citizens: "Men, forget more quickly the death of a father than the loss of a father's estate" (P, 17)., Military leaders, following the example of Hannibal, must be cruel in order, to cement discipline and to instill useful fear. Those who praise the loyalty of, Hannibal's troops but stigmatize Hannibal for his harsh measures, says Machiavelli, miss the mark badly. Hannibal's cruelty is what made his troops loyal,, disciplined, and effective. Anticipating the words of Immanuel Kant, Machiavelli suggests that to will the end is to will the means necessary to achieve it (P, 17)., Here Machiavelli offers his coldest, narrowest, most unequivocal and cynical assessment of human nature. Especially in terms of a prince who has just, risen to power, Machiavelli claims to hold a mirror to people as they are and, when he asks, "who is the fairest of them all?" the glass shatters. He goes so far, as to accept that people value property rights over human rights to the extent that, they cherish their possessions more than the life of a parent. In these passages,, unlike other parts of his work, he offers no hope for transformation or redemption. If human beings are so desolate and intractable, one wonders, what is the, worth of the glory those with grandezza d'animo seek? Who should bother to, aspire to a fine reputation and an historical legacy among such pathetic specimens? Are they even worthy of Machiavelli's imagined prince of robust military, and political virtir?

Page 42 :
The Prince, , Develop the qualities ofthe lion and thefox, , The prince should take the lion and the fox as role models. The lion fiightens wolves and the fox recognizes traps. Rulers who act only as lions do not, fully understand the requirements of their office. The lion, as a metaphor for, military might, can be tricked and neutralized by clever adversaries. The fox, as, a metaphor for cunning and deception, cannot always defend itself fiom forceful, enemies. The qualities of both beasts are needed by a successful prince (P 18; P, 19)., Machiavelli's pairing of the lion and the fox derives fiom two sources., Cicero had rejected in his De Oficis the political use of fiaud and force as represented by the fox and lion. Machiavelli dismisses Cicero's position while accepting his symbols. Machiavelli is also influenced by Aesop's fable, "The Fox, and the Lion" (P 18; Ltr. 222: 8/26/13). Machiavelli's prince must sharpen the, art of deception. Although truthfulness, integrity, and promise-keeping are wellrecognized moral virtues, only those rulers willing to violate such imperatives, will succeed. A ruler must sometimes respect moral conventions and must sometimes cast off these restraints when advantageous. This is the case, again, because people are generally evil and will break their word to you; thus, the prince, should not feel compelled to keep his promises to them. A prince should follow, conventional morality, but must be prepared to do wrong if necessary. Only if, all men were morally good would this advice miss the mark. But men are, wicked (P 18; P 23)., Happily, people are easily fooled. The prince must conceal that he is playing the fox. Through cunning, deception, and by picking his spots, the prince, must disguise his actual intentions. If capable, the prince will find plenty of simpletons, blinded by immediate gratifications and their own illusions, who will, allow themselves to be duped. The prince must seem merciful, trustworthy, reliable, religious, truthful and the like. Such a reputation aids the art of deception., But a prince must adjust his actual behavior in accord with Fortuna and necessitci. Practicing the moral virtues stringently will limit the prince's range of possible actions to his detriment. Machiavelli alludes to Ferdinand of Spain as a, ruler who talked peace and truth, but practiced war and deception to his advantage (P 18)., For Machiavelli, the prince must follow what virtually everyone else is already doing: Talking piety, practicing expediency. Yet, people are gabbiani, (gulls) even though they take themselves to be volpina (fox-like). How can this, be? If everyone is trying to deceive others when expedient, how are these same, players so easily taken in by the tricks of the prince? Why would they assume, that they were the only ones playing the game? Is it reasonable of Machiavelli to, assume that everyone is wicked but they are so dim-witted that they would assume others practice what they preach? Can such evil simpletons delude themselves so easily?, In fairness, Machiavelli does caution the prince to select well the time and, occasions of his treachery. Not even a Machiavellian prince can fool all of the

Page 43 :
20, , Chapter One, , people all of the time. Moreover, the game of poker provides an analogy. My, success at poker must come at the expense of other players: I cannot win unless, they lose. Poker, then, is a zero-sum event, which is the way Machiavelli conceives international affairs. Everyone who plays poker knows that other players, bluff and sandbag-they try to misrepresent the strength of their cards. Indeed,, the core feature of the game is trying to read opponents while preventing them, from reading you. Some players are much better at this than others even though, all acknowledge that feature of the contest. Also, proficient players do not play, the same cards the same way all the time. To do so allows other players to more, easily figure out what they are holding. My point is that, even in an event where, everyone knows that their adversaries are trying to deceive them, some must win, and others must lose. For Machiavelli, even if all rulers in the deepest recesses, of their conniving souls assume other rulers are trying to deceive them, not all, will be equally proficient in playing the game: some must win and others must, lose. The Machiavellian prince must learn to wax the likes of Ferdinand of Spain, even though Ferdinand is practicing the same art of deception., As for the gullibility of the people and their capability of self-deception, I, will offer two examples. First, the widespread popularity of lotteries-games of, chance in which the odds of winning are so astronomical they are barely calculable in some cases. Why do so many gabbiani squander their money so consistently? Answer: The promise of a huge payoff if Fortuna smiles on your chosen, numbers and the relatively low cost of participating. Machiavelli, lacking economy savvy, did not advise his prince to start a numbers game. He should have., Where else can a prince watch his subjects turn over money to the state with, foolish smiles and deranged avidity? How else can the state generate guaranteed, revenues without arousing the suspicion and enmity of the people? Organized, crime had this angle clocked much earlier, but the federal and state governments, have entered the fray with a vengeance., Second, I offer the proliferation of con games and other swindles on the, American public. The telephone rings. A man informs you that you have been, selected to win a prize of, say, $50,000. Congratulations! All you have to do is, forward a check of $1,000 to the mailing address of the voice on the phone to, cover handling and local taxes on your windfall. What do you do? Why, of, course, you pony up the grand and comb the mail every day for your check of, 50-Large. The money, unsurprisingly to everyone except the mark, never arrives. Would aryone fall for this scam? Tens of thousands have eagerly played, the fool. The allure of "free money" at a relatively small cost is impossible for, some to resist., The internet amplifies the possibilities. Have you ever received a missive, from Nigeria, Timbuktu, or Iran offering you a million dollars or two for acting, as a liaison for some multi-millionaire who needs to transfer funds from his unscrupulous land? All you have to do is forward your bank information to the, contact so he can facilitate the exchange. Who in the world would send their, confidential bank information to a complete stranger whose e-mail salutation, read "Greetings, Friend!" Ladies and gentlemen, if this scam did not sometimes

Page 44 :
The Prince, , 21, , work it would no longer be offered. Instead, more of these solicitations have, spammed the internet in recent years. What did Machiavelli say about people, deluding themselves for short-term gratifications?, My point is that Machiavelli's advice, fiom the standpoint of strategy, is not, as ridiculous as it may first appear. At least, the prince can fool most of the people some of the time. Whether his advice is acceptable from a moral standpoint, will be discussed later in this work., Be decisive, avoid neutralily, , Machiavelli prizes autonomy and action: "It is better to act and to regret it, than not to act and to regret it" (Ltr. 23 1: 2/25/14). Although he quotes Boccaccio in a sexual context, Machiavelli also offers a summary of his political philosophy. Women, children, and academic philosophers can dream and dawdle., Men in the political arena must act, independently and decisively., Machiavelli disdains half-hearted measures, the kind we are tempted to apply when we are unsure of our position and options. In one of the more striking, passages in The Prince, Machiavelli cautions that "people should either be caressed or crushed. If you do them minor damage they will get their revenge; but, if you cripple them there is nothing they can do" (P 3). Is Machiavelli saying we, should divide the world into two groups: those we will treat generously and, those whom we will destroy? That seems harsh, even by Machiavellian standards. Moreover, such advice would conflict with other pieces of Machiavelli's, counsel. A prince should not simply and always act generously to his soldiers, and to his citizens. Circumstances are not so constant that only one posture is, recommended. Obviously, a prince cannot wipe out his army and citizens, either. Thus, we should not take Machiavelli's advice on caressing or crushing, literally. The guideline is best viewed as a metaphor warning princes against, half-hearted measures. It may also be taken as a conditional injunction: If necessity requires that you must injure someone do it in a way that he cannot avenge, himself against you later. Also, the passage appears in a longer discussion of, conquered states. If readers insist on taking the guideline literally they should, place it in the context of how to deal with conquered people: Treat generously, those whose loyalty the prince can win, destroy those who are truculently opposed to the prince's rule., Elsewhere in The Prince, Machiavelli praises the likes of Moses, Theseus,, Cyrus, and Romulus for their decisiveness in following the "caress or crush", principle. Having eliminated those who opposed them due to envy, they stood, fm, honored, revered, and powerful. They represent the best of those glorious, princes who have founded or reformed worthy states (P 6)., He also cites the blunder of Cesare Borgia, who could have prevented the, election of Julius I1 as pope but did not. Julius had longstanding grievances, against the Borgias, but fooled Cesare into thinking that he would forget them in, return for Borgia's support of his papal ambitions. The mistake here, for Machiavelli, is in thinking that new benefits will make men of high status and am-

Page 45 :
22, , Chapter One, , bitions waive old injuries (P 7). Cesare Borgia violated the "caress or crush", principle and paid for his transgression with the loss of his power., Machiavelli offers a second guideline: Someone who causes another to become powerful undermines his own position. He would cause that rise in power, by his creativity or through his strength, both of which would be distrusted by, the person who has grown in power (P 3). Machiavelli intends his bromide, mainly in relation to international affairs. France had facilitated the increased, power of the Church in Rome and of Spain. Soon thereafter, the Church and, Spain combined with other forces to form the Holy League which defeated, France in Italy., A third guideline also related to a conquered state. A prince should make a, list of all the harsh measures he must take to pacify the region, then perform all, of them swiftly and only once. Repeating cruelties will make the subjects too, insecure and may cultivate their hatred. Cruelties done in one fell swoop will be, dwelt on less and will anger subjects less. Benefits to these same subjects should, be parceled out gradually so they will be savored more. This guideline is in concert with Machiavelli's distinction between evil well-used and evil ill-used (P 8)., Machiavelli's fourth guideline concerns timeliness: never allow a disorder,, evil, or problem to continue in order to avoid a war. Failing to heed this advice, will not evade the war, but only delay it to your disadvantage (P 3). Machiavelli, anticipated the dangers of appeasement. Had Neville Chamberlain read and digested this section of The Prince, the course of World War I1 would have been, much different., Machiavelli's fifth guideline of decisiveness is pivotal: avoid neutrality. A, prince gains respect from unreservedly allying himself with one party in a conflict and being equally opposed to the other party in the conflict. If a prince remains neutral, the victor in the dispute will injure him and the defeated party, will revel in that injury. The prince will be conquered by the former and receive, no aid from the latter. The victor will not want the prince as a friend because he, will be suspicious of the trustworthiness of a prince who remained neutral in, time of war. The loser in the dispute will not curry the prince's friendship because the prince withheld aid when the losing party most required it (P 21). This, guideline is closest to Machiavelli's heart. Florence, under the leadership of, Piero Soderini, maintained neutrality--or, more precisely, half-hearted support, of longtime ally France--when the Holy League entered Italy. Once the Holy, League was successful, it supported the return of the Medici and a principality,, while ensuring the exile of Soderini and the dismantling of the republic (D I11 3;, D I11 9; D I11 30)., IdentlJL and hire trustworthy ministers, Crucial to the prince's success is the ministers he includes in his inner circle, of advisers. Judging a prince by the quality of his ministers is sound. Making, inept choices of ministers is a guarantee that a prince's judgment is fatally, flawed. Machiavelli identifies three types of minds: those who understand issues

Page 46 :
The Prince, , 23, , without assistance; those who understand issues with the aid of others; and those, who simply cannot understand. The first type is, obviously, preferable. The second type is acceptable. The third type-those who are stone cold obtuse-are, useless. A prince, even if not of the highest intellect, will do well as long as he is, of the second type and surrounds himself with capable advisers (P 22)., A prince must guard against ministers who are more concerned about their, own interests than those of the ruler. Such men render poor counsel. The, prince's interests must always be paramount. The prince must, however, secure, the loyalty of his advisers by rewarding them. The prince should bestow honors,, public recognition, material incentives, and the like on worthy ministers. Doing, so demonstrates that the ministers benefit from their employment and that the, prince recognizes exemplary service to his causes. The bond of trust thereby, strengthens between the prince and the members of his inner circle (P 22)., Machiavelli shrewdly adds men who were opposed to the prince at the beginning of his reign and can be easily won over. They will need the prince's, support to secure or keep their political position and will be inclined to serve the, prince loyally to overcome his initial suspicion of them and to annul any previous deeds that adversely affected the prince's judgment of them. In contrast,, those who serve the prince with overconfidence are more likely to neglect important affairs than those who need to prove their trustworthiness to the prince, (P 20)., The danger of excessive mistrustfulness is clear: No other person can, wholeheartedly be embraced. The hidden motives and masked agenda of other, people are continually at issue. A pervasive cynicism corrodes the soul and undermines a robust sense of self., Machiavelli underscores, yet again, the source of all loyalty, trust, and mutuality: self-interest. By tying the well-being of his ministers to his own position, and largesse, the prince reinforces the link between them. He stresses that a, prince must choose the right people for his inner circle. Machiavelli may be, sending the Medici a job application. Here are my desired terms: I will serve, you steadfastly, placing your interests at the forefront. I expect to be rewarded, well for my service. After all, we are not fools. We understand that mutual benefit is the glue of all close relationships. The Medici are not third-rate minds. You, can recognize a first-rate mind with vast experience when it presents itself to, you. Hire me and we shall all prosper. Here I am, Lord!, a, , Avoid sycophants, , The prince's posse should not include flatterers, minions, yes-men, and, other deplorable breeds. He must, instead, select as ministers those men who, will speak the truth to power. As always, Machiavelli is concerned with protocol: Excessive candor and familiarity is also ill-advised; if everyone feels entitled to speak frankly to the prince at any time, they will lose respect for their, ruler. False flattery and excessive candor are both undesirable and potentially, dangerous. The prince must choose wise men as ministers who will speak only

Page 47 :
24, , Chapter One, , the truth to and address only those subjects designated by the prince. Only his, ministers have such access to the prince. Even they are restricted to speaking to, only those matters the prince raises. Here Machiavelli, characteristically, adds a, twist: But the prince should ask his trusted ministers about everything and attend, carefully to their replies. The prince, as evidenced by his deliberations and demeanor, must show his ministers that he values their advice and must encourage, their future participation. The prince should ignore all unsolicited advice &om, those who are not members of his inner circle. Once he has decided on a course, of action, the prince should act decisively. The prince will lose respect if he hurries into a decision fueled by sycophants or if he changes his mind easily (P 23)., If the prince discovers that one of his ministers is trying to slide him, through the grease he should be enraged. Too much is at stake for a prince to, tolerate deceivers or those seeking to curry favor. Machiavelli concludes that, only a wise prince can be given sound advice. If an unwise prince delegated all, important decisions to a sawy minister, the arrangement would be short-lived., The minister would soon aspire to complete rule. If an unwise prince accepts, advice from several ministers, that counsel will differ. Each minister, recognizing the prince as unwise, will offer advice that advances only his self-interest., This is a function of the wickedness of men: they will act selfishly unless compelled to be good. Accordingly, sound advice ultimately depends on the prince's, wisdom and impeccable judgment, neither of which arises fiom the sound advice of others (P 23)., Machiavelli disdains lackeys and epigones who bask in the reflected glory, of a prince while spewing inanities and falsehoods in order to elicit the prince's, trust. Such men are, at best, worthless and irrelevant, and, at worst, dangerous, and smarmy. Machiavelli may also be sending the Medici an addendum to his, job application: Hire me and I will speak truthfully and wisely to you. I will, follow protocol and know my place. I will not seek independent power. Hiring, me will itself be a reflection of your stellar judgment., Distinguish between the art of securing and that ofpreserving power, , A prince who artfully seizes power may have difficulty maintaining it and, vice versa. Machiavelli argues that those who come to power through virtir will, struggle to gain power but will easily preserve it; those who rise to power, through Fortuna will take power easily but struggle to keep it. This is so because gaining power is quicker if circumstances and the aid of strong allies or, patrons ease the way. But once attained, power cannot be maintained by luck, and strong cronies. At that point, the skills of princes become pivotal. Luck and, connections alone cannot sustain a prince (P 6; P 7)., Princes come to power through conquest, selection by countrymen, or villainy. These methods all have their unique pitfalls, but princes must understand, that the same means they used to seize power may be ineffective in holding it., Specifically, those who ruthlessly gain power must moderate cruelties once in, office (P 8). Moreover, any harsh measures that are necessary should be done

Page 48 :
The Prince, , 25, , immediately and only once (P 8). Once in power, princes must begin winning, the loyalty of the people and neutralizing the hostilities of the nobles. The, harshness of securing power must be moderated to preserve power., In regions where customs and traditions resonate, such as in the lands of the, Church, a prince will have little difficulty maintaining power because the loyalties of the people are fumly in place. But no prince can conquer ecclesiastical, territories; they constitute a special category of government, grounded in ironclad patterns and overseen by a higher power (P 11)., Of course, regardless of how a prince rises to power, he must be flexible if, he aspires to maintain it. Rigidity and complacency-fostered by past successes, and self-satisfaction-will spell a quick demise for the unwary prince (P 25)., , Learn the recipe for success, Princes should take full responsibility for popular actions and decrees, but, delegate underlings to mete out unpopular policies and to perform unwelcomed, actions. Where possible, princes should respect the aristocracy and avoid the, hatred of the people. At times, princes who do good deeds and follow conventional morality will be hated, especially where some faction of their subjectsthe people, the aristocracy, or the military-is corrupt. To hold onto power,, princes are compelled not to be good. As always, the necessity flows from the, wicked actions and dispositions of other people. Machiavelli's consistent message is that a ruler who insists on being good when so many around him are evil, will meet a bad end (P 19)., The assassination of a prince is always possible, but not to be feared., Princes should avoid seriously offending those who have access to them on a, daily basis. Still, a determined man willing to die himself in the course of his, treachery can assassinate a prince. We are all susceptible to destruction at the, hands of such a person. Machiavelli, not living in an age of suicide bombers,, assures princes that assassins of this stripe are extremely rare (P 19). Accordingly, anxiety over assassinations is wasted effort., Most definitively, the prince's success is a function of the compatibility of, Fortuna and virtd. Where congenial circumstances are introduced to personal, excellence, a beautiful friendship begins., , The Final Chapter, The Prince is written straightforwardly. Machiavelli's prose is lean, concise, and, eloquent, but without rhetorical flourish. He derives his conclusions allegedly, from historical examples and his diplomatic experiences. He does not wring his, hands over the supposed baseness of human beings or the series of zero-sum, contests that presumably constitute international affairs. He accepts the world as

Page 49 :
26, , Chapter One, , it is and hopes to compile a manual for successful rule in that world. Machiavelli's is an understated Jack Webb-"just the facts, ma'am9'-style., Until we arrive at the final chapter of The Prince. Entitled "Exhortation to, Seize Italy and Free Her from the Barbarians," in that chapter we witness Jack, Webb morph into Patrick Henry. Machiavelli lets it rip: The time is ripe for a, prince to unite regional forces and kick foreign dominators out of Italy once and, forever. Calling upon the examples of Moses, Cyrus, and Theseus, Machiavelli, points out that Italy is more enslaved than the Hebrews, more oppressed than the, Persians, and more defenseless than the Athenians. Italy lacks leadership. But, within grave adversity lies glorious opportunity. Once before a prince (Cesare, Borgia? Pope Alexander VI? Francesco Sforza of Milan? Pope Julius 117 Machiavelli himself?) had emerged who might serve as the instrument for Italian, redemption, but Fortuna cruelly cast him aside. But now the Medici are favored, by Divinity and the Church: "God has already shown his hand. The sea has been, divided; a cloud has escorted you on your journey; water has flowed out of the, rock; manna has fallen fiom on high. Everything has conspired to make you, great" (P 26)., Others have failed through inadequate methods and strategies, but the, Medici can succeed. New methods and means are available (translated: Machiavelli has sketched the way and is, of course, currently between jobs and available for hire). Italians have proved themselves cleverer, stronger, and quicker, than foreigners in individual duels. Their armies have disappointed only because, of inadequate leadership: too many self-styled chiefs, too few disciplined followers. No leader bearing grandezza d'animo has shown the blessed union of, Fortuna and virtir within his spirit. But now opportunity must not be permitted, to evaporate. Italy awaits a redeemer: "No words can describe the appetite for, revenge, the resolute determination, the spirit of self-sacrifice, the tears of emotion that would greet him . . . What Italian would refuse to pledge him allegiance? Everyone is sick of being pushed around by the barbarians. Your family, must commit itself to this enterprise" (P 26)., Machiavelli abruptly alters cadence, message, and emotion. Why? The, scholarly consensus is that the final chapter was not written directly after chapter, 25, but was added later. Still, that does not establish its purpose. That matter is, debated to this day. Here are a few of the possibilities:, 1. The final chapter is the stirring resolution of the entire work. Machiavelli, seeks to unify Italy, wax foreigners, and compete effectively in international, affairs-all prerequisites of greatness for the homeland and its leaders. On this, view, Machiavelli is an Italian patriot who anticipates the Risorgimento that will, occur in about three hundred fifty years., 2. Machiavelli's scope is much narrower and focused. He aspires to unite, Italy from the north through the Papal States. He has no legitimate hope of dislodging the Spanish from the Kingdom of Naples., 3. Machiavelli is uninterested in permanently uniting Italy in any form. He, will not jeopardize the independence of Florence, his true patria. Instead, he, encourages a temporary alliance among Italian regional powers to expel foreign

Page 50 :
The Prince, , 27, , barbarians from the peninsula. Once that mission is accomplished, the balance, of power among the regions of Italy will be restored with each territory being, better placed to compete in international affairs., 4. The final chapter is a typical Machiavellian hustle. The author senses the, hostility that will spew in response to his first twenty-five chapters. To mollify, criticism and soften the evilness he espouses, Machiavelli stretches for a purpose, that readers will judge noble. In a classic Machiavellian misdirection, in the final, chapter he jukes readers by appearing to be what he is not., 5. Machiavelli knew that chances for Italian unification during the period he, wrote were slim to none and slim was receiving extreme unction. In the final, chapter, he satirically skewers the gabbiani who have been deluded into believing that a unified Italy is the solution to the intractable problems on the peninsula. The patriotic bombast, excessive flattery, and implorations to divinity are, intentionally exaggerated gestures of parody, perhaps even a tinge of self-parody, as Machiavelli repents his own occasional fantasies., 6. Machiavelli adds the final chapter out of literary obligation. The prose, stylists of the Renaissance period typically included rhetorically powerfbl and, flattering exhortations to rulers. Perhaps with an eye toward increasing his prospects for publication, or perhaps to conform to literary expectations, Machiavelli, follows suit., 7. The Prince is not a manual for princely success at all. Instead, Machiavelli is setting up the Medici for failure so the principality will fall and a Florentine republic might be restored. Accordingly, the final chapter is the huge, juicy, lure that will seduce the Medici to bite and be hooked on Machiavelli's rod of, destruction., 8. Machiavelli composes an explicit final chapter to ensure that the Medici, understands that he was not merely writing an abstract treatise. His was a manual for action not simply food for cognition. The final chapter, then, is the consummation of the courting of practice by theory., In later chapters of this book, these conflicting, creative interpretations of, the final chapter of The Prince will be discussed further., , Machiavelli's Ideal, The keenest exemplar of Machiavelli's ideal prince is sketched in his concise, work, Life of Castruccio Castracani. Written in 1520 as an audition for Machiavelli's Florentine Histories, this book glorifies the life and times of Castracani, (1281-1328), a military leader from Lucca. Machiavelli regards the historical, truth casually. Instead, he embellishes, distorts, and fabricates to suit his needs., Machiavelli's aspiration was apparently to romanticize the life of an actual person to illustrate the perfect prince., Machiavelli, always appreciative of those who rose from humble origins,, depicts Castracani as an abandoned baby discovered in a vineyard by the sister

Page 51 :
28, , Chapter One, , of a priest. In fact, Castracani was born to a wealthy Luccan family. As a youth,, according to Machiavelli, Castruccio excelled athletically and enjoyed reading, only books recording the deeds of military heroes. Yes, the priest under whose, care he fell tried to indoctrinate the boy with literature pertaining to churchly, matters, but by the age of fourteen Castruccio outgrew such matters. Again,, readers absorb Machiavelli's suspicion of the Church and his esteem for the, heroic ethic. Machiavelli also highlights the need for preparation: physical, strength must be honed by study of the classics. Resoluteness, cunning, and, power-the measures of the lion and the fox-blossom only from careful training., Soon an honored mercenary soldier notices Castruccio's preeminence, among his peers and suggests the youth enter his house, among weapons and, horses. With the priest's approval, Castruccio is thereafter raised by the soldier, and soon commits to the Ghibelline cause. (The Ghibellines supported the Holy, Roman Emperor, while the Guelphs promoted the pope.), The rest of the tale is predictable: Castruccio trashes his enemies of the battlefield; outwits those envious of his glory; exposes the betrayals of false, friends; consistently overcomes great odds; brutally murders those whom necessity anoints; cons greedy, nalve nobles into ceding their authority; carefully, navigates the treacheries of Fortuna; fearlessly grasps life with a maximally, affirmative attitude; exemplifies prudence, boldness, cunning, and strength in, turn; unrepentantly dispenses evil well; and trusts only his skill and military, virtir. Amazingly, Castruccio's military strategies closely track those advocated, in Machiavelli's The Art of War. Along the way, Castruccio is honored by The, Roman people and made a senator: "Castruccio assumed this office with great, pomp and circumstances, and donned a brocaded toga with an inscription embroidered on its front, reading, "God wills it," and another on the back, reading,, "What God wills shall be."6, Although the historical Castruccio was married with numerous children,, Machiavelli describes him as immune to the charms of women. Yes, he engaged, in numerous sexual dalliances, but he refused to be possessed by any woman or, domesticated by family life. For a man to consign himself to the seductions of a, woman is to collaborate with Fortuna writ small., Alas, in the end, Fortuna, as ever, triumphs. After an exhausting and fearsome battle, Castruccio, victorious yet again, waits to greet his returning soldiers, and thank them for their indominable spirits. Perspiring profusely and exposed, to the fierce midday wind howling over the Arno river, Castruccio contracts a, fever that proves incurable. Machiavelli sensitively summarizes Castruccio's, alleged greatness and in the process his own world view:, He was kind to his friends, and to his enemies terrible; just toward his subjects,, faithless to foreigners; never when he could win by fraud did he attempt to win, by force-he used to say that it was the victory itself, not the way in which you, won the victory, which brought you glory. No man was ever bolder when entering a dangerous situation, or more prudent when getting out of it; and he was in

Page 52 :
The Prince, , the habit of saying that men must attempt everythin+ and not be too frightened, of anything, and that God loves men who are strong., , At the end, even the Magnificent Castracani succumbs to the fi-agility of the, human condition. He confesses to his heir, Pagolo Guinigi, the son of the mercenary who mentored Castracani, that Fortuna had cut short his road to fame., He was bequeathing to Pagolo a sprawling state filled with too many enemies, harboring too much resentment. Fortuna had not permitted him the time he required to remedy his own defects and set matters straight. Machiavelli underscores two recurrent themes: Fortuna will vanquish us all in the end; but enduring glory, Castruccio's death-bed modesty notwithstanding, is attainable by the, few of us steeped in virtir., Curiously, Machiavelli ends the book by attributing dozens of adages and, maxims to Castruccio. Most of these, however, are gleaned or adapted fi-om, Diogenes Laertius's Lives of The Philosophers. No historical evidence exists, that Castruccio was a home-spun philosopher.8Ironically, Machiavelli otherwise, disparages philosophy for promoting an unattainable, misleading image of the, good man and dabbling in utopian visions (P 8; P 18; D 111 38). Worse, Machiavelli lauds Cato for banning philosophers, who infected the youth with "honorable leisure," from entering Rome (FH V 1). Military discipline must never be, softened by aimless contemplation., In sum, as a documentary on the life of Castruccio Castracani, Machiavelli's work has little to recommend it. But as a brief compilation of Machiavelli's political and military principles, the Life of Castruccio Castracani is a, stunning interpretive supplement to The Prince., , Notes, 1. Russell Price, "The Senses of Virtt in Machiavelli," European Studies Review 3, (1973): 315-45., 2. Harvey C. Mansfield, Machiavelli's Virtue (Chicago: University of Chicago, Press, 1996), 6-7., 3. Russell Price, "The Theme of Gloria in Machiavelli," Renaissance Quarterly 30, (1977): 588-631., 4. Ibid., 621., 5. See, for example, Wayne A. Rebhorn, Foxes and Lions: Machiavelli 's Confidence, Men (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 18-19., 6. Niccolb Machiavelli, Life of Castruccio Castracani (1520), trans. by Andrew, Brown (London: Hesperus Press, 2003), 20., 7. Ibid., 33-34., 8. Ibid., 551112.

Page 54 :
Chapter Two, , The Discourses, Machiavelli's Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius ("The Discourses'? are an explicit defense of the general superiority of republican governrnents. Livy (59 BC-17 AD) was a fabled Roman scholar who wrote about, 145 books, 35 of which still exist, chronicling the history of Rome. Machiavelli's Discourses use the first ten books as a point of departure for drawing, political conclusions. Book 1 describes the mythical founding of Rome, around, 753 BC, to the expulsion of the last lung, Tarquin the Proud, by rebels led by, Junius Brutus, around 509 BC. Books 2-5 chronicle the story of Rome through, 309 BC, when Rome was attacked and conquered briefly by barbaric Gauls., Books 6-10 continue the story through 293 BC as Rome began its expansion, throughout Italy. Machiavelli dates the Roman Republic from 509 BC to 27 BC,, when Caesar Augustus was named emperor. By that time, the republic controlled, among other holdings, most of the Mediterranean, part of the Middle, East, Spain, and France. Machiavelli was firmly convinced that the stability,, discipline, military success, and longstanding domination of the Roman Republic contained enduring lessons and principles for sound government., Although supposedly a commentary on Livy, The Discourses reflect seriously on the recent history of Florence and Italy. Clearly, Machiavelli shared, Livy's admiration for the Roman republic. He contrasts the discipline, creative, conflict, military virtti, and commitment to the common good of the Roman republic at its greatest with the corruption, sectarian strife, ozio, and selfish pursuit, of luxury of the Florentines of his day. In Machiavelli's view, the decline of, Italy flowed from a failure to appreciate the lessons of Roman history and the, decadence produced by the unholy marriage of ambizione and ozio ( D I pref.)., At first glance, Machiavelli's celebration of principalities in The Prince, rests uncomfortably with his promotion of republicanism in The Discourses. But, Machiavelli never argues that one form of government is best for all situations., In The Discourses, he is empathic that republicanism cannot be installed everywhere at any time, nor should it be (D I 55). Moreover, his relentless conviction, in The Prince that one strong man, embodying robust military and political virtu,, is required to found a fresh or reform a corrupt state is repeated throughout The, Discourses (D I 9 ; D I 17; D I 18; D I11 1). Also, Machiavelli refers to The, Prince in The Discourses and to The Discourses in The Prince ( D I1 20; D I11, 19; D I11 42; possibly D I11 3 1; P 2; possibly P 8). To conclude that The Prince, describes Machiavelli's program for founding a new or reforming a corrupt state, while The Discourses explain the worlungs of a healthy republic-his favored, form of government-is reasonable even if contestable.

Page 55 :
32, , Chapter Two, , The Dedication, The work is dedicated to Zanobi Buondelmonti and Cosimo Rucellai, two of, Machiavelli's republican cronies, who participated in political discussions with, him in the Rucellai gardens. Machiavelli, in the style of the day, feigns modesty:, the book is not commensurate to what he owes the two men, yet it is the most, treasured thing he can offer. The book contains all Machiavelli has learned in his, study of and experience in political affairs. Of course, The Discourses must contain unsound arguments, insufficiently deep discussions, and reflections of poor, judgments. Mea culpa. But, Machiavelli adds, remember that the two of you, pressured me to write the book. I would never have done so but for your insistence. Machiavelli praises the recipients for the benefits they have bestowed, upon him and hopes they accept the gift in the spirit it is offered., Machiavelli is pleased, however, that he has not resorted to the common, practice of other authors: dedicating their books to rulers in hopes of cadging, favors. Such literary charlatans praise those rulers as embodying diverse excellences, while they should be scolding them for being despicable. Machiavelli,, instead, has dedicated his work to private citizens who have the generosity and, skills to rule even though they lack positions of power., Hmrnm. Machiavelli disparages authors who seek positions, riches, and, honors from rulers. His own dedication in The Prince fits squarely in that discredited category. Does this mean Machiavelli is angry at himself for stooping, to the level of a common panderer in The Prince? Or does it mean that The, Prince is not what it first claims to be? Or is Machiavelli only amusing his, friends with self-parody? Or is he merely contrasting his esteem for the excellences of his pals with the low repute he confers on the rulers of his day?, , Common Ground, Many themes in The Discourses elaborate on principles advanced in The Prince., , Human Nature, Men, as they have always been and always will be, are naturally evil and, will follow wicked impulses whenever possible (D I 3; D I 4; D I 5; D I 29; D I1, 13, D I11 6). Some men can conceal their natures for a specified time, but their, wantonness will eventually emerge. Only necessity-in the form of laws, good, habits, and external conditions-makes men good. Necessity forces human beings to respond intelligently to external conditions and to rise above their inherent selfishness. Machiavelli consistently judged that human nature was so inclined toward evil that people were turned to the good only by necessity (D I 3)., Also, necessity often demands action that reason would oppose (D I 6).

Page 56 :
The Discourses, , 33, , Still, the masses judge actions only by their results (D I pref.; D I 3; D I 39;, D I11 12; D I11 35; D I11 43). Machiavelli does not stray from his cold portrayal, of unchanging human nature. The only hope for civilized arrangements is coercion: by external conditions; the force of strong a m which is the prerequisite, for good laws; the reinforcing powers of religion and education; the intemalization of values that are first viewed as impositions, then accepted as legitimate, boundaries of action; and all these lead to good habits where actions conducive, to a healthy republic become, literally, a second nature. In this fashion, through, discipline grounded ultimately in military might, does depraved human nature, blossom into a national character where civic virtu resides., For any such transformation to happen, human beings must have capabilities for altruism or, at least, enlightened self-interest. Machiavelli never highlights those capabilities. Surely, they are not created ex nihilo. But instead of, seeing human beings as complex organisms of diverse potentials, some good, and some bad, Machiavelli insists that fundamentally we are wicked. This jaundiced view of human nature fuels his corollary belief that the overall amounts of, good and bad, and virtu and corruption in the world are constant, only their distributions in particular countries and peoples change (D I1 pref.). Together with, the inherent scarcity of natural resources, these two convictions lead Machiavelli, to the dreary conclusion that international affairs are a series of zero-sum contests: my country's advance is made at your country's expense., The rule that men do good only from necessity has a few exceptions: those, with inflated military and political virtu-such as founders or reformers of territories--embody the resources of will, passion, and ambition required to pursue, magnificent military and political enterprises. They are able to distinguish pursuing power for narrow ambition from striving for enduring glory. Such men,, graced with grandezza d'animo, become, with a measure of compatiblefortuna,, legends (D 1 9)., Founders and reformers introduce new policies, laws, and social patterns., Most important, they transform citizens through a necessity whose ballast is, strong arms, compelling laws, and vigorous religion. In this manner, men of, political and military virtu bend evilly inclined human beings toward the common good. Founders and reformers, with their unvarying eye on enduring glory,, aspire to create a political order that endures beyond their lifetimes and that energizes civic virtu among the people. Unlike tyrannies, that neither transform, citizens in salutary ways nor endure for a significant period, praiseworthy principalities and republics are self-consciously redemptive (P 8: D I 10). Paradoxically, the quest for enduring glory and national salvation blends uneasily with, the brutal, ruthless measures Machiavelli warmly endorses. Moreover, men, graced with moral virtu do not typically resort to the cruelties required to found, and reform worthy social orders; nor do they yearn to be political saviors. Evil, men, on the other hand, are unlikely to covert corruption into civic virtu (D I 18;, D 126)., The rare founder or reformer Machiavelli venerates is a good, strong man, with exceptional charisma. He must inspire his subjects by the manner in which

Page 57 :
34, , Chapter Two, , he lives and the aplomb with which he wields military and political authority (D, I11 1). Most strikingly, he must brandish evil well even though he is not initially, inclined to do so. He must knowingly dirty his hands in service to his own enduring glory and the common good. That almost all of Machiavelli's exemplars, are mythological figures should not surprise., , The Primacy of Military Strength, Might may not make right in the deepest moral sense of that term, but might, is a prerequisite for good government which is the prerequisite for good laws, and the other socializing influences that nurture the common good and instill, civic virtti (D I 4; D I 19; D I11 31; D I11 33). Perversely, given the nature of, people, military strength is required to promote the conditions required for the, flourishing of conventional morality. Without the order, discipline, and security, fostered by military might, a healthy state cannot exist. Without a healthy state, to direct the forces of necessity, human beings remain in their corrupt, wicked, original position. Also, the founding of a fiesh or the reforming of a corrupt state, requires cruelties: evil well-used. Accordingly, initial acts of evil are required, for moral virtu to have even an opportunity to be realized. These fust deeds are, whitewashed by the pious rhetoric that ensues. In short, military virtu underwrites all the artistic, literary, musical, and other cultural achievements so cherished by civilized people (AW I 17-19)., A republic must have its own troops. For reasons discussed in The Prince,, auxiliary and mercenary soldiers are, at best, useless, and, at worst, dangerous to, the health of the state (D I 2 1; D I 43; D I1 20). Able soldiers are more important, to victory than material resources (D 11 10). An armed citizenry not only increases prospects for success in battle, but also advances discipline, order, and, strengthens the common good (D I 2 1;D I1 30)., Prayers for "world peace" are fatuous illusions. First, such a peace is unattainable given human nature, natural scarcity, and the zero-sum features of international affairs. Second, even if it could be achieved countries would suffer, thereby: complacency, softness, and corruption would ensue. An idle military is, ozio 's workshop. For Machiavelli, a political community has three choices: enjoy a temporary peace that fosters vulnerability; engage in war lustily and unrepentantly; or go belly-up and collaborate in your own subjugation., Machiavelli does entertain the ancient Tuscan method of securing selfgovernment for communities that cherish their liberty more than they aspire to, enduring glory: form a league of several republics with equal authority. He rejects that method both on historical grounds-the Etruscan cities exercising this, approach were conquered by Romans lusting after the enduring glory arising, from military conquest-and from theoretical considerations-the zero-sum, nature of the world suggests that the Tuscan method invites foreign invasion (D, I1 4; D I1 5). The Roman method, based explicitly on conquest and military su-

Page 58 :
The Discourses, , 35, , periority, is preferable given the way the world and its people are structured (D I, 46; D I1 19; Ltr. 219: 8110113)., Machiavelli is described as a man who separates morality from politics,, who insists that politics cannot be governed by moral considerations. I hope to, demonstrate in thls book that such a view is misleading and fails to capture the, complexity of the Florentine's thought. For Machiavelli, though, war is beyond, conventional morality; war is not governed by moral considerations. He does not, recognize the ancient moral distinction between jus ad bellurn (the rightness of a, nation's cause for entering a conflict) and jus in bello (the rightness of a nation's, conduct while waging that conflict). Given the zero-sum contest that is world, affairs, the bottomless ambition of men for heroic glory, and conditions of natural scarcity, war is inevitable. Expansion of territory is critical for the survival of, republics and principalities alike (D I 5; D I 6; D I1 pref.; D 11 19). Waging war, is grounded in necessity, prudential strategies, and fortuna. What does moral, goodness have to do with that? Likewise, conduct in war is guided by the need, to win. Commanders must use whatever fraud and force they can muster. The, best military leaders are the most innovative and bold in creating tactics and, ruses to befuddle and overwhelm their enemies. A policy of expansionism nurtures social unity, invigorates boldness and endurance, and fends off corruption, and ozio. Thus, for Machiavelli the expression "moral rules for the initiation and, conduct of war" is an oxymoron., Machiavelli insisted on the unity and mutually sustaining nature of civil and, military life. A country's armed forces reveal its general capabilities as a nation., His insistence on the indivisibility of civil and military vitality provided Machiavelli another reason that engaging in war is a required state activity. More, strikingly, Machiavelli outlines how military success is connected to social life., Military might is the prerequisite for the sound laws, robust religion, and disciplined education that inculcate civic virtu and an appreciation of the common, good. Civic virtu cannot exist where military virtu is absent. Roman military, prowess was the ballast for the social, political, and cultural institutions that, reinforced the values required for continued military success. Hannibal was an, astonishingly formidable enemy, but his defeat was guaranteed: Carthage was, corrupt, while Rome glistened with civic virtu (D I 11; D I1 19; D I1 27; D I11, 3 1)., Most strikingly, military strength is the prerequisite for human redemption., As individuals, we are nasty, brutish, and selfish. Only in a healthy, robust political community can civic and moral virtu, sacrifice for the common good, and, identification with a wider identity and interests flourish. Such a political community is grounded in the order, stability, and security provided only by strong, anns. The contemporary recruiting slogan of our armed forces-"Be All You, Can Be"-was anticipated, literally, in the work of Machiavelli., Because military superiority is required for a healthy republic which promotes order, security, freedom, and civic virtu, military commanders are prime, candidates for enduring glory (D I1 27; D 111 42; D I11 45).

Page 59 :
36, , Chapter Two, , The Need for Decisive Leadership, As in The Prince, Machlavelli warns against half-way measures, indecisiveness, mealy-mouth compromise, appeasement, and other such diseases of, impoverished command (D 1 26; D I1 15; D I1 23; D I11 30; D I11 40). Strong, leaders cannot turn squeamish at the thought of using cruelty well in service to, the state ( D I16; D I11 3; D I11 30). As always, leaders must be flexible and adjust their actions to the times and tofortuna (D I1 29; D I 1 30; D 111 9; D I11 31;, D I11 37). They must avoid invoking the hatred of their subjects (D I11 19). They, must guard against envy, remain magnanimous in good and in bad times, and, cultivate an admirable reputation (D I11 30; D I11 31; D I11 34). Military commanders must study history and learn topography through hunting (D I11 39)., They must not merely talk a big game; they must be role models who lead the, Army into battle and prove their valor (D I11 38). As always, fear is a superior, motivator than is love (D I1121)., Machiavelli preserves the distinction between tyrants and princes that he established in The Prince. Machiavelli, for example, derided Giovampagolo, Baglioni as a vulgar tyrant who murdered his relatives to seize control of Perugia. Worse, when he had to chance to cut down the militarily threatening Pope, Julius I1 and the entire College of Cardinals-which could have in one fell, swoop rid the country of internal oppression-he cravenly withdrew (D I27)., Tyrants confuse selfishness with enlightened self-interest: They seize power, to plunder and destroy a state, instead of reforming it. They do not merit glory, because they are indifferent or hostile to the common good. Tyrants mistake, infamy for glory. Their states stagnate because they are bound together only by, fear of the coercive power of law and arms. Any benefits that accrue to such a, state flow only to the tyrant. No sense of a common good exists. Anyone who, demonstrates military or political virtli must be destroyed by the tyrant lest his, own position weaken. Civic virtu is impossible in a tyranny because its prerequisites are ignored or discouraged. Mistaking power as such as the highest goal,, the tyrant invites the hatred of his subjects and his denunciation by history (D I, 10; D I17; D 125; D 133; D I1 2: D 111 3; D I11 6; D I11 26)., In short, for Machiavelli the leadership provided by wise princes and the, guidance required by t h v i n g republics are not totally separate and are often, compatible (D 147; D 148; D I59; D I 1 2; D I11 6)., , The Distinction between Evil Well-Used and Evil Ill-used, As in The Prince, Machiavelli underscores the distinction between evil, well-used and evil ill-used. The former is done at once, in the name of the common good, does not include gratuitous violence, and is not repeated. The latter is, sporadic, recurring, done for the ruler's own interests, and often includes gratuitous cruelties. Again, the connection between how a ruler uses evil and whether, he is hated is paramount. Again, for Machiavelli, it is better for a ruler to be

Page 60 :
The Discourses, , 37, , feared than loved, but he must not be hated if he is to succeed (D I 45; D I1 19;, D I11 21)., , The World as Zero-Sum Contest, Machiavelli envisioned international affairs much like the Ultimate Fighting, Championships, without the bans on eye-gouging and fish-hooking. Activities, such as pacifism weaken a country's military and civil order thereby inviting, attack from stronger nations. He is convinced that the world is always in the, same overall condition: the total amount of virtu and total amount of corruption, is constant. What changes is the distribution of virtu and corruption in individual, territories. He explains reallocations that have occurred throughout lustory and, concludes that contemporary Italians and Greeks who admire the past and decry, the present have a point. Their pasts were more glorious than their presents. The, masses generally lack civic virtri as they disrespect religion, law, and military, service. Political leaders are even worse. They expect to be honored as divinities, even though they are feckless commanders. Yes, the overall virtli in Italy and, Greece has declined, but not the amount in the world. While contemporary Italians and Greeks compare unfavorably to the greatness of their ancestors, to conclude that the good old days as such were better on the whole than the present is, an error: Only the distribution of virtli and corruption has changed (D I1 pref.; D, 11 5)., Human desires and appetites, left unfettered, are insatiable. We want more, and more, but resources are limited by natural scarcity. Frustration and disappointment are the inevitable result (D I1 pref.; D I11 21). Although Machiavelli, does not draw out the implications, they are clear. One implication is that human, desires cannot remain unfettered. Instead, they must be channeled into constructive outlets with possible fulfillments. Left to our natural inclinations we are, doomed: the world will never answer our implorations or satisfy our expectations. The second implication is stark: The world is a competitive battleground, for virtu. The success of one country must come at the expense of other countries. To remain regionally fragmented is to ensure limited success, vulnerability, to the domination of others, and insufficient virtu. Either a strong nation-state, must be formed or one region must be strong enough to conquer the others. Only, then can the state become a successful player in world affairs. A country does, not have a realistic option of withdrawing from the game. Even if it wants to, retreat to peaceful self-sufficiency, other nations will not permit the choice (D, I11 2). Either the country gains respect through flexing its virtu or it will be humiliated and subjugated (D I 38; D 11 13; D I1 14; D I1 15). Accordingly, world, affairs are a series of zero-sum contests generated by the arnbizione driving human nature, conditions of natural scarcity, and the constant total amount of, overall virtu. Paradoxically, the entire zero-sum game is jeopardized when one, nation becomes so dominate that others cannot effectively compete. Under such

Page 61 :
38, , Chapter Two, , circumstances, the dominant nation tends toward corruption because of the lack, of worthy enemies to test and sharpen its collective military and political virtu, (AW I1 77-81; D 153)., Why the overall amount of virtu must remain constant is a puzzle. Only if, virtu is defined entirely by successful outcomes, by political and military wins, as opposed to losses, can this be the case. Otherwise, even when one country, wins and another loses both could demonstrate virtu, although one may be superior to the other. Remember, Machiavelli generally disparages those who judge, deeds only by their results instead of by their principles of action and quality of, performance. He disapprovingly observes that the multitude is misled by appearances and outcomes (D I11 35; D I 9; P 18). Moreover, exercising virtu is no, guarantee of success or glory (D I11 30). Surely, one man or an entire country, can display admirable amounts of virtu but lose a military contest or political, event through bad luck, unfavorable circumstances, or the greater virtli of the, opponent. The result-a military or political loss-should not prove a lack of, virtli as such. Boldness, energy, valor, and intelligence do not evaporate merely, because they fail their purpose. If so, then the overall amount of virtu in the, world could increase even though the sum total of military and political wins, and losses remained constant. Machiavelli neither entertains nor resolves this, puzzle., We should pay heed that Machiavelli's "world" was limited: the five major, regions of Italy, France, Spain, Turkey, Switzerland, and regions of Germany, constituted his "international battleground." Obviously, communication, transportation, science, and technology were primitive. Wars, themselves, were mild, affairs compared to the devastation of the World Wars of the twentieth century, and the current possibility of nuclear annihilation. In his Florentine Histories,, Machiavelli presents a stirring account of the battle of Anghlari in 1440 in, which Florence preserved its domination in Tuscany. He notes that the fighting, waged for about twenty-four hours with only one casualty: a soldier fell off his, horse and was trampled to death (FH V 33).' Whether war would seem so necessary and heroic to him under conditions in the twenty-first century remains in, doubt., For Machiavelli, military conquest, especially when plausibly evaluated as, the victory of heroic virti over an irredeemably corrupt enemy, vivifies a nation., It presents opportunities for expression of the deepest human emotions, and,, indeed, demands their revelation: unspeakable sadness and grief as loved ones, perish; justified rage at the acts of the enemy and vows of vengeance; undeniable experiences of history-making, of leaving footprints as one participates, courageously in a grand epic; intense spasms of self-esteem as precarious occasions to prove oneself to self and intimates have been encountered and surpassed; and soul-searing intimacy as collective efforts at rebuilding national, infrastructure transform the world, as in one's youth, to a forum of seemingly, infinite possibilities., Of course, military defeat produces our deepest feelings of shame: a lingering sense of historical impoverishment; convictions of inferiority, betrayal, and

Page 62 :
The Discourses, , 39, , divine abandonment; a profound understanding of failure. The world becomes,, as in one's terminal moment, a place without hope, pity, or compassion., That so many people who have encountered large scale war describe that, time as their defining moment, as the extended period when they felt most alive, is unsurprising. Much was at risk. Apathy and collective narcolepsy were impossible. Prostrate, complacent faithlessness was not an available option. In war, the price of humanness rises astronomically. We understand viscerally, and not, merely rationally, the radical indeterminacy of life: the dread of cosmic exile,, the longing for infinite redemption., However, to urge a celebration of the wonders of war--especially given the, horrifying scale of modern military conflicts-would be mindless. My point is, only to understand that as the postmodern cultural smog descends upon us-as, we mimic Sisyphus in our routinized life of technical adjustments, as lived experiences are replaced by ersatz images and representations, as the pleasures of, manual labor and of the body are increasingly enjoyed vicariously, as the commodification of the world intensifies-ur, sense of wonder and of possibility,, our opportunities for intense human emotion, our very humanness are in jeopardy., Under such circumstances, the pathology of war, as the struggle for feeling, writ large, is a pathetic reminder of our historical condition. Accordingly, the, ultimate success of nonviolent resistance and pacifism as a way of life depends, on massive numbers of socially-organized people viscerally understanding them, as necessary remedies for postmodern somnambulance and the remorseless savagery of a world eclipsed., Machiavelli, though, insists the overall condition of the world remains the, same. The contemporary concerns I identify are, for Machiavelli, merely the, latest version of an endless song. He boldly steps where I evade: military conquest is required to energize a nation., , The Classification and Cycle of States, Borrowing freely from classical political theorists such as Plato, Aristotle, and, Polybius, Machiavelli sketches a classification of states and their evolutionary, cycle in The Discourses (D I 2). The three good states are principality, aristocracy, and democracy. The three bad states are tyranny, oligarchy, and anarchy., Good states are grounded in law, nurture the common good, and promote civic, virtu. Bad states are based on the selfish interests of their rulers, ignore the, common good, and advance nothing beyond the immediate concerns of those in, authority. States arise and degenerate in a typical pattern: A principality is established by the power of one man or by selection by the people; eventually rule, passes through hereditary succession; a prince gains power who is imprudent,, unwise, and ineffective; his subjects fear and hate him; and the prince deteriorates into a tyrant. This is the passage from a good principality to a corrupt tyr-

Page 63 :
40, , Chapter Two, , anny. As the excesses of the tyrant increase, honorable elements in the state instigate disorders and hatch conspiracies; the strongest and most influential men, rally the masses and take up arms; the rebellion is successful; and the noblest, assume political power. This is the passage from a bad tyranny to a good aristocracy. The aristocracy is for a time lawful and effective. But rule passes, typically, to the sons of the nobles; greed and unbridled ambition return to the state; men, take up arms; a rebellion ensues and is successful; the victors assume command., T h s is the passage from a good aristocracy to a bad oligarchy, rule by the, wealthiest. The oligarchy advances the interests of the wealthy to the detriment, of the people; the masses come to hate the oligarchs; men take up arms; a rebellion is successful and the people take control. This is the passage from a bad, oligarchy to a good democracy. The democracy pushes for more and more freedom at the expense of order, stability, and discipline; the democracy gradually, mo~phsinto excessive liberty, a license of unfettered entitlement. This is the, passage from a good democracy to a bad anarchy. The disunity, chaos, and unbearable randomness of anarchy is quelled when a strong man emerges and installs a principality. This is the passage from a bad anarchy to a good principality. And the cycle continues., The main reasons for governmental change are the rise of incompetent leaders, usually through hereditary succession, and the exaggeration of the virtues of, a particular form of state until those virtues turn to vices. The virtues of a principality are order, speed, and stability. But in the wrong hands those virtues turn to, autocratic rule. The virtues of an aristocracy are wisdom, maturity, and business, experience. But if exaggerated those virtues turn to greed, unfettered ambition,, and wealth for only a few. The virtues of a democracy are popular consent, freedom, and opportunity. But these virtues can be pushed into chaos, inflated sense, of entitlement, and extreme individualism., The cycle is not airtight. Sometimes foreigners gain control at one point or, another or citizens may internally create a mixed constitution, such as a republic., Machiavelli takes a republic to be the best form of government, other things, being equal. But he recognizes that some territories are suited by custom, tradition, and history for a principality, not a republic (D I 55). For the founding or, reform of a state, Machiavelli stresses the need for a strong man to execute the, harsh measures required to impose unity and order. For preserving a healthy, state, he champions mixing the interests and temperaments of many (D I 9)., Where citizens exude civic virtli and enjoy a rough economic equality, a republic will amplify security, freedom, and expansionist aspirations. But where such, conditions are lacking, a republic may facilitate factionalism, ozio, and pave the, way to tyranny. A principality is especially recommended for conquered peoples, because a prince regards all of his subjects equally. In any case, a healthy state, must preserve and expand its power. The alternate is to risk the state's own subjugation. Republics, over the long haul, are best able to expand because of the, mutually-sustaining relationship between its civic and military institutions., Republics combine elements of each good type of government. In Rome,, the consuls represented the monarchical, the senate represented the nobles, and

Page 64 :
The Discourses, , 41, , the plebeians represented the democratic multitude. After he completes his discussion of the classification and cycle of states, Machiavelli speaks of only three, types: principalities, republics, and tyrannies., , The Common Good, The prerequisites of the common good are freedom, equality under the law, a, measure of free speech, and ability to participate in government. To serve the, common good an action or policy must actually do good, must benefit the large, majority of citizens, and be understood by those citizens as benefiting them. The, most apparent actions serving the common good increase the prospects of the, survival, order, and security of the state, all of which enhance the possibility that, citizens will flourish. It is within the common good that the individual is redeemed: elevated from the doom and gloom of unfettered ambizione, he gains a, wider identity, and focused realistic goals and projects. The common good is not, universal. Its vitality depends on a secure, healthy expansionist republic which, triumphs over foreigners. The common good is not merely an aggregation of, individual interests, but the well-being of the whole which is more than just the, sum of its parts. Order, stability, the rule of law, and wider sense of identity, serve not only the republic itself but also the larger society (D I 2; D I1 2; D I11, 22; FH IV 3-7; FH V 11; FH V 32, FH V 37). The ideals and social practices, that human beings create are grounded in our natural needs and capabilities, and, tested by the results they produce in our lives., Understanding the common good is akin to recognizing the transcendent, dimension of any successful collection of people. For example, the greatness of, an athletic team cannot be accurately known by totaling the positive attributes of, each member. A great team is more than the sum of individual talents. The way, players contribute to the team, how they meld together, whether they enhance or, detract from the abilities of teammates, all affect the unit's success. The best, five individual players do not always form the most successful basketball team., Republics are similar. The common good is more than the sum of individual, interests and satisfactions. At its most splendid, the common good involves participating in a wider identity and pursuing important purposes that go beyond the, self. The common good reinforces a sense of personal worth and contribution by, connecting citizens to a cause greater than the interests of each person considered in isolation. Arthur Murphy described the common good as "not what everybody wants when each is concerned to please [only] himself or all have been, made submissive to the same mass pressures. It is the interest than can justify, itself as public on terms of equity that apply to all, the terms of agreement that, distinguish a community from a manipulated crowd."*, For Machiavelli, the distinction between a community and a manipulated, crowd is less clear cut. In any event, he insists that only through communal attachments can human beings transform their inherently dismal natures into a

Page 65 :
42, , Chapter Two, , magnificent national character. Alone we are decrepit, estranged, and selfish., Corruption involves selfishness, shortsightedness, indolence, and physical decay. The obsession with perceived past injustices and the desire for revengewhich is often antithetical to enduring glory-also characterize corrupt citizens., The laws and policies of a corrupt country struggle mightily and futilely to rewrite the past instead of focusing sharply on the present and future (FH I11 5; FH, I11 3; FH IV 14). Together we may become worthy of enduring glory. Recognizing our wider identities and feeling the bonds of communal projects nurture patriotism which is critical in a republic. For Machiavelli, engaging in politics allows human beings to fully realize their potentials., Machiavelli's understanding of how a strong republic advances the common, good is reminiscent of a general aspect of the human condition. Many argue that, existential tension is at the heart of human experience: our yearning for intimate, connection with others and the recognition that others are necessary for our, identity and freedom coalesces uneasily with the fear and anxiety we experience, as others approach.3 We simultaneously long for emotional attachment yet are, horrified that our individuality may evaporate once we achleve it. This disharmony may never be fully reconciled once and forever, and so we find ourselves, making uneasy compromises and adjustments during our life's journey as we, oscillate along the continuum whose endpoints are radical individuality and, thorough immersion in community, respectively. Individualism offers the prizes, of feelings of specialness, empowerment, and uniqueness; but, if exaggerated,, ends in estrangement, alienation, and crushing solitude. Community displays the, awards of feelings of connection, enduring bonds, and invigorating intimacy;, but, if distorted, degenerates into subservience, loss of identity, and suffocating, conformity., Human freedom, for Machiavelli, is not a libertarian paradise which sanctifies the (negative) liberties of atomistic individuals. Instead, the Florentine, blesses the inescapable bonds we discover among fellow citizens that permit a, wider identity which is necessary for nourishing civic virtu and for liberating, people from their unnecessary domination by foreigners. Human freedom, in its, fullest dimension, requires robust community, not arms-length bargaining by, unattached individuals. For Machiavelli, the individualistic contractualism at the, heart of libertarianism presupposes a healthy government founded on thick,, communal, military, and political principles., Machiavelli tells us that as individuals we are doomed to act upon the, wicked, evil impulses of our natures. Only in community can the forces of necessity be brought to bear and energize the better angels of our being. Only a, strong republic-based, as ever, on strong arms, sound laws, robust religion, and, disciplined education-can generate the conditions that promote civic virtu,, respect for the common good, and connection to a wider identity. Only in a, strong republic is the common good the guiding principle of political action (D, I1 2). Machiavelli understood that a state founded on national unity has a greater, chance to flourish than one harboring divergent languages, traditions, and laws, (P 3). Principalities may be required in territories where the prerequisites of re-

Page 66 :
The Discourses, , 43, , publican rule are absent; but the wise prince begins the process that anticipates, republicanism in the next generation., Machiavelli primarily champions the negative freedom of citizens-from, the oppression of tyrants and foreigners-but also appreciates some positive, freedoms-to propose new laws and to indict those who commit offenses, against the liberty of the state (D I 18; D I 7; FH I1 34). As with all positive personal values, appreciation of the common good is grounded in self-interest. Efforts on behalf of the common good maximize prospects for power, glory, security, and order. The common good, then, is tangible and material. Individuals, find their fulfillment only within appropriate political communities, only in the, common good. Without leaders, bristling with military and political virtu, the, common good is elusive. If a political community lacks a sense of the common, good-if it is corrupt-then strong princes are required to reform the situation., The foundation of the common good, as always, lies in self-interest: human beings are grateful to those who protect them and make their lives more secure and, orderly. They understand that service to the common good is not entirely selfless, but advances their individual interests as well (D I 2; D I1 24)., , Why Republics Are Best, Principalities, at their best, offer strong rule that controls the ambitions of aristocrats and the masses alike, and govern under the rule of law. Machiavelli favorably cites the French monarchy for its commitment to law, and the order and, security that its citizens enjoy (D I 16; D I 58; D I11 1). But even the best principalities are limited: order and security fall short of full liberty. Principalities, for, example, limit or prohibit political speech. Moreover, principalities must disarm, their citizens lest the people rise up against the aristocrats or monarch. As a result, principalities must often employ foreign mercenaries, who produce dismally. Thriving republics, in contrast, include the elements of citizens' political, participation and expanded civil rights. There institutionalized conflict between, the aristocrats and the masses invigorates the state. Macluavelli advises that a, politically active people and a citizen militia nurture liberty and civic virtri., Accordingly, Machiavelli argues that republics are more enduring, more, stable, acd more likely to expand than principalities (D I 2; D I 5; D I 6; D I 11;, D 1 29; D I 58; D I1 2; D I1 4; D I1 6; D I1 9; D I1 21; D I11 9). Republics, unlke, principalities, do not depend on the military and political virtri of one man. Principalities, then, tend to deteriorate with the aging or death of their prince. In, most cases the successor to the prince is a less capable heir (D I 11). The citizens of a republic live in freedom, with prospects for upward mobility, settled, expectations, secure property, and a sense of civic virtri (D I1 2). A republic is, more flexible when confronting fortuna than is a principality because it makes, use of diverse temperaments whereas a principality is limited to the adaptability, of only the prince (D I 11; D I 17; D I11 9). Best of all, republics are best able to

Page 67 :
44, , Chapter Two, , expand: their stability; ability to adapt; nurturing of civic virtu; training and use, of disciplined soldiers; sense of common good; and competitive spirit fuel heroic military deeds (D 11 2; D I1 4; D I1 6; D 11 9; D I1 21). Republics are preferable to principalities, as a general rule, because they include more freedom and, more stable power, which promote more success in the race for enduring glory., Republics are better able than principalities to navigate adeptly between the, power of the lion and the craftiness of the fox. In sum, republics are the superior, form of political community because they best understand, reflect, address, and, soften the inherently wanton inclinations of human nature (D I 39)., Machiavelli underscores the need for both force and fraud. Sometimes fraud, is enough to rise to power, but force is rarely sufficient. To climb from humble, origins to lofty places requires fraud and usually force. The imperatives of the, lion and fox that princes must follow to ensure success are also incumbent on, republics. Once republics become established and powerful, force alone may be, enough for continued prosperity (D I1 13)., Machiavelli's message is as cold as steel tempered too hard. The world is a, competitive battleground. A nation's choices-unless it is astonishingly insignificant-are to expand or to be subjugated. The bluff, guile, courage, knowledge, and panache of a political leader must be backed by strong arms. Conditions of scarcity, the basic nature of human beings, the rush for glory by those, with grandezza d'animo, and the relentless whims of fortuna compel the need to, triumph or to be destroyed. The call for enduring peace is a tinny hustle. A longindolent, soft, undisciplined, unworstanding peace lures citizens into ozi-the, thy life-where leisure and the pursuit of luxury are paramount (D I11 16)., Whereas for Socrates the unexamined life is not worth living, for Machiavelli an, unadventuresome, unheroic scramble for la dolce vita is no life at all. Ozio, the, lack of heroic action, and a deficiency of virtu lead to political ruin (D I1 30)., Machiavelli does not renege on his gruff assessment of human nature. Left, to our own devices we are nasty, brutish, and selfish. Only a strong state offers, redemption. Only such a unit can exploit conditions of necessity to compel human beings toward civic and moral virtu. Inclination to a common good is unnatural for us. Patriotism and national character must be carefully promoted., Only they can elevate human beings from myopic focus on our greedy, grasping, yearnings to a sense of common identity, shared good, and the importance of, heroic deeds. For Machiavelli, only a healthy state can elevate human beings, from their alienated, pathetic, natural impulses. True, he ignores that cooperation, shared purposes, mutual aid, and the like must also be potentials within us., Otherwise, we would not even be susceptible to transformation. But his point,, persuasive or not, is that such communal values would remain dormant but for, the agency of a healthy, expansionist state., Patriotism, if overly inflated, morphs into rabid nationalism. In Machiavelli's work the differences between the two are close to zero and zero is suffocating from lack of space. Viewing the world as a series of zero-sum contests, where increased virtu is a prize transcending the annexing of new territory entails that the common good extends only to one's own people. Territorial

Page 68 :
The Discourses, , 45, , boundaries, however, are constantly changing and the circle of one's own people, also expands with time, socialization, and assimilation. Machiavelli makes no, appeal to master races, chosen people, or genetically superior tribes. We are all, vicious, evil snots. But within us is the capability to rise above our wantonness if, and only if a healthy, expansionist state bestows its guidance., Expansion can occur through joining a confederation, making alliances, or, obtaining subject states. Machiavelli considers the Roman model, whereby, Rome sought alliances and if it conquered a territory Rome absorbed it into the, Roman state-as the best. Subjugating states, the way of ancient Athens and, Sparta is the worst method because it invites hatred, prevents assimilation, and, discourages maximum productivity. Confederations are generally too weak an, association and consume some of a state's independence. The Roman model, treats the citizens of defeated countries the best and quickly begins the healing, process that eases the way to full assimilation (D I 5; D I 6; D I1 3; D I1 19)., One might argue that Machiavelli was not endorsing territorial expansion, based on aggressive conquest of other states, but expansion flowing from alliances or even confederations. Military aggression might be viewed as a last resort. But expansion is paramount to security. Given Machiavelli's zero-sum, conception of world affairs, his notion of human nature, and the condition of, natural scarcity, Machiavelli underscores the need to bring other nations under, your domain. He is in favor of treating those nations reasonably once they come, under your domain, but he surely does not minimize the need for predatory conquest. Alliances and confederations are generally a stage toward gearing up for, larger battles., A question arises as to whether the freedom and well-being of the citizens, in a republic are merely means to the fhndamental purposes of the state: the enduring glory of military and political leaders, and the historical grandeur of the, nation. Because the common good and individual liberty are requirements for, the enduring glory of leaders and the lasting stature of the nation, I conclude, their relationship is tighter than that between an end and a means. Part of the, definition of the enduring glory of leaders and national grandeur is the extent to, which the common good and civic virtu advance. This is the case regardless of, the conscious intentions upon which the leaders acted. Political leaders must, renounce the selfish motivations of tyrants and act from enlightened selfinterest, which benefits their citizens and subjects., No political community, however, endures forever (D I11 5). Decline and, corruption are inevitable as nations become victims of their own success and fall, prey to corruption. The lack of vigorous enemies, the seductive comforts of ozio,, the caprices of fortuna, and annoying class strife will conspire against permanent domination (D I11 1). Nations, like all living organisms, are born to suffer, and perish. But within the process lie possibilities for the only prize worth striving for: enduring glory, the recognition that certain individuals and political, communities are more than a cut above the others. This, again, is the reward, Machiavelli offers to those who heed his advice.

Page 69 :
Chapter Two, , Institutionalized Conflict, Conventional wisdom held that the Roman republic perished because of internal, conflict. Machiavelli disagreed. Machiavelli distinguished carefully between, sectarian factionalism and beneficial conflict within a state. Factionalism is the, result of instability, the corruption of civic virtu, the collapse of a sense of common good, and the pursuit of narrow interests. Beneficial conflict is the creative, result of robust institutions. The Roman republic perfected the art of using the, tensions between the interests of the people and those of the nobles to practical, advantage. By developing institutional outlets-in the case of the nobles the, senate, in the case of the people the plebeians-the Romans funneled conflict, into the development of sounder laws, increased liberty, and greater flexibility., Public assemblies, debates, forums, and a political role for the two major social, classes are critical to the health of a republic. At its apex, class discord in the, Roman republic did not result in bloodshed, exiles, or violence undermining the, common good. Instead, it facilitated freedom and invigorated a passionate state., By providing institutional outlets for natural conflict within the social classes,, the Roman republic prevented discord from degenerating into armed struggle., To pretend that the grandi (aristocrats) and the populo (multitude) do not have, natural conflicts is fatuous and denies the two different temperaments prevalent, in a state. Class structures, then, are both psychological and economic. Moreover, institutional outlets for conflict sharpen civic virtu and guard against servility and ozio. Instead of viewing the clash of class interests as adversity, the, creative nation uses it for practical advantage: a balance of power that energizes, a mixed constitution and facilitates civic virtli (D I 2; D I 3; D 14; D I 5; D I 6)., Animo (spirit, passion, heart) is the measure of a man's ability to impose his, will and shape his own destiny. A function of social circumstances and subject, to fortuna's caprices, animo combines the prudence of practical reason with, personal virtu. Whereas Plato located human fulfillment in peace, harmony, and, internal coherence, Machiavelli insists that the greatest human beings seek, glory. Neither contentment nor serenity is sought by the best of our species. Instead, the most passionate among us aspire to glory, the recognition of their superiority., Ambizione (ambition, drive) is the greatest threat to and the grandest resource for an orderly republic. Unbridled ambition is selfishness: greed, tyranny,, and alienated striving. If unlimited, private ambition eviscerates political community. But ambition constrained by necessity-the discipline generated in a, republic by strong anns, sound laws, vital religion, and focused education in the, proper political context-is required for greatness and glory. The ability to, weave equilibrium between the two dominant temperaments in a nation-the, grandi and the populo-measures the success of a republic. Republican order is, not the denial or repression of conflict, but its institutionalized transformation., The interplay of opposing vectors and the resulting tension is much healthier,, says Machiavelli, than a false harmony forged by the oppression of one class for

Page 70 :
The Discourses, , 47, , the benefit of the other. Aspiring for peace, tranquility, and internal harmony, bears the stench of animo efleminato. Recognizing competition, inner turmoil,, robust energy, and ambizione in its politically effective form stirs the majesty of, grandezza d 'animo., Republics need ambitious citizens who seek honor, reputation, and a measure of glory. Yet if these awards are sought and attained inappropriately, tyranny, may result. A fine line exists between salutary ambition and tyrannical avarice., Pivotal to the distinction is the source of honor and reputation. If citizens gain, repute from deeds that enlarge the common good and buttress liberty then their, republic benefits. If citizens gain honor from purely private maneuvers-lending, money, marrying off daughters, protecting other people from the magistratesthen their republics are injured. Private benefits make the recipients indebted to, their benefactors and encourage those honored to think they can compt the public and violate the law. Public benefits, in contrast, are institutionalized, open to, all citizens, and recognize service to the entire republic (D I11 28). Again, accepting and providing robust institutional outlets for ambizione is crucial for a, successful republic. Denying or trying to repress ambizione is an ingredient in, the recipe for republican failure., In sum, conflicts are inevitable and arise from human nature, from ambizione and animo. Within those passions reside the best and worst human possibilities. Unfettered ambition leads to the failure to establish or the destruction of, political communities. In such cases, human beings remain in their selfish, depraved condition. Where conflict is institutionalized, where respect for law, the, common good, and social solidarity remain, it animates and strengthens political, community., , The Office of Dictator, Machiavelli enthusiastically endorses the office of dictator in a republic. The, dictator's role emerges only during emergencies, for a limited time, and for precise duties. He rejects the view that the office of dictator undermined the Roman, republic. Conventional wisdom insisted that Julius Caesar was able to assume, political power under cover of being a lawful dictator. Machiavelli, while agreeing that Caesar was a tyrant, argues that the real culprits were prolonged terms, for military commanders and the corruption pervading Rome during Caesar's, ascension. Where the dictator's power was limited to specific duties, his term, was brief, and the Roman people embodied civic virtu, the state benefited from, that office. The need for a dictator during emergencies stems from the deliberate, pace at which a republic acts. During emergencies, republics either remain true, to their procedural laws, in which case they will often act too slowly to succeed;, or republics knowingly skirt their procedural law in order to move with alacrity,, in which case a custom of breaking laws for good purposes arises. Such a custom, however, leads to a republic breaking laws for bad purposes. (Note: Ma-

Page 71 :
48, , Chapter Two, , chiavelli is sensitive, at least here, to the dangerous consequences of adopting an, "end justifies the means" mentality.) Establishing an office of dictator for emergency situations remains loyal to legal processes while permitting flexibility not, otherwise available in republics. Machiavelli observes that the Romans were, wise in allowing the consuls, whose powers were most infringed upon by the, emergence of a dictator, to choose the man who would occupy the position. Because the consuls were directly involved their misgivings were softened. At later, stages of the Roman republic, the consuls themselves were given dictatorial, power (D I 34)., , Luxuries and Wealth, Mutual respect and rough equality of wealth are more important than equality of, rank. Extreme disparity of wealth and access to political power only through, wealth eviscerate mutual respect. Corruption and the loss of love for liberty arise, from class strife and social inequality (D 111 25; D I 17; D I 55; FH I11 1). The, public treasury should be bountifbl, but citizens should live austerely (D I 3; D I, 21; D I 37). The state needs wealth to mount military campaigns, secure resources for the common good, and guard against the caprices of fortuna. Citizens, however, should not live extravagantly. The adoration of riches leads to an, indolent, undisciplined, selfish life that undermines civic and moral virtu. If too, many have too much they will lose focus on what benefits the common good., Machiavelli sees the potentially corrupting influences of wealth on human character. He wants a populace that is lean, tough, disciplined and invigorated by, competitive, military values. He disparages the soft life which he thinks is fueled, by excessive wealth. Moreover, if citizens are too wealthy their allegiance to the, state will weaken. Remember, loyalty is based primarily on self-interest. If citizens need the state they are more lrkely to labor patriotically for the republic., The rush for luxury, the weakening of military rigor, and the factionalism of, class strife had eviscerated the republic of Florence. If too many citizens become, independent power brokers they may view the state as a pesky hindrance to their, private pursuit of wealth. Machiavelli does not promote libertarianism, which he, sees as a corrupting influence in a republic. Conflicting desires for wealth, in, fact, drove an irreconcilable schism between the Roman people and the senate, a, division which bred corruption (D I 37; D 111 25). The narrow, private interest in, amassing wealth conflicts with appreciation of the common good. In a corrupt, principality or republic this conflict is inevitable, but in a healthy, robust republic it withers away (D I 18; D I1 2)., Machiavelli cites admiringly the legend of Lucius Qumtius Cincinnatus., When a consul and his army were besieged and military defeat seemed imminent, the Romans appointed Cincinnatus, a small-time farmer, to the office of, Dictator. Summoned while he was plowing his few acres of land, he donned his, toga, scurried to Rome, and recruited an army. Cincinnatus thrashed and plun-

Page 72 :
The Discourses, , 49, , dered the enemy, and freed the consul. He did not allow his soldiers to share in, the plunder of those who sought to plunder them. He chided the consul and demoted him to a legate of the senate. Cincinnatus returned to his fann (D I11 25)., For Machlavelli, the lessons are bright and telling: austerity breeds civic, and moral virtu; poverty should not preclude opportunities for rank and honor;, luxury promotes ozio; and the labor and character of a citizen are correlated., Citizens should be evaluated by their contributions to the common good, their, frugality, and self-discipline, not by the size of their bank accounts. Accordingly, the race for wealth diverts men from sharp political focus; the austerity of, citizens and a rough economic equality are needed to attain civic virtti (D I 37;, D 111 25)., In contrast, Machiavelli despised the gentiluomi (well-bred gentlemen) who, lived in luxury without working. Their fortunes spurted from their estates, which, they enjoyed courtesy of the labors of others. The worst of this breed also owned, castles staffed by obedient subjects. The gentiluomi cast a death spell on republics, toward which they are thoroughly hostile because widespread freedom did, not serve their narrow interests (D I 55). The gentiluomi embody ozio leavened, by selfishness. They barter their honor for false glitter., Machiavelli's unequivocal preference for the heroic life gushes forth in his, discussion of austerity. Physical comfort and material accumulations are unworthy consolations for those who are inadequate for higher military and political, callings. He locates a robustly meaningful life in the public realm of international competition, not in private striving for more shining trinkets and baubles., Cincinnatus was hard, tough, and intolerant of nonsense. Moreover, he glistened, with military and civic virtri. We should all be so graced., , Religion, In The Prince, Machiavelli only alluded to his misgivings about the role the, Church had played in Italian politics (P 7; P 11; P 21). Given that his audience, for that book was the Medici, one of whom was the current pope and several of, whom had been high-ranking prelates, that was a percentage move. In The Discourses, though, Machlavelli relished his opportunity to lay out the case against, the Church., Most important, Machiavelli celebrates religion as a forceful instrument for, establishing order and security, promoting military discipline, reinforcing good, laws, and coercing people to behave well. In his ranking of glorious men, Machiavelli places leaders and founders of religion in first place (D I 10). Religion, is the most powerful agent of social control. A robust religion nourishes the, homeland, energizes patriotism, and promotes military defense (D I1 2). Accordingly, Machiavelli reveres the majesty of religion and takes it most seriously., Any powerful agent, however, can be used in service of Machiavelli's most, cherished principles or against those values. Unhappily, the Catholic Church is

Page 73 :
50, , Chapter Two, , the major culprit of The Discourses. Why so? First, the Church has interpreted, scripture and has established doctrines that corrode military values. The chief, character traits admired by the Church-humility, contemplation, compassion,, kindness, indolence, contempt for worldly goods, yearning for transcendent reward-undermine the race for worldly honor and enduring glory. Roman religion, paganism, treasured the values closest to Machiavelli's spirit: overcoming, resistance, physical valor, greatness of spirit, boldness, competitive victory, and, worldly success. Although it might have been interpreted differently, Church, doctrines and dogmas nurture Machiavelli's most despised specimen: animo, effeminato. The Church keeps weak men feeble by offering easy consolations, and excuses. The Romans were more freedom-loving and braver than Renaissance Florentines because of the different values promoted by their respective, religions. These differences do not merely reflect Machiavelli's abstract aesthetic preferences. No, they bear practical implications: the Romans lived in, freedom, while contemporary Florentines and other Italians live in various forms, of servitude (D I 11; D I 13; D I1 2; D 111 33)., Second, the Church has set a poor example. Its leaders have talked piety and, reverence but practiced wickedness and blasphemy. As a result, the people pay, lip service to Christian values but remain corrupt. The Church has squandered, its moral authority and its potential for being a force of necessity which could, make men behave well. Third, the Church has kept Italy divided and politically, weak. The Church has not subjugated regional princes; has brought in foreign, dominators to defend against any Italian prince who seems strong enough to, unify the peninsula; and has zealously protected its own power to the detriment, of the country as a whole. In sum, the Church has promoted and has benefited, from a divided, corrupt Italy (D I 12)., , The Multitude and the Prince, Conventional wisdom and the great Livy himself insisted that the multitude was, unreliable and worthless. Machiavelli, perhaps surprisingly, disagreed. Whoever, rules a state-whether a group or an individual-will make serious errors if not, constrained by sound laws. The multitude, in fact, is generally more prudent,, stable, and reasonable than is a sole prince. Republics are generally superior to, principalities. The rule of law is critical. An unrestrained prince is a madman, an, unrestrained multitude is licentious. When constrained by law, as in a sound, republic, the multitude rules better than a prince constrained by law. When unconstrained by laws, the multitude will make fewer and less serious errors than, an unconstrained prince. The unconstrained multitude can be put on the right, path by a lecture from one who is good and wise. The unconstrained prince refuses counsel from anyone. The only way to correct such a prince is to slay him., The cruelties of the multitude are directed toward those it fears will undennine, the common good, while the excesses of a prince are aimed at those he fears

Page 74 :
The Discourses, , 51, , threaten his self-interest. Furthermore, the multitude, when making political, appointments, judges merit better than do princes because they are less easily, misled by gossip, rumor, and speculation. Both the multitude and the prince,, however, should seek the advice of able ministers in such cases (D I 58; D 111, 34)., , In sum, the multitude is better than a prince at maintaining the status quo,, but a prince is better at founding a fresh or reforming a corrupt state. The multitude acts from habit and custom. One of the prime purposes of a republic is to, transform the inherently selfish natures of the crowd into a concern for the, common good through law, religion, and education which make civic virtu, literally, second nature. Princes are less influenced by custom and tradition and, are, thus, more free to innovate and create (D I 17; D I 39)., Machiavelli is not discussing the multitude in its raw, uncultivated condition. He is not retreating from his firm conviction that left to its own devices the, multitude is strongly inclined toward selfishness and wickedness. In The Discourses, he is referring to the multitude refined by citizenship in a healthy republic, a multitude elevated by a measure of civic virtu and concern for the, common good. Still, even such a multitude must remain constrained by sound, laws. If the multitude is unrestrained it will not be as horrible as an unrestrained, prince. This is less of a paean to the masses than it may first seem. An unrestrained prince is a tyrant with sole power. He can wreak irreparable damage, more easily and thoroughly than can a multitude tempered by internal conflict., Where Machiavelli makes a concession to the people is when he argues that a, constrained multitude-the refined citizens in a healthy republic-rule better, than a constrained prince. This repeats Machiavelli's general rule that republics, are preferable to principalities based on their stability and capability for expansion., Rulers may violate the laws they have enacted without changing those laws., Doing so, however, is unwise and self-defeating. By respecting the rule of law,, rulers amplify their own power and standing (D I 45). The greatest source of, authority for a ruler lies in the security, satisfaction, and esteem of his subjects, (D I 16; D I 58). Rulers are role models. The directive power of law is reinforced when those in charges honor the rule of law., , Returning to Founding Principles, Machiavelli reminds us that nothing lasts forever. Government institutions, political parties, and religious units should be designed for ongoing reform. They, should be brought back to their founding principles in order to endure. As time, passes, the virtu embodied by institutions at their outset tends toward corruption., To return to founding principles occurs through external accident or internal, foresight. Sometimes threat of attack or destruction wrought by foreign dominators reminds a state that it must reaffirm its commitment to the common good,, sound laws, and healthy religion. Sometimes a state has the wisdom to require

Page 75 :
52, , Chapter Two, , through law that its institutions assess and regenerate their vitality. Sometimes, the political virtd of one strong man and the skillful policies he follows has the, same effect as such a law (D I11 1). Consolidating power in one man, however,, must be temporary. In the long run, a single ruler will lack the flexibility needed, for enduring success (D I11 9)., In Rome, the tribunes of the people, the censors, opposed the unbridled ambition and unrestrained pride of men. Machlavelli cites favorably a fifteenthcentury Florentine dictum that government should be thoroughly reformed every, five years. He would be satisfied, however, with a ten year cycle. Reforming, government involved inspiring the same terror and harshness of its founding., When states are lax citizens dare to innovate and to speak evil. The remedy is to, crush those who act badly before their treacheries come to fruition. At times,, one man with abundant virtli inspires so much respect and admiration that good, people want to imitate him and bad people are ashamed to live under principles, contrary to his. Machiavelli singles out St. Francis and St. Dominic in the thirteenth century. By living lives of poverty and imitating the life of Christ they, brought people back to religion as it once was. They founded new religious orders, the Franciscans and Dominicans, that preserved Christianity and stand as a, bulwark against the contemporary squalor of the Church (D I11 1)., Principalities, too, reform themselves to return to their founding principles., Enforcing laws against a ruler or noble is a leap in the right direction. But should, they become lax in enforcing the law against the influential, they would need to, correct the problem with major action or risk the fall of the government (D I11, 1)., , The call to return to origins should not be taken literally. Machiavelli did, not believe that a country could turn back history and selectively erase the past., Instead, he counseled the rejuvenation of complacent countries ambling on the, road to corruption. Reformists in such nations should consult their own traditions for reforms rather than adopting the ways of foreigners. Machiavelli anticipates Thomas Jefferson's position that revolution is required every generation. A state can go it the easy way, by building self-correcting processes into its, institutions, or it can do it the hard way, by revitalizing itself through cruelties, similar to those accompanying its founding. Adjustment, change, and innovation, are required because political institutions otherwise stultify. The goal of returning to founding principles is renewal of the commitment to law and to the common good., , Charges and Accusations, The right of public accusation is required to preserve freedom in a republic. A, public accusation is a charge brought by those entrusted to guard the liberty of, the republic. The charge is lodged before the appropriate magistrate, council, or, before the people. The charge is brought against those who threaten public fieedom, regardless of the standing or influence of the alleged perpetrator. This right

Page 76 :
The Discourses, , 53, , is paramount because it deters wicked citizens from harming the state lest they, be summarily flattened. Also, this right provides an outlet for the resentments, that accumulate in a city against individual citizens. Without such a legal outlet,, aggrieved citizens will act outside the law to satisfy their vengeance. Illegal action of thls sort not only contaminates the instant case but also fosters a collapse, in the rule of law (D I 7)., Machiavelli is well aware that the right of public accusation may be abused., He cavalierly dismisses the danger: "If the law makes it possible for an individual citizen to be executed when he does not deserve to be, this does little or, nothing to undermine the political stability of the republic. The law is enforced, without private violence or foreign troops being involved, and it is these that, destroy political freedom" (D I 7). Machiavelli regards it as inevitable that at, times a mass of citizens will resent a person whom they see as a threat to the, freedom of the republic. That resentment will be virtually uncontrollable. Without a legal outlet to adjudicate the matter, that mass of citizens will act illegally, with dire consequences to the rule of law. With a legal outlet, Machiavelli accepts unsqueamishly that some innocent parties may be oppressed. Those errors,, however, do not jeopardize public liberty because neither private vengeance nor, use of foreign troops-the scourges of lawfulness and liberty-are involved., He adds to the message by citing the dangers of private slander. First, they, can be levied wildly and irresponsibly. The right of public accusation requires, an airing of evidence and examination of supporting grounds. Slanders can be, hurled by anyone in any place. Second, slanders, being private, are often believed by listeners and can be spread indiscriminately. The right of public accusation is discharged in a legal setting so they are less common than slanders., Despite the typically flimsy basis for most slanders they can generate powerful,, pernicious effects (D I 8)., At first reading, Machiavelli's casual disregard for wrongful punishment is, beyond disturbing. Would not wrongful convictions and executions also have a, deleterious result for the rule of law? Does making the masses responsible for, charges of wrongdoing and for executions reinforce popular government at the, expense of the innocent? Must the common good involve the many oppressing, the few? Is not one of the functions of government the repression of lynch mobs, regardless of their deranged zeal?, Much depends on how the public right of accusation plays out in practice., The fact that wrongful convictions will take place does not distinguish the right, of accusation from any law presently enforced in any country. Are innocent, people convicted and executed in the United States? A number more significant, than we might have imagined, it turns out. Are there people included in that, number who have engendered the hostility of the multitude? Worse, many of, those executed were disadvantaged not by their individual attributes but by their, race or ethnicity, it turns out. T h s is not to single out the United States. Similar, claims can be reasonably advanced against other legal systems. Lacking a, method of pure procedural justice-one that would guarantee accurate outcomes-all legal systems oppress some innocent people.

Page 77 :
54, , Chapter Two, , True, Machiavelli's right of public accusation could be used to placate the, mob at the expense of the unpopular. But that is not a necessary feature of the, program In Machiavelli's day, mob action was more common than we experience today. Internal police forces were either nonexistent or rudimentary. Private vengeance was a constant threat to the rule of law. Providing a legal channel, as Machiavelli suggests, might well prevent more violence than it, encouraged. As he says, a legal process, unlike a lynch mob, at least demands an, examination of the evidence., , Divination, Machiavelli enjoyed the hocus-pocus of divination, augwy, and celestial omens., He assures readers that important events in a city are always foretold by revelations or soothsayers or celestial clue. Machiavelli soberly notes that prior to the, death of Lorenzo de'Medici (the Magnificent), the cathedral in Florence was, zapped at its apex by lightning; the day prior to Piero Soderini's ouster from, power, the main Palace in Florence was struck by a thunderbolt; just prior to a, French attack on Rome, a plebian in ancient times reported hearing a suprahuman voice at midnight instructing him to tell the magistrates that the French, were coming; the religious mystic, Savonarola, had predicted numerous events, correctly prior to the arrival of King Charles VIII of France. Machiavelli adds, that he could include countless other examples, but does not want to bore readers with repetition. Machiavelli suggests the celestial intelligences, blessed with, foresight and compassion, are responsible for warning human beings by means, of natural signs. Suitably alerted, people can hatch schemes of resistance (D I, 56)., What, exactly, could citizens do to avert the death of Lorenzo? Suppose, they would, in unison, screech at the sight of lightning, "Look up in the sky! The, cathedral has been hit by lightning. Poor Lorenzo, the reaper approaches!" Then, what? Start making funeral arrangements? Get a one day start on easing the way, for the next Medici ruler?, Much the same can be said about the removal of Soderini. Given the resounding victory of the Holy League in 1512, citizens did not need a roadrnap to, conclude that the gonfaloniere a vita was headed out of town with alacrity. In, fairness, some of Savonarola's predictions and the plebian's warning about the, arrival of the French, if taken seriously, might well have triggered precautions., But most alleged signs fiom celestial intelligences reek with ambiguity. Such, signs recall the ancient example of the commander who sought guidance from, the Delphic Oracle. The lung was hoping to wage war against a powerful enemy, but needed the added ballast of an endorsement fiom the oracle. He asked, the oracle if he should attack his foe. The oracle's reply, an absolute classic, was, "If you go to battle, a great nation will fall." The king, of course interpreted the

Page 78 :
The Discourses, , 55, , message to fit his needs, declared war, and suffered a horrible defeat. Chalk up, yet another correct prediction for the cagey oracle., Machiavelli also spends time on the ancient art of divination by poultry., Professional diviners-yes, folks made their living this way-would help decide, when the army should attack the enemy. If the chickens ate when offered food, then that augured well for the army. If the chickens refused nutrition then that, augured badly for the army. A crucial part of military strategy, then, was a skillful observation of the feeding inclinations of poultry. Apparently, the placebo, effect-the irrational, good faith belief that augury was an accurate predictorwas more important than reality. Confidence in battle is crucial to success and, knowing that a favorable augury blessed your combat buoyed the spirits of soldiers. Machiavelli gives an example of a deceptive, but effective, manipulation, of this practice. But he also includes a case where a military commander ignored, an unfavorable augury, waged war, lost badly, and was punished severely for his, imprudence (D I 14)., , Women, Machiavelli's view of women is generally uninspiring. First, his notion of animo, efleminato connotes a distressing unmanliness, a subjugation to emotions, a fleeing from heroic struggle, and surrender to ozio (D I 19; D I11 46). Machiavelli, assigns to the nature of women precisely those qualities he most disdains. Second, he envisions fortuna as a woman: a seductress with powers to lure men, from heroic struggle and to thwart their pursuit of enduring glory. She is capricious, unpredictable, relentless, and unstable (D I1 29; D I1 30; D 111 9; D 111 31;, D I11 37). In The Prince, he advises the prince to treat fortuna as he would any, other woman: be bold, master her by beating her and striking her (P 25). Third,, Machiavelli chronicles several occasions when women have caused the downfall, of states. One city was ruined by class strife between plebeians and nobles generated by a dispute over who should marry a certain woman. He cites Aristotle's, judgment that rulers often fall from power due to some injury, typically sexual,, done to a woman (D 111 26). In such instances, Machiavelli is blaming the victim, it would seem, but he nevertheless reinforces his opinion in The Prince, where he advises rulers not to transgress against the property and women of, their subjects (P 17; P 19). His concern is not for the sanctity of property rights, or for women's liberation, but for the ongoing authority of the prince. Fourth,, Machiavelli warns rulers against losing their sense of purpose through dalliances, with women. Women must be excluded from military camps: They "make soldiers idle and seditious" (AW VI 165)., Wayne Rebhorn summarizes Machiavelli's view of women well:, Machiavelli's notion of the way a truly heroic prince deals with members of the, opposite sex: to maintain his self-possession, he either avoids them, evaluates, them as though they were objects, or possesses them as such lest they possess

Page 79 :
56, , Chapter Two, , him . . . If Machiavelli's prince is encouraged in one way to keep his distance, from fortuna and women, it is even more important that he actually engage, them-and the worlds of nature and history which they symbolize-but on his, own terms, that is, in ~ombat.~, Hanna Fenichel Pitkin argues that:, The feminine constitutes "the other" for Machiavelli, opposed to manhood and, autonomy in all their senses: to maleness, to adulthood, to humanness, and to, politics . . . nothing is more striking in Machiavelli's explicit remarks on, women than his contempt for the "weaker sex" . . . Women are dumb, fearful,, weak, indecisive, and dependent. They are childishly nalve and easily manipulated. . . . Yet, at the same time they are contemptible, foolish, and weak,, women also somehow possess mysterious and dan erous powers; they constitute a threat to men, both personally and politically., , B, , Men inextricably entangled with women risk unhealthy transformation., Unless they keep a clear eye on the proper role of women-as pleasurable diversion-they may luxuriate in passion to the detriment of paramount military and, political affairs. The allure of women, then, poses two threats to Machiavellian, manhood: "it threatens a man's self-control, his mastery of his own passions,, and it threatens to infect him with feminine so fines^."^ Moreover, "women are a, danger for conquerors . . . because they are invested with other men's sense of, honor."' Thus, Machiavelli insists that the most certain way for rulers to avoid, being hated is to resist the temptation to seize the property or women of their, subjects and citizens (P 17)., Machiavelli lauds, however, Caterina Sforza Riario, wife of the Count of, Forli. Conspirators killed her husband and captured Caterina and her young, children. The conspirators felt insecure because they had not seized the fortress, at Forli. Those within the fortress refused to surrender. To break the impasse,, Caterina promised that if the conspirators would send her into the fortress she, would convince the holdouts to relinquish it. She offered the conspirators her, two children as hostages to ensure her cooperation. The conspirators agreed. As, soon as she was safely ensconced in the fortress, she spewed invectives at the, conspirators for their treacheries and vowed revenge. As for her offspring, Caterina exposed her genitals and assured the evil doers that she had the means to, conceive more children (D I11 6)., Notice, though, that Caterina's actions stray radically from the expectations, of the proper Renaissance women. She uses her own children in a duplicitous, scheme to save herself and redeem the honor of her slain husband.' She exposes, her genitals-generally not considered a lady-like maneuver-as a graphic reminder of her own reproductive prowess and willingness to sacrifice her existing, children. Machiavelli, never particularly sentimental about the sanctity of family, relations, praises Caterina not for her robust femininity, but for her combative,, aggressive heroic posture. She represents the woman able to cast aside feminine, qualities for the pursuit of grander deeds. By detailing her exploits, Machiavelli

Page 80 :
The Discourses, , 57, , may even hope to award her a deserved measure of enduring glory. (If so, I am, pleased to do my part to help that cause.), Machiavelli also praises the boldness of Epicharis, one-time mistress of the, deranged emperor Nero. Epicharis entered into a conspiracy with Piso and others against Nero. Epicharis tried to recruit a captain of Nero's guard, but the, captain ratted her out to Nero. Epicharis, however, was so adamant in protesting, her involvement that her moxie won the day. Nero did not condemn her (D I11, 6). The lesson here underscores the pitfalls of executing a successful conspiracy, more than it demonstrates the qualities of womanhood. The subtext is that if, cornered and lacking all high ground, false indignation and stentorian bravado, may still reap victory., He also cites Marcia, a chief concubine of the unorthodox emperor Commodus. (Yes, a "chief concubine" is to be distinguished from a small-time mistress.) She and two prominent members of the praetorian guard had indiscreetly, chided Commodus for his undignified public behavior. Cornmodus, never one to, laugh off a slight, wrote their names down on a hit list (Lest he forget whom he, intended to murder?). He placed the list under his pillow (To induce sweet, dreams? To conceal the identity of his intended victims from prying eyes?). A, young boy, apparently yet another one of Commodus's love interests, picked up, the list while Commodus was out of the room. The boy met Marcia as he was, leaving; she took the slip from him. Once she figured out that it was not Commodus's holiday shopping list, she advised the other people named. The three, conspirators acted peremptorily and killed Commodus that night. Machiavelli, applauds the trio's policy of doing unto Cornmodus before Commodus did unto, them (D I11 6)., Machiavelli's dreary images of women reflect his relatively dismissive approach to family relations. His wife and five children were far from Machiavelli's primary concern. He was a philandering husband and a concerned, but far, from doting, father. Recall, also, that two of Machiavelli's favorite political stories-those involving Caterina Sforza Riario and Lucius Junius Brutus--centered, on parents who collaborated in the deaths of their children in service to political, principles., Whereas Italian peasants, particularly in the south and in Sicily, pledged allegiance to I'ordine della famiglia, Machlavelli located human redemption in, wider political communities. L 'ordine della famiglia, prescribed relations within, and responsibilities to their family, and their appropriate conduct toward those, outside the family.*The code was clearly protective in that it created, at least in, theory, an intimate shield, a zone of security, against the oppressive economic, and social structure of impoverished Southern Italy and Sicily. But the isolating, and parochial implications of the code were equally stark: stranieri (strangers), were neither to be trusted nor consulted; amici di cappello (those to whom one, tips one's hat) were to be regarded with a cool politeness and only at a distance., Not only was there no concept of an international brotherhood and sisterhood,, there was little appreciation of those outside one's village.

Page 81 :
58, , Chapter Two, , Yet there is a deep humanism reflected in the code. Within one's circle of, intimates the code often demanded strenuous sharing and contributions to joint, interests. But such tribalism also deepened and legitimated antecedently existing, cynicism toward outsiders. There are two obvious contemporary postures one, might assume when confronting l'ordine della famiglia. The first, and probably, most common, is the ideology of dismissal: Here is a clearly primitive code, which right-thinking people would now reject straightaway as unsophisticated, tribalism emerging from an uneducated people's struggle with overwhelming, economic and social forces. Are not we fortunate to claim membership in a more, progressive polity under more salutary socioeconomic circumstances? The second contemporary response is the ideology of sentimentalization: The l'ordine, della famiglia is viewed as a better, more spiritually rewarding, historical moment where a code of affection transcended socioeconomic oppression and, pointed the way to a true family ethic, a microcosm of what human relations can, realize in existential crisis. What have human beings gained in the modem, Western world if they have purchased better material conditions using the currency of the souls? Has the disintegration of family values been too h g h a price, to pay? Both perspectives contain a seed of truth, but exaggerate the virtues and, vices of the code., Women played critical roles in implementing the code. They ruled much in, the private realm, which was the paramount arena for life. According to 1 'ordine, della famiglia, if miscellaneous stranieri were untrustworthy, governments, armies, and bureaucracies were downright lethal. They must be eluded at all costs., If complicity is compelled, treat such institutions as the devil writ large. Machiavelli, even in the sixteenth century, would reject l'ordine della famiglia as, suffocatingly narrow. The code is geared for meager survival in an unspeakably, cruel world. Machiavelli has a more splendid vision. Yes, the world is harsh,, unforgiving, and grim. But within political community is the opportunity to, grasp greatness, to dominate instead of being oppressed, to make an indelible, mark in history, to earn a place in the pantheon instead of merely groveling for, survival. The family is not an appropriate unit of salvation. Only a thriving, expansionist republic can redeem feckless human nature. The family is too parochial a unit for anything more than the false solace of animo efleminato. Machiavelli affiliates himself with the powerful, the worldly-the players in, internal affairs. For the most part, he repudiates the timid, insular masses. Greatness requires relegating women to their place and cultivating manly character., Readers may discount the magnitude of appropriate criticism by tagging Machiavelli a man of his times, but they should not downplay his misogynism No, excuses are offered here., , Machiavelli and Nietzsche, Several of Machavelli's key themes anticipate the work of Friedrich Nietzsche

Page 82 :
The Discourses, , 59, , (1 844-1900).' For example, Machiavelli's disparagement of Christianity's effect, on human character and its preoccupation with reward in the world beyond, prefigures Nietzsche's description of the master and slave moralities. For, Nietzsche, the master morality defines "good" in terms of men's character, not, their actions. Under this view, "good" equates to worldly success: achieving, one's goals of conquest, fame, wealth, and adventure; and embodying pride,, strength, passion, and guiltless joy. Nietzsche's relishes the master morality's, limit-breaking activities and robust nobility. Moreover, the master morality prefigures some of Nietzsche's broad themes: the need to transcend present contexts and create values out of the abundance of one's life and strengths; the desire to creatively use passion; the joyful affirmation of this world; the, manifestation of self-possession; the lack of repressed hostility; and the production and honoring of higher human types. In short, Nietzsche's master morality, closely tracks Machiavelli's depiction of Roman (pagan) religion., The master morality, which for Nietzsche symbolizes the Greeks of the, Homeric age, did not perceive itself as unconditional or universal. This morality, did not prescribe how others (nonrnasters) should conduct their lives and understood explicitly that its evaluations pertained only to a certain type of human. In, that vein, masters sought friends and adversaries only from members of their, own rank., The master morality was dominant and ruled over slaves. These slaves,, however, developed their own version of morality. Slave morality reflected and, sustained what was beneficial for the masses or herd of men. The slave morality's notion of "good" applied to the actions and intentions of men, instead of, their character. Because the herd is inherently mediocre its values celebrate, sympathy, kindness, and general benevolence: virtues that serve the weak and, aspire to widespread equality. The values of masters-such as power, selfassertion, and world success-were retranslated in slave morality as vices., While the masters were essentially indifferent to slaves, viewing them as different human types, slaves bore resentment toward masters. The emergence and, victory of slave morality-ensured by its alleged grounding in divine imperatives-placed obstacles in the path of potentially superior man, promoted social, conformity, and disparagement of worldly success. In sum, Machiavelli's stem, description of Christianity's conquest of Roman (pagan) religion anticipates, Nietzsche's account of the unfortunate triumph of slave over master morality., Machiavelli's contrast between grandezza d'animo and animo efeminato, foreshadows Nietzsche's distinction between the ubermensch and the last man., The last man represents a no-saying response to the understanding of inherent, cosmic purposelessness. The pursuit of minimal exertion and avoidance of suffering resound with the shallowness of narrow egalitarians, who pursue a superficial "happiness" that suffocates their possibilities for intense love, creation,, longing, exertion, and excellence., "We have invented happiness," say the last men, and they blink. They have left, the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves

Page 83 :
60, , Chapter Two, , one's neighbor and rubs against him, for one needs warmth. Becoming sick and, harboring suspicion are sinful to them: one proceeds carehlly. A fool, whoever, still stumbles over stones or human beings! A little poison now and then: that, makes for agreeable dreams. And much poison in the end, for an agreeable, death. One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful, lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich:, both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion. . . . Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same., . . . "We have invented happiness," say the last men, and they blink (Z 1,, "Zarathustra's Prologue," 5)., The highest ambitions of last men are comfort and security. They are the, extreme case of the herd mentality: habit, custom, indolence, egalitarianism,, self-preservation, and muted will to power prevail. Last men embody none of, the inner tensions and conflicts that spur transformative action: they take no, risks, lack convictions, avoid experimentation, and seek only bland survival. Is, not Nietzsche indebted to Machiavelli's vivid portrayal of animo efleminato and, the dangers of corruption by ozio?, The iibermensch (overman), by contrast, is the symbol of human beings, overcoming themselves to superior forms. Nietzsche does not give us a definite, description, but the overman represents a superhuman exemplar that has not yet, existed (Z 11, "On Priests"; Z I, "Zarathustra's Prologue," 3; Z I, "Zarathustra's, Prologue," 4; Z I, "On the Gift-Giving Virtue," 3; WP 1001; WP 983). Clearly,, the overman would be joyous, in control of his instinctual will to power, able to, forge an admirable unity and style out of his inherent multiplicity, severe with, himself, in control of his desires, a sublimator and refiner of cruelty, an unrepentant bearer of great suffering, a pursuer of "truth" who is aware of the essential unity of truth and illusion, a creator and imposer of values and meaning, who, experiences his existence as self-justifying. The overman will remain faithful to, this earth and not defer gratification in hopes of transcendent salvation in another world, he will possess great health and be able to experience the multiple, passions he embodies, he eschews the easy path of last men, he understands the, value he creates is simply what he embodies, he celebrates a justified self-love,, he is free from resentment and revenge, he wastes no time in self-pity, he is, grateful for the entirety of his life, he understands and maintains a clear distance, between himself and the herd, and he exemplifies the rank order of life. The, overman "shall be the meaning of the earth" in that the overman endows life, with value and redeems the species's inherently meaningless tragic existence. In, sum, the overman is a higher mode of being that approximates the human aspiration for transcendent greatness., The overman represents the full process of Nietzschean becomingrecurrent deconstruction, reimagination, re-creation-the virtues of the active, nihilist. To prepare to even approximate the joyful ovennan, we must pass, through "three metamorphoses" of discipline, defiance, and creation. The spirit,, like a camel, flees into the solitude of the desert to bear enormous burdens; the, spirit, like a lion, must transform itself into a master, a conqueror who releases

Page 84 :
The Discourses, , 61, , its own freedom by destroying the traditional "thou shalts"; but it is not within, the power of the lion to create new values so the spirit must transform itself into, a child whose playful innocence, ability to forget, and capacity for creative, games signals the spirit's willing its own will (Z I, "On the Three Metamorphoses")., The notion of overman-as symbolic, dynamic, indeterminate-provides an, ideal toward which to strive. It is as an (unattainable) ideal that the overman, confers meaning and creates values." The overrnan symbolizes a refashioning of, our sensibilities and aspiration in service of an enhanced life. It points a direction rather than specifying a clear goal. The ubermensch is the symbol of humans overcoming themselves to superior forms. Nietzsche does not give us a, definite description, but the overman represents a superhuman exemplar that has, not yet existed (Z 11, "On Priests"; Z I, "Zarathustra's Prologue," 3; Z I,, "Zarathustra's Prologue," 4; Z I, "on the Gift-Giving Virtue," 3; WP 1001; WP, 983)., Clearly, the overman would be joyous, in control of his instinctual will to, power, able to forge an admirable unity and style out of his inherent multiplicity,, severe with himself, in control of his desires, a sublimator and refiner of cruelty,, an unrepentant bearer of great suffering, a pursuer of "truth" who is aware of the, essential unity of truth and illusion, a creator and imposer of values and meaning, who experiences his existence as self-justifying. The overman will remain, faithful to this earth and not defer gratification in hopes of transcendent salvation in another world, he will possess great health and be able to experience the, multiple passions he embodies, he eschews the easy path of last men, he understands the value he creates is simply what he embodies, he celebrates a justified, self-love, he is free from resentment and revenge, he wastes no time in self-pity,, he is grateful for the entirety of his life, he understands and maintains a clear, distance between himself and the herd, and he exemplifies the rank order of life., The overman "shall be the meaning of the earth" in that the overman endows life, with value and redeems the species's inherently meaningless tragic existence. In, sum, the overman is a higher mode of being that approximates the human aspiration for transcendent greatness., Nietzsche's highest value is amorfati ("love of fate"), a maximally affirmative attitude toward life. The iibermensch is Nietzsche's grandest human exemplar because he best embodies amor fati. Does not the overrnan draw heavily, upon Machiavelli's understanding of grandezza d'animo and the glorious men, graced with military and political virtli?, Nietzsche never acknowledged his intellectual debts to Machiavelli-he, was not a writer who footnoted diligently-but he did nod appreciatively in Machiavelli's direction., A German is almost incapable ofpresro [rapid tempo] in his language. . . . But, , how could the German language, even in the prose of a Lessing, imitate the, tempo of Machiavelli, who in his [The Prince] lets us breathe the dry, refined, , air of Florence and cannot help presenting the most serious matters in a bois-

Page 85 :
62, , Chapter Two, , terous allegrissimo [extremely brisk, lively manner], perhaps not without a malicious artistic sense of the contrast he risks-long, difficult, hard, dangerous, thoughts and the tempo of the gallop and the very best, most capricious humor?, (BGE 28), Nietzsche's rank order of men, obsession with his historical legacy, thorough immersion in the tragedies and exhlarations of this world, disdain for the, corruption of contemporary religion, suspicion that the world replicates cycles,, celebration of struggle and the smashing of obstacles, nostalgia for the values of, the ancients, and contempt for softness and indolence are only a handful of his, cherished themes that recapture Machiavelli's vision., , Notes, 1. Although among the papers of Leonardo da Vinci, who recorded the battle of, Anghiari in a mural in the Signoria Palace, are notes in Machiavelli's handwriting that, reflect a great number of causalities in that conflict. See Giuseppe Prezzolini, Machiavelli, (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1967), 41. Nevertheless, wars fought in Italy during, this time "were not fought by large conscript armies in which tens of thousands of people, died on the battlefield. They were fought by small professional mercenary armies led by, professional mercenary captains, condottiere . . . there was not a huge amount of violence, and very often the wars fought by these professional condottiere were more like, ballets rather than actual armed conflicts in which thousands of people were killed.", Kenneth R. Bartlett, The Italians before Italy: Part Two (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching, Company, 2007), 193-1 94., 2. Arthur Murphy, "The Common Good," Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 24 (1950): 12., 3. See, for example, Raymond Angelo Belliotti, Seeking Identity: Individualism and, Community in an Ethnic Context (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995), ix-xiii,, 191-193., 4. Wayne A. Rebhom, Foxes and Lions: Machiavelli's Confidence Men (Ithaca,, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 180., 5. Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, Fortune Is a Woman (Berkeley, CA: University of Califomia Press, 1984), 109, 110., 6. Ibid., 117., 7. Ibid., 118., 8. See, for example, Belliotti, Seeking Identity, 2-4., 9. See, for example, Raymond Angelo Belliotti, Stalking Nietzsche (Westport, CT:, Greenwood Press, 1998)., 10. Ibid., 84-86.

Page 86 :
Chapter Three, , Methods, Motivations, and Purposes:, The Prince, Much scholarly debate focuses on Machiavelli's methods, motivations, and purposes for composing The Prince. To participate in this debate is to begin to understand more deeply the significance of Machiavelli's labors., , The Prince Teaches Evil, The earliest and one of the most influential interpretations of The Prince is that, the book instructs rulers in the art of evil and is the product of the devil. Sixteenth century clerics warned that Machiavelli's writing would lead to the degeneration of European politics and the moral decay of civilization. By 1559, all, of Machiavelli's works were condemned by the Roman Catholic Church and, placed on its index of prohibited books. Extolling force and fraud, praising evil, methods of statecraft, applauding murder, ignoring or minimizing love and, friendship, elevating cynicism to an art form, debasing religion, glorifying autocrats, advising endless treachery and scheming, and manipulating reality, Machiavelli was viewed as an instrument of the Dark Side and "Machiavellian", became a shorthand invective for duplicity and thuggery. For centuries the, dominant picture of Machiavelli was that of a dangerous man who divided the, world into con men and rubes, gangsters and marks. Machiavelli's alleged obsession with the conquest, preservation, and expansion of political power at the, expense of moral and spiritual values was unanimously disparaged by clergy of, all denominations, dramatists, poets, monarchs, and other righteous thinkers., This interpretation retains vitality today in the popular conception of Machiavelli and in the ongoing use of "Machiavellian" to connote political and, personal opportunism and expediency. Also, numerous writers argue that Machiavellianism so understood is not even an effective recipe for the success it, seeks. For example, Jacques Maritain, an influential twentieth-century Catholic, philosopher, observed:, Moral conscience answers and cannot keep from answering, just as when it is, tempted by any profitable fault: it is never allowed to do evil for any good, whatsoever. . . . Machiavellianism is an illusion [of immediate success], because it rests upon the power of evil, and because metaphysically, evil as such, has no power as a cause of being; practically, evil has no power as a cause of, any lasting achievement.'

Page 87 :
64, , Chapter Three, , Earlier writers, beyond rejecting Machiavelli's alleged evil, also punctured, the practicality of his counsel. How can a prince establish or maintain obedience, if his imperatives are disagreeable and evaluated as unjust by the people? How, can love and friendship be possible in a principality managed by Machiavellian, guidelines? Are men truly so simple that they can be defrauded continually and, still hold to their ways? Can men, as Machiavelli supposes, be simultaneously, scoundrels and opportunists yet be thoroughly gullible? How can a prince defraud an enemy yet retain the confidence and trust of other prince^?^, I will not evaluate The Prince-teaches-evil interpretation here. Most of the, remainder of this book tries to put Machiavelli's advice to rulers in context and, to assess Machiavelli struggle with good and evil. I will, however, introduce a, contemporary version of The Prince-teaches-evil interpretation that is more subtle than the thoroughly disparaging earlier versions, and that deeply admires, Machiavelli's shrewdness and originality., Harvey Mansfield, refining the labors of Leo Strauss, is wary of the backlash of writers who offer apologies and excuses for Machiavelli, who force the, Florentine into the mold of a liberal humanist by whitewashing his wickedness,, and highlighting his patriotism and invocation of the common good., Although Machiavelli's difficulty [with the notion of evil] can be sensed by, anyone of ordinary moral experience, it is obscured by scholars who make excuses for Machiavelli, conceal the wickedness of his advice and thus blindly, rob him of the glory he claimed for having begun the scholarly practice of making such excuses. To excuse Machiavelli is to dismiss not only every popular, but also every interesting sense of the word "Ma~hiavellian."~, Mansfield, probing Machiavelli's silences, indirect discourse, and relentless, humor, aspires to invigorate the bad boy in Machiavelli as a means of unsettling, the comfort of scholars whose interpretations have domesticated him and of reinstating the anxiety readers should feel when they experience him. Mansfield, assumes a basic unity in Machiavelli's writing, although he concedes that Machiavelli uses different rhetorical modes when addressing distinct audiences., Machiavelli's concern is not uniquely with Florence or Italy. He is a founder of, modernity because his concern is with mankind generally, he shuns the certitudes and dogmas of Christianity, he replaces moral virtue with secular selfinterest, he anticipates the theoretical distinction between facts and values, he, aspires to soften the hold of classical rhetoric, he amplifies the glory of military, virtir, he scoffs at the courtesies of the Renaissance gentleman, and he prefigures, the political theory of the modems. The Prince, in Mansfield's view, is "the first, and the best book to argue that politics has and should have its own rules and, should not accept rules of any kind fkom any source where the object is not to, win or prevail over other^."^ Machiavelli makes himself a prince by composing, texts that influence, even rule over, generations of political theorists. According, to Mansfield, Machiavelli "wants to defend 'the world' against those who have, caused it to become weak. Since he cannot rule directly, he will be the master-

Page 88 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 65, , mind behind the operation, mastering future generations through his mind."', Yes, he is a teacher of evil who venerates personal glory and political power, grounded in cruelty and autocracy. Machiavelli's alleged commitment to republicanism is exaggerated. He is more interested in showing princes the techniques, for their own aggrandizement. The Prince is a summary of The Discourses for, potential military and political rulers. The Discourses, rather than being a paean, to republicanism, reveal that collective political action-grounded in military, aggression and expansion-is required for sustaining the private realm of family, and the prerogatives of rulers., Mansfield's view that Machiavelli is a citizen of the world coalesces uneasily with the Florentine's undeniable patriotism and his contention that the, world is a zero-sum contest such that one political unit's victory and glory must, come at the expense of another's defeat and humiliation. Could Machiavelli be, indifferent to who wins and loses? Granted, as Mansfield points out, no antecedently chosen people or superior ethnicity is present. But as a contingent matter,, Machiavelli is a Florentine with some special level of commitment to the Italian, peninsula. He is not quite the citizen of the world that Mansfield supposes anymore than a pitcher on the roster of the Cleveland Indians is simply a ballplayer, hoping to view an interesting baseball season. Antecedently, the Indians had no, call on his allegiance, but once on their roster he is no longer a spectator but a, participant in a series of competitive, zero-sum events. The same pertains to, Machiavelli., Perceiving Machiavelli as a founder of modernity must be tempered by the, Florentine's numerous markings as a man of his age. For example, he took seriously the power of divination, augury, superstition, astrology, and Fortuna as a, vortex of natural forces and random events (P 25; D I 14; D 1 56; D 11 2; D I1 29;, D I1 30; D I11 19;D 111 3 1; D 111 37). Reading Machiavelli's musings on such, matters may well give readers the impression that belief in the power of the, malocchio (evil eye) would amount to epistemological progress.6 Mansfield also, bestows much credit upon Machiavelli's clairvoyance. His alleged scheme to, "mastermind" future generations would be beyond bold given that his works, were published only after his death, at which point he was hardly at the zenith of, popularity and influence., Mansfield's project of preserving Machiavelli's pizzazz is admirable and, his indictment of interpreters who reduce Machiavelli to a liberal humanist, blandly endorsing the pieties of self-government is telling. But those choicesMachiavelli as a refiner of evil or Machiavelli as Abe Lincoln lite--do not define the terms of the debate. In this chapter, several other possibilities emerge., More important, one of the purposes of this book is to resuscitate Machiavelli's, flair and passion in the context of certain conundrums in moral philosophy., Tasty irony, that. In so doing, a fuller examination of the extent of Machiavelli's, wickedness will surface.

Page 89 :
66, , Chapter Three, , The Prince Is an Esoteric Work, Some interpreters argue that The Prince is an esoteric work not meant for a mass, audience: its counsel was intended to reach only a few Italian ears in a specific, time. On this view, The Prince was not a general handbook for princely success,, but intended only for a particular time and its specific circumstances. The condition of Italy in the early sixteenth century was the setting, the newly established, Medici connection in Rome and Florence was the audience. Thus, Laurence, Burd argues:, To understand The Prince aright, it is not only necessary to go back to Machiavelli's age; the book must also be restored to Machiavelli's country. The Prince, was never meant except for Italians, and Italians too of a given period; indeed,, we may go further, and ask whether it was ever intended even for all ~talians.', The major Italian city-states were ferociously independent and quarrelsome, at a time when France and Spain were prospering from their respective consolidations. The disunity of the Italians, according to Burd, led to two crucial consequences. First, the role of the individual was amplified: "When a government, was revolutionized, the change was ascribed to the influence or ability or force, of one man; and it is true that in many cases the individual was indeed the impelling force of a revol~tion."~, Machiavelli, as evidenced in the final chapter of, The Prince, shared the conviction of his age and exaggerated the power of a, single person to mold national history. Ambitious individuals and class conflict,, along with the self-serving machinations of the Church, fueled the instability of, Italy. Second, a general distrust, animated by observing a corrupt Church and, the crumbling of moral and civic virtir, was pervasive: "the perpetual necessity, of watching themselves or their neighbors produced among the political rings, that governed Italy a sense of mutual distrust; they were very zealous for their, parochial fatherland: they were prepared to go to all lengths in its defense; but, they dared not arm their own citizens, who might be made the instrument of, conspiracy.yy9, Under such conditions-foreign dominators flexing their military might, a, vague sense of the need for Italian unification tempered by suffocating mutual, distrust and the conniving of ambitious power mongers-the advice of The, Prince gains currency. The strength of the lion and the shrewdness of the fox, must be conjoined in a single man of abundant political and military virtir to, unite Italy gradually through might and cunning. To apply Machiavelli's political principles to other situations at other times is to distort their meaning. As, general guidelines his principles betray morality and will not attain their aims,, but that is not an indictment of Machiavelli's advice; it is, instead, a function of, our own misreading of his purpose and the intended scope of the work., While this interpretation earns initial plausibility-anticipating a mass audience for The Prince would certainly have been presumptuous and Machiavelli's, emotional intensity does sometimes overwhelm his intellectual perspective when

Page 90 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 67, , he entertains possibilities for the unification of Italy and the influence one great, man could have in effectuating the event-it ignores several foundational, themes in his work. Several of these themes coalesce uneasily with the view that, the political advice in The Prince is restricted to one time and place: That the, world has been and will always be a zero-sum contest; that human nature is unchanging; that the overall amount of virtic is constant, but the amount in particular countries varies through time; that history repeats itself; and that political, conclusions can be derived from the past, particularly from events in ancient, Rome. Whether taken as general principles the counsel in The Prince "runs, counter to all commonly accepted canons of morality and . . . [is] hopelessly, fallacious and inadequate'"' may or may not be true. But if true it does not, amount to substantial evidence that Machiavelli wrote The Prince merely as a, handbook for the situation at that time. If that was his aim, moreover, we would, expect more explicit references to that cause beyond the emotional finale., The Prince-is-an-esoteric-work interpretation starts from the perspective, that Machiavelli's political advice is immoral and ineffective. To redeem the, significance of the work, it contextualizes The Prince to its specific time and, place. Unfortunately, doing so ignores the scope of Machiavelli's aspirations, and misconstrues the implications of some of his most cherished conceptual, building blocks., , The Prince Is a Scientific Work, Some argue that Machiavelli's work is historical and scientific. He did not write, only for Italy or Florence. He did not write only for his time. Instead, he aspired, to record his observations, experiences, and the general political principles that, could be derived therefrom. Machiavelli did not compose The Prince in order to, solve a particular problem-reforming a corrupt Florence or uniting a chaotic, Italy-but to systematically reveal guidelines for successful statecraft. On this, view, Machiavelli is obsessed by the zero-sum contest of international military, and political affairs. This fascination, not the success of this or that political, player, energizes his work. The Prince, like a treatise on organic chemistry, is, neither moral nor immoral. Machiavelli is not advocating or denigrating morality; he is merely describing what is and is not effective in attaining certain generally desired political goals., In the words of Ernst Cassirer:, All [Machiavelli's] counsels are "hypothetical imperatives," or to put it in the, words of Kant, "imperatives of skill." Here, says Kant, "there is no question, whether the end is rational and good, but only what one must do in order to attain it. . . . To be sure [Machiavelli]had his personal feelings, his political ideals, his national aspirations. But he did not allow these things to affect his political judgment. His judgment was that of a scientist and a technician of, political life.""

Page 91 :
68, , Chapter Three, , Machiavelli, then, is rendering advice to any leader, virtuous or evil, who, participates in international affairs. His advice is the same for all such powerseekers. Unlike Plato, he does not search for universal, theoretical principles, based on logic and morality. Instead, Machiavelli reveals what is effective given, the world as it is and has always been. At the core of his political science is his, view of human nature. Leonard Olschki observes:, Machiavelli had a more consistent and refined scientific instinct than Leonardo, [da Vinci] because his whole philosophy was based on axiomatic assumptions, which made his system of thoughts and facts possible and consistent. He believed that human nature was always and everywhere the same and that the real, sense of history can be understood because . . . men . . . never had changed, their motion, order, and power.'2, , In sum, whatever one wants to say about Machiavelli's other political, historical, literary, and comedic works, The Prince should be taken seriously as a, handbook for political success. Given the hypothetical imperative that some, leaders will embrace-worldly political success-The Prince offers the methods, and techniques to attain it. Machiavelli perceived a world of incompetent, ineffective power seekers who bungled, stumbled, and mumbled. His higher values, were efficiency, effectiveness, rhetorical skill, and cognitive excellence. Thus,, Norman Wilde writes:, Machiavelli was not a man of enthusiasms. The motives that moved him were, neither personal ambition alone nor a pure love of the public welfare, but rather, a hatred of bungling and a contempt for half-measures that meant inefficiency., His was an intellectual rather than a moral passion, an interest in political effectiveness rather than a sympathy with the results to be produced . . . it was as a, contribution to the science of political efficiency that he offered the principles, drawn from history and his own experience.", , This interpretation has a plausible foundation. Machiavelli's method was, empirical: he offered historical examples and anecdotes for virtually every piece, of advice he advanced. Advocates can point to textual evidence that he was not, merely preoccupied with Italian interests. For example, in one chapter of The, Prince, Machiavelli seems to analyze at length the six errors French king Louis, XI1 made in his invasion of Italy. But for such mistakes, Machiavelli concludes,, Louis XI1 could have succeeded (P 3). Moreover, Machiavelli's tone is generally cool and detached. When discussing normative matters, he almost always, describes what he takes to be the state of the world and concocts a recipe for, success-as defined by attaining a political goal., But if Machiavelli was a scientist, he was an especially sloppy researcher., He was far fiom objective. He chooses his historical illustrations and anecdotes, carefully, selecting only those that support his foregone convictions. He is not, above falsifying historical accounts if doing so supports his conclusions better, than the actual events. His adoration of the Roman republic as the source of

Page 92 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 69, , most historical truth does not mirror a dispassionate scientific perspective. These, charges are not the smug, anachronistic conclusions of twenty-fust century critics. These allegations and more were levied against Machiavelli by Francesco, Guicciardini, one of his contemporaries and best friends (see chapter 5)., Further, the interpretation in question is hard put to make sense of the final, chapter of The Prince. This chapter varies radically in tone, style, and passion, from the rest of the work. Even if it was added later to the main text, it was, added. Perhaps it is an afterthought to help lure the Medici into hiring Machiavelli as an advisor. But is it likely that the author of that chapter did not really, care who won the zero-sum contest that constituted international affairs?, Certainly, Machiavelli hoped to have practical effects in the world, not, merely chronicle an abstract political theory. Chapter 3 of The Prince should not, be taken as advice to the king of France. Was he sent a copy of the text? Was, there any reasonable probability that he would read it? It may well be advice on, some of the things the regional states of Italy must do to avoid continued foreign, domination. Aware of what might bring about his fall, a wise prince would initiate proactive measures. Machiavelli is not telling foreigners specific ways to, capture Italy in the spirit of dispassionate statecraft. Instead, he may well be, informing the prince on how to unite Italy by avoiding the serious errors committed by Louis XI1 and Cesare Borgia. Perhaps an Italy united, either temporarily or as a permanent federation, could then even attack France., Machiavelli's "enthusiasms," "personal feelings," "political ideals," and, "national aspirations" intruded on his political judgment frequently. If part of his, enterprise was founding a political science modeled on the techniques of the, natural sciences, he failed dismally. It does not follow that he lacked scientific, aspirations, only that The Prince is much more than a technical treatise and as a, technical treatise it is inadequate., , The Prince Is a Nationalistic Call to Arms, Readers are puzzled by Machiavelli's apparent celebration of principalities in, his best known text when contrasted to the clear preference for republican governments he demonstrates in his other work and own life. The emotional final, chapter of The Prince also is in sharp divergence with the prose and texture of, the rest of the test., These, and other, interpretive riddles are thought by some scholars to be resolved by understanding Machiavelli as a fervent Italian patriot who aspires to, unveil a blueprint for Italian unification. This reading of Machiavelli gained, momentum in the middle and late nineteenth century, during and after the period, of the Italian Risorgimento. In that vein, Pasquale Villari (1827-1917) wrote:, "Machiavelli proceeds to draw his conclusions, then at last the practical side and, real aim of [The Prince] are clearly seen. It is a question of achieving the unity, of his Italian motherland and of delivering it from foreign rule. This was certainly the holiest of object^."'^ Francesco De Sanctis (1817-1883) adds: "Let us

Page 93 :
70, , Chapter Three, , therefore be proud of our Machiavelli . . . the bells are ringing throughout the, land announcing the entry of the Italians into Rome. The temporal power is falling. The shout arises, 'Long live Italian unity!' 'Glory to Machiavelli.' "I5, On this view, The Prince is precisely what it presents itself to be: a manual, for princely success. But that success is qualified. The new ruler should use his, power to reform a corrupt, weak state as preparation for the emergence or return, of a healthy, expansionist republic. The manipulative, conniving, forceful measures of the prince--exercising the subtle wiles of the fox and the frightening, domination of the lion-are the prerequisites for the vigorous republic Machiavelli mythologizes in The Discourses. Moreover, the prince's overarching goal, is to make himself, or at least render the scope of his authority, obsolete. The, Prince, then, is the beginning but not the end of Machiavelli's heroic account of, political triumph., According to the Machiavelli-as-patriot interpretation, The Prince is a manual for unification in an unsettled context. Once the monarch attains national, unity, promotes the common good, and nurtures a strong national character, his, power should be dispersed. Once the conditions required for a sound republic, are in place, the advice of The Discourses should prevail. Many supposed differences between The Prince and The Discourses can be reconciled once we understand that The Prince was written as a battle plan for one situation, reforming a, corrupt state and unifying Italy, while The Discourses was a general account of, Machiavelli's political philosophy and showed his appreciation for popular, forms of govenunent in those countries enjoying favorable conditions., In Machiavelli's judgment, the five loose-knit regions of Italy were in a dire, predicament in the early sixteenth century. They could either remain disunified, and provide easy targets for invading barbarians or they could follow the leadership of a strong man, rise above factional bickering, and unite for the greater, good: Either continued victimization or unification. In The Prince, Machiavelli, argues that the regionalized people of Italy were generally corrupt-they lacked, civic virtir-so the monarch would sometimes be forced to use fkaud and coercion to unify the nation, invigorate citizens, and fend off external aggressors., Sounds peculiar, does it not? The cure for corruptness is fkaud and coercion?, What Machiavelli meant was that the prince, while governing, should not always abide by the standards of conventional private morality. If certain inherently evil practices had to be used, that should be thought of as "evil well-used", because they flow from necessity: external forces, antecedent events, compelling, circumstances. Necessity will often compel the ruler to commit deeds that are, correctly judged immoral when performed outside the political arena: miserliness, cruelty, deceit, and promise-breaking are often preferable, politically, to, liberality, mercy, honesty, and promise-keeping. The purpose, though, of the, prince's strategies is unequivocal: He maximizes his prospects of earning enduring glory by imposing order and security, and beginning the reformation of his, corrupt citizens and subjects., Machiavelli was convinced that only an absolute monarch can transform a, corrupt society. In his judgment, civic virtir in Italy had disintegrated and this

Page 94 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 71, , made a popular republic impossible. Virtic could only be spawned through, proper laws, training, and education. The corrupt, fiagrnented state cannot rehabilitate itself. Instead, an omnipotent lawgiver must mold it by crafting a pure, social foundation based on strong arms and sound laws. The strong nation-state, prevents foreign intrusions, and eventually helps citizens rise above selfish individualism, establishes communal bonds, increases the material and spiritual, quality of life, and cultivates personal and national virtir., In The Discourses, Machiavelli praises republicanism. The only thing that, underwrote the prince and his actions was the supreme importance of achieving, national unity. Once this goal is attained and the nation solidified, the scope of, the prince's power is contracted and a mixed government arises. Having guided, the newly created nation-state from conditions of weakness to a condition of, strength, the prince has made autocracy obsolete. Virtic is then best secured, through republicanism. A Machiavellian republic has a system of checks and, balances much like those that existed among the consuls, senate, and plebeians, in the ancient Roman republic., This interpretation can muster considerable textual support. First, Machiavelli consistently argues, beyond what he says in The Prince, that the military, and political virtic of a single leader is crucial for founding a new regime or reforming a corrupt state (D I 9; D I 17; D I 18; D 111 1). Machiavelli recurrently, a f f m s his conviction that an autocratic leader, who often employs force and, fiaud to secure his ends, is a critical stage in the development of a healthy state., Second, this interpretation makes sense of the emotional final chapter of, The Prince. The stirring call to arms is nothing more than a summary of the, main point of the work: to rally support for the unification and redemption of, Italy. The earlier chapters of the book were the methods required to begin reforming a corrupt, newly conquered territory. The final chapter is the overarching purpose of that quest., Third, this view reconciles Machiavelli's fascination with principalities in, The Prince with his undeniable preference for republicanism elsewhere. The, Prince is a necessary stage of development for new or corrupt territories not yet, prepared for self-government. Moreover, advocates of this view can point to, textual support in The Discourses for Machiavelli's position that although republican rule is generally best, not all states have the prerequisites in place for, self-govenunent (D I 55)., Fourth, that Machiavelli was deeply patriotic is undeniable. His commitment to public service, his love of country, his conviction that political activity, animated his soul, and his willingness to sacrifice for the public good resonate, throughout his life and saturate his private correspondence (Ltr. 224: 12/10/13;, Ltr. 270: 5/17/21; Ltr. 331: 4/16/27)., Fifth, this interpretation underscores why a republic should, when propitious, replace a principality. Republics are more flexible than principalities,, more able to adapt to changing circumstances, better equipped to conquer new, territories, and, thus, more likely to endure (D I 29; D I1 2; D 11 4; D I1 6; D I1 9;, D I1 21; D 111 9; D 111 28). Given Machiavelli's overall political philosophy,

Page 95 :
72, , Chapter Three, , concluding that a principality is sometimes a required stage in the process of, building a forceful republic is reasonable., Sixth, this view can account for Machiavelli's desire to seek employment, with the Medici even though he was part of the former republican government, of Florence and, after that regime was ousted, he was suspected of participating, in an anti-Medici conspiracy and tortured thereafter. Machiavelli's job search is, not crass opportunism; instead, he sought political office in order to help a new, prince sow the cultural seeds that would eventually be reaped as the prerequisites for a return to republicanism. Hopefully, Italian liberation would also result. Machiavellian, then, writes The Prince as one more instance of his relentless public service and devotion to his country., Seventh, in addition to the final chapter of The Prince, advocates of this interpretation can point to textual evidence in The Discourses that Machiavelli, aspired to a united Italy. There he indicts the Roman Catholic Church as the, perpetrator which has thwarted Italian solidarity:, No geographical region has ever been unified or happy if it has not been, brought under the political control of a single republic or ruler, as has happened, in France and Spain. And the only reason why Italy has not been unified as they, have been, the only reason why she does not have a republic or a prince who, has been able to acquire control of the whole territory, is the existence of the, church (D I 12)., , The Machiavelli-as-patriot interpretation of The Prince, though, faces major, objections. The most daunting is the problem of the transition. Surely Machiavelli did not suppose that a prince, after acquiring new territories and painstakingly crafting the civic virtic of the populace through strong arms, sound laws,, and robust religion, would quietly release his power in deference to republican, rule? The more reasonable dynamic is that such a prince would luxuriate in his, power and privilege and, if anything, would strive for more of the same. The, prince's quest, after all, begins in private ambition coupled with the recognition, that tyranny does not issue in enduring glory. He must facilitate the common, good and promote civic virtic in order to develop a healthy, expansionist regime, able to compete vigorously in international military and political affairs. If he, efficiently and effectively advanced these goals, would he not reason that he, deserved to be honored and obeyed, not shunted aside for an experiment in selfgovernment?, One response by advocates of the Machiavelli-as-patriot interpretation is, that Machiavelli did expect the transition to go smoothly. For example, he, praises Romulus for establishing a senate and yielding most of his power to it,, reserving only the authority to command the army after war had been declared, and of convening the senate itself (D I 9). Here Machiavelli expresses his preference for a powerful prince to cede absolute control in deference to the common good.

Page 96 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 73, , This response is plausible, but would more likely be seen as an illustration, of Machiavelli's romanticism and cockeyed optimism. That Romulus is a, mythological figure underscores the point. A better response may be available,, however. The transition takes time. For a corrupt, impotent territory to blossom, into a robust state with the prerequisites for a successful, expansionist republic, would take a generation or more. All princes are mortal. The bane of good government has been hereditary rule. The death of an exemplary leader is followed, by the inept bungling of his vainglorious, dopey son (D I 2; D I 19). The transition from autocratic princely control to a self-governing republic should be, gradual. Throughout the prince's lifetime the prerequisites of republican rule are, nurtured through strong arms, sound laws, robust religion, and promotion of, civic virtir. Near or at the prince's death, transfer of power from the executive, ofice to the senate and the people should take place proportionate to the state's, readiness for self-government. The process could continue until a full-fledged, republic is in place. The animating impulse for the transition, as always, is selfinterest. The glory of the prince is amplified by the process, and a republic is, more flexible, more likely to expand, and more enduring than a principality., Both the people and the prince thereby gain by an orderly transition. The prince,, especially, should understand all this given the cornerstones of his endeavors are, securing power to attain enduring glory. Near death, his earthly power is about, to evaporate, but the quest for lasting glory is still negotiable., My response on behalf of the Machiavelli-as-patriot interpretation is far, from airtight, but it does offer a plausible chance that the transition from principality to republic can occur. Ancient Rome, Machiavelli's favorite historical, launching pad, made the transition. Why not sixteenth-century Florence or, Rome? Machiavelli does, however, place enormous importance on the value, military and political leaders bestow on their historical legacies. Is the quest for, enduring glory-which certainly animates Machiavelli's labors-truly paramount for men who embody military and political virtir?, This leads to a second objection confronted by this interpretation. Could, Machiavelli have truly thought that the unification of Italy was possible in the, sixteenth century? Remember, the unification of Italy, the Risorgimento, did not, occur until the middle and late nineteenth century. In the sixteenth century, the, regions and city-states of Italy were in such disarray and the military power of, foreign countries was so dominate that it would seem only a utopian of the most, gullible stripe could have taken the unification of Italy seriously., Conditions in Italy were, indeed, dim at that time. The five principal regions-Milan, Venice, Florence, the Roman Papacy, and the Kingdom of, Naples-treasured their independent power. Transitory alliances and coalitions, with foreign powers thwarted any region that threatened the balance of power., Machiavelli bristled when chronicling the Church's dogged role in preventing, Italian unification (P 12; D I 12), but also saw it as a potentially powerful tool, for reformation. This potential was never actualized. Any strong, unified Italy, would prove a secular threat to the Church's near monopoly of authority. The, Church was indifferent, at best, and hostile, at worst, during the nineteenth cen-

Page 97 :
74, , Chapter Three, , tury Risorgimento. When Machiavelli's works were published posthumously,, the Church immediately placed them on its index of forbidden reading. Still,, Machiavelli understood that the major political achievements in Europe were, being accomplished by strong princes with unified countries (D I 12). Given his, private correspondence, to conclude that Machiavelli was gravely pessimistic, that Italian unification would occur soon is reasonable. Yet, he harbored a, dream-that sometimes distorted his political vision--of an Italy freed from the, domination of foreign government and united, to some measure, in common, cause. When reflecting soberly on the chaos of his country and the machinations, of the Church, realism and pessimism enveloped him. When consulting his heart, and when overwhelmed by his overflowing ambizione, the dream seduced him., He fantasized a movement, led by the Medici family in Florence or Rome,, guided by a politically savvy chief minister, Machiavelli himself, that would, leave an illustrious, indelible imprint on the pages of history., The details of that dream, though, are hazy. A narrow reading, probably, most recommended, of the final chapter of The Prince, takes it to be a liberation, movement that casts aside the domination of foreign governments and armies (P, 26). This would entail at least a temporary military alliance among the major, Italian regions, but not automatically a united Italy thereafter. If Machiavelli did, have a permanently united Italy in mind-and I suspect this was part of his, dream-it did not include the entire peninsula, but ended in the south with the, Papal States of Rome., It is hardly to be supposed that Machiavelli contemplated anything so chimerical as the expulsion of Spain from its southern kingdom. Naples had always, been apart from Italy; its whole history was in complete contrast to that of the, rest of the peninsula; it had not been included in that Lombard kingdom whose, crown had been assumed by the medieval Emperors. The Italy which Machiavelli dreamed of as united and free was bounded on the south by the States of, the church.16 (Emphasis added), , Nevertheless, a critic would object that the dynamic and tradition of preserving the independent power of individual regions in Italy was too strong to, sustain even a dream of permanent unification. The self-interest of regional, power brokers and the self-image of vested aristocrats depended upon their influence within their domains. Italian unification entailed that regional prerogatives would yield to national priorities. Suppose Machiavelli, himself, had to, choose between either a united Italy headed by, say, Rome or the status quo with, a strong, independent Florence? Would "his country" not be deemed Florence?, The trajectory of Machiavellian politics, though, is toward a united Italy., Suppose Florence or Rome, through the Medici power connection, became, strong enough to begin acquiring new territories. Remember, every robust principality or republic has expansionist aspirations, according to Machiavelli (P 3;, D I1 2; D 11 4; D I1 6; D I1 9; D I1 21). Where are the most likely prospects for, expansion? Where did the ancient Romans fust expand? Not in South Afiica,

Page 98 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 75, , China, or the East Indies. Not in France or Spain, at least not in the beginning., The vital expansionist state would, almost necessarily, start in Italy by bringing, less powerful regions under its domain. Perhaps, afier initial successes brought, larger, stronger armies with more experience and confidence, even those pesky, Spaniards could be dislodged from the Kingdom of Naples., Granted, a grand canyon of difference separates (a) the regions of Italy voluntarily and freely uniting in common cause, and forming a nation-state once, and forever from (b) one strong region emerging and conquering the other areas., In both cases the peninsula would be under one federal government, but the tone, and tempo would be much different., My point, though, is that the debate about what type of unified Italy, if any,, Machiavelli imagined should be informed by his general political principles. I, would suppose that from his vantage point the most glorious climax would be a, united Italy, led by Florence with Machiavelli as chief consigliere, which could, begin expanding beyond Italy. The next best choice would be a united Italy, led, by Rome with Machiavelli as chief consigliere. In any case, with or without, Florence, Rome, or Machiavelli, the logic of Machiavelli's political principles, concluded that a united Italy was the natural result of the emergence of a strong, principality or republic on the peninsula. Contemporary political conditions,, regional traditions, and a hostile Church protective of its own privileges notwithstanding, a version of Italian unification would eventually transpire. That, the blessed event would not occur until more than three hundred forty years afier, Machiavelli's death attests to the might of Fortuna., , The Prince Separates Politics from Morality, An influential interpretation of The Prince is most closely associated with, Benedetto Croce (1 866-1952). According to Croce, Machiavelli strove to separate the moral sphere from the political domain. Conventional morality cannot, apply to political maneuverings, which are governed by strategic and prudential, prerogatives that elude moral evaluation., Machiavelli discovered the necessity and the autonomy of politics, politics, which is beyond good and bad morals, which has its own laws against which it, is futile to rebel, which cannot be exorcised and banished from the world with, holy water.", , Machiavelli's political prescriptions are not immoral because politics are, independent of moral assessment. Politics is public, morality is private, and this, autonomy is required for the proper functioning of social life. Conventional morality does not govern political affairs, and actions and policies operating on, different assumptions are doomed to disaster, at worst, or irrelevance, at best. As, Machiavelli observes, only if all men were good would this not be the case (P

Page 99 :
76, , Chapter Three, , 18). But as human nature is radically flawed, public responsibility and private, rectitude are distinct spheres of activity., Croce's view is reflected in a more general interpretation of The Prince: that, the book is an exercise in realism; that Machiavelli's writing is purely descriptive. True, he draws conclusions of what a prince should do given the conditions, of the world and of politics, but such prescriptions are prudential and strategic,, not moral. Machiavelli's methods are the means of his time, indeed all times,, and the only ones offering hope for political success. This . . .just in . . . political leaders sometimes lie, connive, threaten, plot, coerce in order to attain their, ends and advance the interests of their polity! What is the source of the scandal?, Not even Plato, who insisted that virtue and knowledge must be joined in the, paradigm of the philosopher-king, would be surprised by such news. Plato, would bemoan the separation of morality from politics, but he would not deny, that as an empirical matter that division existed. Whereas Plato hoped to change, the world through his utopian vision, Machiavelli aspires to succeed politically, in the world as it is. Machiavelli is not championing the autonomy of politics, from morals nor is he delighted that the world is as it is. Instead, the successful, statesman will learn how to gain the competitive edge in a world not of his making. His constituents deserve nothing less., True, Machiavelli is also convinced that the world cannot be changed because of inherent defects in human nature, the zero-sum nature of international, affairs, and the natural scarcity of desired resources, but this, too, is a description of reality. Strong men will press forward to establish, preserve, and extend, their power: "The fust law of internal policy is to hold on to power, of external, policy it is to extend your imperialism."'8 Again, Machiavelli does not confer, moral blessings on these circumstances and events. He does not, as did Thrasymachus, conclude that "might makes right" and that conventional morality consisted of guidelines in the interests of the strongest in society. Instead, for Machiavelli effective use of force and fraud translate to political success, which is, beyond moral assessment., This interpretation at once liberates Machiavelli from charges of immorality, and honors him for sharply observing the political world and compiling a handbook for political success. Unfortunately, it overly simplifies Machiavelli's writings. First, although Machiavelli undoubtedly saw himself as a realist, his vision, was clouded. His convictions that the state of the world and of human nature are, fixed; that ambition and power-mongering are the key to understanding men;, that international affairs are by their very nature zero-sum contests; and that human motivation flows only from self-interest all betray his myopia. Second, that, Machiavelli separated politics from morality, although a popular mantra, is stone, cold false. Machiavelli subjected politics to moral assessment at numerous crucial junctures and in subtle complex ways. Part of Machiavelli's innovation and, genius resides in his intuitive feel for the nuanced ways morality intrudes on, politics, and for the inner tensions simmering within conventional morality itself. Although Machiavelli rarely addresses such matters explicitly, they implicitly underwrite many of his major themes. To begin to understand these connec-

Page 100 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 77, , tions, we must examine the challenging interpretation of Machiavelli's work that, concludes that at the heart of The Prince is a clash of two incompatible value, systems: conventional (Christian) morality and pagan (ancient Roman) morality., , The Prince Is a Clash of Value Systems, Giuseppe Prezzolini offers a subtle, challenging interpretation of The Prince., Machiavelli does not separate politics from morality, only from a certain version, of Christian morality. Machiavelli weds politics to a pagan morality that places, state interests above all religion and honors only those religions that render the, masses "loyal and governable."'9 Prezzolini frnds the origins of Machiavelli's, position in a pessimistic Christianity best exemplified by St. Augustine. The, great theologian bifurcated the City of God from the City of Man as two distinct, ways of life. Damned by original sin, human beings could not legitimately hope, to attain justice and moral goodness in worldly, political communities. The state, ministers to those who are morally deficient. Only if all people abided by Christian morality would the state be unnecessary. But people do not. Only in the, afterlife will perfect justice be realized. Earthly governments, then, will always, transgress against moral law. St. Augustine foreshadowed Machiavelli's notion, that to succeed politically leaders must often cast aside conventional morality., St. Augustine's position itself is prefigured in the Bible where Jesus advises, Pontius Pilate that "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36)., Isaiah Berlin echoes Prezzolini's view, but erases the references to pessimistic Christianity. The Prince, says Berlin, details a clash of two value systems:, a pagan (Roman) ethic and the conventional, Christian morality. Instead of conceiving Machiavelli as positing two autonomous guiding-action realms, the, moral and political, Berlin sees the conflict in Machiavelli waged within morality itself. Machiavelli, then, is not advocating the separation of politics from, ethics, but only the marriage of politics to a morality different from the conventional, Christian version., [Machiavelli plants] a permanent question mark in the path of posterity. It, stems from his de facto recognition that ends equally ultimate, equally sacred,, may contradict each other, that entire systems of value may come into collision, without possibility of rational arbitration, and that not merely in exceptional, circumstances, as a result of abnormality or accident or error . . . but (this was, surely new) as part of the normal human situation.20, , The pagan or Roman morality embodies goals as ultimate and legitimate as, those celebrated by Christianity. Christianity treasures faith, hope, charity, love,, mercy, adoration of God, forgiveness of transgressions by enemies, selflessness,, compassion for others, redemption of the soul, suspicion of worldly goods, and, focus on earning a blissful afterlife. This, for Machiavelli, is an ethic for private, people seeking transcendent salvation. Roman religion stressed the establish-

Page 101 :
78, , Chapter Three, , ment, preservation, and expansion of a well-ordered social whole. This required, men of character: "inner moral strength, magnanimity, vigor, vitality, generosity, loyalty, above all public spirit, civic sense, dedication to the security, power,, glory, expansion of the patria."21 Through glittering displays, bloody sacrifices,, sound laws, and carefully defined education, the Romans sanctified pagan virtues: "Power, magnificence, pride, austerity, pursuit of glory, vigor, discipline, . . . this is what makes states great."22This, for Machiavelli, is an ethic for leaders in public roles striving for personal (worldly) glory and the founding, reforming, or preservation of a healthy, expansionist polity. Such social ends, Machiavelli insists, are natural and prudent for men to pursue., To wholeheartedly welcome Christian morality is to consign oneself to political fecklessness. To uncompromisingly embrace Roman morality is to risk, losing one's soul. Machiavelli notes that Christianity, instead of being misconstrued in the spirit of ozio, could have been designed in ways that facilitated, military and political virtii (D I1 2; D I 12). Unfortunately, the corrupt Church of, Rome molded spiritual doctrine in unpatriotic, efeminato ways. While Machiavelli does not condemn conventional morality, he advises public officials to, learn how not to be good (in the Christian sense) and, instead, cultivate the craft, of the fox and the intimidation of the lion (P 15; P 18)., For Machiavelli, the importance of Rome as an example largely flows fiom, the extent and duration of its power, that Rome could have influenced so many, peoples for so long a time makes it the supreme case of collective civic virtii., Through his study of ancient Rome, Machiavelli found support for his instinctive personal values: passion for competition, zest for honor, yearning for community, and distrust of other states. The Romans recognized no difference between moral excellence and reputation; praise was what every citizen most, desired; to place personal honor above the interests of the entire community was, considered barbaric; citizens were educated to harness their ambition in service, to the common good, although in their relations with other states and stranieri,, no such limitations constricted their competitive instincts.23, Machiavelli also found ballast for his convictions that the quest for virth, was a zero-sum competition that required valiant combatants taught through, proper laws, family values, and military and political contests., Ruthless competition was regarded as the basis of all civic virtue. . . . Hardness, was a Roman ideal. The steel required to hunt out glory or endure disaster was, a defining mark of a citizen. It was instilled in him from the moment of his, birth. . . . To raise heirs successfilly, to instill in them due pride in their bloodline and hankering after glory, these were achievements worthy of a man. . . ., "Gain cannot be made without loss to someone else." So every Roman took for, granted.24, Men, then, have two choices. Those entering public life cannot effectively, be responsible for the lives and security of their constituents while obeying the, imperatives of Christian morality. Those who do choose to diligently follow

Page 102 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 79, , those commandments should focus on their personal salvation, but refrain from, military and political leadership. Berlin is clear: "This is not a division of politics from ethics. It is the uncovering of the possibility of more than one system, of values, with no criterion common to the systems whereby a rational choice, can be made between them . . . men choose either a ood, virtuous private life,, or a good, successful social existence, but not both." f Accordingly, for Berlin,, Machiavelli's originality consists in his evisceration of a foundational tenet of, Western philosophy: the conviction that all genuine values are ultimately compatible., Berlin does not allege that Machiavelli's conscious intention was to challenge the moral thinking of Western philosophy. On the contrary, Machiavelli's, purposes were practical: to have an effect on the political world and to hang out, an advertisement for employment. But a careful reading of this work leads Berlin to conclude that he has identified a hitherto ignored source of Machiavelli's, innovative thinking. The incommensurability of two, clashing, internally legitimate moral systems is the fuel that implicitly drives Machiavelli's writings., The Prezzolini-Berlin interpretation is insightful: Contrary to popular judgment, Machiavelli does not divorce politics from morality. Still, this interpretation is too clean and tidy. The relationship of conventional morality to Machiavellian politics is more complicated than they suppose., Political leaders must follow conventional (Christian) morality if they can,, but must be prepared to do wrong if necessary (P 18). Politics, then, is not simply divorced from conventional morality. Complying with the imperatives of, conventional morality remains the default position. More important, conventional morality continues to evaluate political actions. To call evil "well used" is, to highlight the necessity of cruel measures but also to underscore that those, means remain "evil"-as, judged by conventional morality (P 8). When the, masses judge only by results they stray from the principles of conventional morality and from the guidelines for wise assessment of political efforts (P 18; P, 25; AW I 29-32; D I11 35; D I 9; D I 53). In fact, Machiavelli's political program is required primarily because of a breakdown in conventional morality and, a weakness of human nature. If all human beings obeyed conventional morality,, Machiavelli explicitly recognizes that his advice to political leaders would be, woefully inadequate (P 18). The pagan (ancient Roman) morality of The Prince, is required because of the failure of conventional morality, probably because of, defects in human nature itself, to command strict allegiance. Moreover, Machiavelli disparages tyranny: politics are conducted morally when directed toward, the common good, not when pursued only for selfish advantage (P 8; D I 10; D I, 17; D I 29; D I 34; D 1 17). When certain means are "excused" because of the, critical importance of the ends they attain, the excuse is rendered from the perspective of conventional morality (P 18; D I 9). That harsh means are only excused and that they remain "evil" even if well-used implies that the wrongness, of the actions persists for Machiavelli even though the actions were warranted., This can be a judgment only from the perspective of conventional morality. Pagan morality, presumably, would have no reason to excuse or to label as "evil", , '

Page 103 :
80, , Chapter Three, , what it would take to be perfectly reasonable and acceptable measures to secure, its ends., The strictures of conventional morality must also underwrite the sound laws, and disciplined education required to nourish the moral and civic virtir of the, masses. The imperatives of ancient Roman morality are needed to promote the, military and political virtir of government leaders. Moreover, ancient Roman, morality, or something akin to it, is required to establish the order, security, and, framework that make conventional morality possible., Machiavelli requires, it would seem, a reformation of religion, which he, takes to be the foundation of all moralities. He accepts conventional morality, and understands his society cannot simply turn back the clock and act as if, Christianity never occurred. They cannot merrily trip back to the era of the Roman republic, accepting its religions and superstitions as their own while erasing, the history of Christianity. He recognizes that Christianity is not inherently incompatible with a robust religion that could advance state interests (D I1 2; D I, 12). He is, of course, not betting his farm in San Casciano that the Church in, Rome will step lively in making the required reforms in its approach. The, Church had its own secular, not merely religious, power and prerogatives to, preserve. (For example, the Church fought strenuously for centuries to retain, Latin, not Italian, as the official language of the peninsula, a strategy designed to, retain a source of its ideological hegemony.), In sum, the relationship of Machiavellian politics to morality is more complex than the Prezzolini-Berlin interpretation suggests because (a) Machiavelli, accepts absolute principles of conventional morality-principles that are absolute not in the sense that they cannot be legitimately overridden, but because, violations of these principles retain an element of wrongness even if justified or, excused (see chapter 5); (b) Machiavelli keenly appreciates the particular duties, of public ofice-the extra responsibilities, the imperative to advance the interests of constituents over those of foreigners, and the need to advance the collective interest embodied by the state; and (c) Machiavelli underscores the necessities of international affairs-the intrusions of Fortuna, the zero-sum nature of, the contest, the deficiencies of human nature, and the natural scarcity of resources. Machiavelli does not merely argue that Roman (pagan) morality oversees politics, while conventional (Christian) morality governs private life., The life of a political leader is lived in tensions among the three competing, vectors sketched in the previous paragraph. It is not as if such a leader merely, casts off the cloak of conventional morality when he enters his ofice or job, quarters, and adorns himself in the liberating dress of a Roman pagan. Such action would increase the likelihood of his degenerating into a tyrant or an official, who used cruel measures when they were not required. Machiavelli never explores the interior life of his imaginary prince or those of his historical princes,, most of whom are merely mythical anyway. To say that Machiavelli's political, leaders, if proper to their posts, would suffer existential angst seems a legitimate, inference. But Machiavelli never says that or even touches on the possibility.

Page 104 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 81, , Perhaps the implications of the meanderings of his argument eluded him. Perhaps he never clearly recognized his own internal conflicts., The competing moral and political vectors pressing down upon a Machiavellian ruler are deep, dark, and dense. Their conflicting demands cannot be, simultaneously fulfilled. Comedian Me1 Brooks famously remarked about monarchical privileges, "It's good to be the king!" A contemporary interpreter of, Machiavelli might rejoin, "It's not easy to be a wise prince.", , The Prince Is the Product of Existential Crisis, Italian novelist, Alberto Moravia (1907-1990) offers a relatively obscure, but, uncommonly insighthl, take on The Prince. Moravia views Machiavelli as sincere, candid, and open. In short, Machiavelli was not by character or disposition, "Machiavellian." "Machiavellianism," the code of force and fraud in statecraft,, has existed and will continue to flourish as long as human beings are present., Machiavelli "discovered its scattered fra ments in history and put them together, in a single vigorous and terrible mold!"The, Prince is the product of an unbalanced, passionate author in the midst of existential crisis. Machiavelli subjugates, all other values, sentiments and meaningfbl projects to politics. His prince has, nothing but the pursuit of a vaguely defined glory and a passion for politics that, is its means. For Moravia, the prince mirrors Machiavelli's own exhausted,, spiritually spent condition., Accordingly for Machiavelli, so emotionally dried up and exhausted, worn out, and weakened, politics meant much more than a simple occupation and duty,, much more than an intellectual pastime; politics were the goad and a reason for, living-an artificial means of feeling morally alive. This desperate clinging to, political life, now that the moral and religious life was dead, explains first of all, the abstract thought in Machiavelli, which was not nourished by any deep ethical feeling; and it ex lains also the particular form Machiavelli had to adopt to, express his thought.2.p, , Having risen and fallen in politics, having suffered the torments of the, strappado in response to suspicions that he was involved in political conspiracy,, Machiavelli yearned for freedom and republican rule. He bristled at his exile, from the political arena. Guglielmo Ferrero framed Machiavelli's mental anguish:, The Prince was the supreme humiliation of a chained Titan, a mendicant, prophet. We feel throughout its tormented pages the anguish of a frightfbl mortification. There is a time in the life of every man when, in his struggle with his, fellow beings, he becomes inpatient and cries out that all men are beasts and, must be treated as beasts. But most men confine themselves to thought or, speech. Machiavelli relieved his feelings in a book.28

Page 105 :
82, , Chapter Three, , A poignant letter to Machiavelli's friend Francesco Vettori details the trivia, of his typical day-hunting thrushes, quarrelling with merchants, trash-talking, during card and dice games played with local workers, navigating a rude, squabbling world-punctuated by his return home. He then enters his study, adorns, himself with royal garments, and reads-no converses-with ancient authors: "I, nourish myself on that food that alone is mine and for which I was born. . . . And, for four hours at a time I feel no boredom, I forget all my troubles, I do not, dread poverty, and I am not temfied by death." (Ltr. 224: 12/10/13), Machiavelli, then, is trapped in a world of habit and routine leavened by diversion. His most meaningful time is spent alone, conversing with classical authors in search of political relevance. The elegance, lofty purposes, and dignity, of Machiavelli alone in his study contrast with the vulgar, coarse minutia of the, cafoni who surround him. Moravia insists that Machiavelli "needed to see himself unrecognized and underestimated in order filly to realize his own value."29, Machiavelli's moral exhaustion deprives him of the serene autonomy of the, truly liberated and triumphant spirit. Instead, he writes The Prince to stimulate, "the deadly weight of his apathy."30Under the weight of existential crisis, Machiavelli is neither normal nor balanced. His desire to serve the Medici betray, his desperation 'Yo escape drowning in apathy, indifference, in the boredom of a, life without passions or employment-this drives him to inflict mortal wounds, on himself, merely in order to feel that he is alive; to serve in order to have a, f~nction."~'The political science of The Prince is distorted, incomplete, and, disproportionate as Machiavelli's political passion turns back on itself to, heighten his feeling of being alive. The worldview, excesses and conflicts in The, Prince, then, mirror the antecedent psychological struggle occurring within its, author. Having distanced himself fiom religious and spiritual value, Machiavelli, inflates the technical and military prowess of the ancient Romans., The first twenty-five chapters of The Prince are a "logical, rigorously inevitable, cruel outburst of Machiavelli's moral passion."32 The final chapter of, The Prince trumpets the call to expel foreign armies and reconstruct the homeland. As the Machiavellian prince, in Moravia's view, has first destroyed the, culture, tradition, freedom, religion, and arts that mainly constitute the homeland, reconstruction is appropriate. The final chapter is "the sigh for liberation, and redemption of a man who had been driven throughout the whole book to the, Machiavelli-morally, exmost remorseless and unbearable concl~sion."~~, hausted yet unable to recognize his condition-writes The Prince, consciously, or not, to elevate himself out of indifference and to regain the sense that he is, alive. Unable to gain catharsis fiom religion or morality, he desperately grasps at, patriotism: "Machiavelli tried to manage the impossible transmutation of a vast, sum of negative values into one single positive value: the patria."34, Moravia's psychological reading of The Prince is, of course, speculative, and contestable. I am unconvinced that Machiavelli was truly disco~ectedfrom, moral and spiritual values, and hope to demonstrate those links in this work., That Machiavelli wrote in order to feel alive and valuable is true, but not unusual. We all pursue our most treasured projects at least in part for those rea-

Page 106 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 83, , sons. That Machiavelli's primary passion was political can be refashioned to, praise him, not castigate his lack of other significant outlets for creativity. Had, Moravia attended to Machiavelli's obsession with virtir and disdain of ozio his, analysis would have been more refined and, perhaps, more measured. To call, Machiavelli's concern for politics an "artificial" means of feeling morally alive, is simply unfair. Moravia's reading of the messages in The Prince would have, benefited from Machiavelli's discussions of similar themes in The Discourses, and The Art of War., For example, Machiavelli's dismal portrayal of human nature in The Prince, (P 7;P 8;P 15;P 17;P 18) is mirrored in The Discourses (DI 3;D I 4; D I 5; D, I 29;D I1 13;D 111 6). Although he concedes that people can be transformed by, a salutary republic-which presupposes the potential for goodness in human, nature-Machiavelli insists that only necessity can turn the trick (DI 3; D I11, 12). Contra Ferrero, The Prince does not merely record Machiavelli's assessment of human nature at the point of his deepest despondency; it reflects, as, does The Discourses, his considered judgment., The power of Moravia's interpretation, in my view, is his insight that Machiavelli was struggling with the human condition, that he was undergoing existential crisis. A man of great expectations and undeniable talent was deeply conflicted about his place in a world that was, at best, indifferent and, at worst,, savage. Those tensions are reflected in his writing and in the, yes, moral intuitions that animate some of his major political themes., , The Prince Is a Satire, This interpretation has a long history and takes ingenious twists and turns. The, claim is that Machiavelli was a foe of tyranny and his purpose could not have, been to instruct power mongers, but to unmask their pretensions, reveal their, way of operating, and teach the multitude of their evil machinations. Machiavelli was, under this view, an investigative reporter bent on exposing the ways, of tyranny in order to neutralize their efficacy. By mocking the fashions of autocracy, under cover of refining them, Machiavelli was able to exemplify duplicity for salutary purposes. First offered by a sixteenth century Italian jurist and, Oxford law professor, Alberico Gentili, and later echoed by renowned philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza and Jean Jacques Rousseau, the position that The, Prince is a satire, not science, remains influential., The evidence for this view is wide and deep. First, Machiavelli and his family had a long history of commitment to republican rule that is mirrored in Machiavelli's other writings and in his correspondence with friends. Some writers,, in fact, claim that "The Prince contradicts everything else Machiavelli ever, wrote and everything we know about his life."35 Moreover, The Prince is dedicated to Lorenzo de'Medici, scion of a long line of Florentine rulers opposed to, republican rule. Worse, the Medici, after ousting the republicans in 1512, through the military agency of the Holy League, were in charge when Machia-

Page 107 :
84, , Chapter Three, , velli was tortured because he was thought to be involved in a conspiracy against, them. Garrett Mattingly states this point compellingly:, I suppose it is possible to imagine that a man who has seen his country enslaved, his life's work wrecked and his own career with it, and has, for good, measure, been tortured within an inch of his life should thereupon go home and, write a book intended to teach his enemies the proper way to maintain themselves, writing all the time, remember, with the passionless objectivity of a scientist in a laboratory. . . . But it is a little difficult for the ordinary mind to compass.36, , Second, the hero of The Prince is Cesare Borgia. Rumors swirled about, Borgia in his own time and many interpreters are hard put to consider him a, suitable exemplar for emulation:, A Medici was being advised to emulate a foreigner, a Spaniard, a bastard, con-, , victed, in the court of public opinion anyway, of fratricide, incest, and a long, line of abominable crimes, a man specially hated in Tuscany for treachery and, extortion and for the gross misconduct of his troops on neutral Florentine soil,, and a man, to boot, who as a prince had been a notorious and spectacular failure . . . we can scarcely believe that his commendation of the Borgia was seriously meant.37, Further, Machiavelli in his historical poem, First Decennale and in his dispatches on official missions for the Florentine government, The Legations, often, casts Borgia in an unflattering light. By drawing the most offensive comparison, possible, the argument goes, Machiavelli intends to show readers the logical, consequence of princely employment of force and fraud., Third, reading The Prince as satire leads to an understanding of chapter 26,, the famed exhortation to liberate Italy from the barbarians. Interpreters argue, that this plea is out of place, both rhetorically and practically, unless we take it, as "irony turned inward, the bitter mockery of misdirected optimism."38Neither, the time nor the players nor circumstances were ripe for an Italian liberation, movement. Surely, Machiavelli's emotional ending is no more than a taunt of, Medici weakness and, perhaps, his own past misguided fantasies., The Prince-as-satire interpretation is challenging but unpersuasive. That, Machiavelli, despite a history of opposition to Medici rule and attachment to, republican regimes, sought employment under the Medici is beyond dispute, (Ltr. 224: 12/10/13). Although Mattingly's wonder at how Machiavelli could, seriously apply for a job with his apparent political enemies seems compelling at, first blush, a more careful examination of Machiavelli uncovers his reasons., Machiavelli burned with political ambizione, he sought glory and a piece of immortality won in the political arena. To stand by, to spectate, is to court ozio, (sloth). The idle man-separated from military and political struggle-embodies, muted will, a pacified spirit, and resigned soul. For someone such as Machiavelli to be removed from the competitive arena is to be denied the spiritual nour-

Page 108 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 85, , ishment that animated a robustly meaningful life. Moreover, if hired as a consigliere to the Medici he might well be able to serve his state, begin the process, of invigorating civic virtir, and facilitate the conditions of salutary expansionism., Machiavelli's quest for employment does not flow from opportunism or cynicism. Instead, his undeniable patriotism and commitment to a vigorous, competitive life fuel his aspiration., Machiavelli's choice of Cesare Borgia as the contemporary hero of The, Prince is difficult, but not impossible, to explain. The other heroes of the work, are either mythological or ancient: Brutus, Moses, Theseus, Romulus, and the, like. Machiavelli, who enjoyed mixing ancient history with contemporary, events, needed to present someone from his own time. But the city states of Italy, were a mess: dominated by foreign governments, manipulated into division by, the papacy, and too disorganized to promote moral and civic virtir among the, citizenry. The pool of plausible candidates was thin. Cesare Borgia, through a, combination of good fortune and military flair, attained a demonstrable measure, of success in a short time. True, once his papal father died and his own health, weakened, his period of fame and power evaporated. Machiavelli, though, was, clearly impressed by Borgia's moxie and panache (Ltr. 247: 1131/15). While he, later perceived frailties and overreaching, Borgia remained the best contemporary example of numerous Machiavellian principles. Also, that Borgia was universally disparaged in his own time is an exaggeration.39, Moreover, Cesare Borgia's father, Rodrigo, became Pope Alexander VI in, 1492 and greatly assisted his son's mercurial rise to military and political influence. By the time Machiavelli was composing The Prince, Giovanni de'Medici, had been elected Pope Leo X and his nephew, Lorenzo, was the leader of Florence. Prior to Lorenzo, his uncle, Giuliano deYMedici,was in power in Florence., The parallels between the two families are clear. Machiavelli sends the message, that the familial connection that energized Cesare Borgia's power was in place, between the Medici. Given the pervasive authority of the Church in Italian political intrigues, Lorenzo, like Cesare earlier, was best situated to call upon, Rome for support. Whereas Cesare was done in, in Machiavelli's view, by bad, luck-his own frail health and the death of Pope Alexander VI-and one stunningly bad exercise of judgment-allowing the election of Pope Julius 11-no, such daily double of doom seemed headed for Lorenzo de'Medici. Accordingly,, Cesare Borgia bore a special relationship that added to his significance as an, exemplary prince given the leader to whom The Prince was dedicated., Mattingly oversells the extent to which Machiavelli's other writings expose, conflicting evaluations of Borgia. For example, The Legations, written during, the four month period in late 1502 and early 1503 during which Machiavelli, served as Florentine envoy to Borgia, extol Duke Valentine's greatness, resoluteness, prudence, courage, confidence and strength (Leg. 11.27; 1 1.40; 11.82;, 11.95). Only at and after the duke makes his critical mistake-allowing the election of longtime Borgia foe, Pope Julius 11--does Machiavelli point out Borgia's, errors. Machiavelli and numerous others foresaw that Pope Julius would be, unlikely to keep his promises to Borgia and shortly thereafter the short, thrilling

Page 109 :
86, , Chapter Three, , ride of Duke Valentino would spiral disastrously downward (Leg. 13.18; 13.22;, 13.26; 13.30; 13.35; 13.57). The Legations do underscore the conclusion that, readers should not take literally Machiavelli's observation that "Duke Valentino,, [is a man] whose deeds I should imitate on all occasions were I a new prince", (Ltr. 247: 1/31/15). Surely this remark is sarcastic or exaggerated. Borgia did, not fall fiom power only because his father died and he himself became ill. Cesare played the gabbiano when he allowed himself to be sweet talked by Julius, 11. Not only did Machiavelli not approve of that deed, he foresaw its calamitous, result. Nevertheless, given the available choices, that in numerous, critical respects no "better model [for a new prince] to imitate than Cesare Borgia" existed, remained reasonable (P 7)., Also, Machiavelli reiterated the princely qualities he cherished in his Life of, Castruccio Castracani. The point of this work was not to present an unbiased,, historically accurate account of Castracani, but to compose a fantasy-an early, version of a comic book featuring a superherHhat correlated with Machiavelli's desiderata for military and political virtir. Machiavelli's Castracani is a, perfected Cesare Borgia. Yet the Life of Castruccio Castracani is not considered, a satire., Those who argue that Machiavelli was trying to teach the multitude about, the evil ways of Renaissance politicians face yet another major roadblock. Machiavelli could have no expectation at the time that he wrote that The Prince, would be favored with mass distribution. Unlike today when advance literary, publicity lures brisk hardcover sales followed by paperback editions and movie, rights, Machiavelli's work received little or no immediate attention. The Prince, was not even published until after Machiavelli had died. As one commenter observed:, If Machiavelli was not sincere when he wrote [The Prince], I should lose all, faith in the sincerity of any writer. And a man does not write deliberate camouflage to blind the eyes of osterity when he does not know that what he writes, will ever meet those eyes.4, Moreover, on the day in 1516 that Machiavelli offered The Prince at the, Medici palace in Florence, Lorenzo was also given a gift of several hunting, dogs. More fascinated by the hounds than Machiavelli's prose, Lorenzo never, read The ~ r i n c e . ~If' the intended recipient and the person to whom the work, was dedicated ignored it, any hope that The Prince would reach a mass contemporary audience would have been delusional., That the stirring final chapter of The Prince chronicles Machiavelli's selfmockery and his taunting of the Medici's impotence is one of several possible, renderings, and far from the most convincing. The passion for liberating Italy, &om foreign invaders is abiding in Machiavelli. Indeed, Dante and Petrarch prefigured Machiavelli's rabid patriotism. True, at the time he wrote, the practical, possibilities of that dream being realized were slim to none, and slim was terminally ill. Machiavelli knew this. Still, political agenda are often underwritten by

Page 110 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 87, , lofty ideals and grand designs. The Machiavellian prince is not, contrary to, widespread opinion, obsessed only with securing personal power. Glory cannot, be attained by such tyranny (P 8). Aspiring princes must have purposes more, majestic than enslaving their people. Certainly, the creation of an expansionist, principality or republic, one capable of regenerating the moral and civic virtir of, citizens, depends on expunging Italy of foreign control. Even if that end was, fanciful at the time Machiavelli wrote, it remained part of his long-range vision., More fundamentally, Machiavelli was not repulsed by princely rule. He, consistently argues that the military and political virtir of one man is required to, found or reform a city; he writes admiringly of numerous harsh measures such a, man must undertake; and he explicitly concludes that not all cities or regions are, prepared for republican rule, some embody the prerequisites suited only for, principalities (P 7; D I 9; D I 17; D I 18; D I11 1; D I 55). To argue that The, Prince is a satire assumes that Machiavelli advocates only republican governments and that he unequivocally opposed monarchies. His other writings do not, support that argument., Finally, Garrett Mattingly himself came to reject the view that The Prince, was a satire. Apparently ignoring his own contribution to that interpretation,, Mattingly indicted eighteenth-century theorists for expounding the view:, The proposal that The Prince was conceived as a satire is the kind of anachronism which only the eighteenth century could have perpetrated. Machiavelli, knew perfectly well that satires were compositions in verse . . . He would have, failed completely to understand the proposition that The Prince was a satire.42, In sum, The Prince-as-satire interpretation underplays Machiavelli's practical intention to affect the political world and overplays his inclinations to play, the jester., , The Prince Is a Subversive Work, A variant of The Prince-as-satire interpretation is a reading that takes Machiavelli to have subversive intentions: to use the Medici by setting them up to fail, after advancing Machiavelli's own purposes. What could be more Machiavellian! For example, The Prince itself demonstrates why princely failure, not success, is the certain outcome. Machiavelli insists that human beings act fiom, habit and their fixed characters. At times, when Fortuna allows, temporary success is attainable. Butfortuna is not fixed and circumstances will arise where the, inflexibility of human beings must signal their downfall (P 25). Machiavelli's, well known call to adaptability and shifting with the times is undermined by his, fm conviction that our actions flow from our immutable characters and fixed, dispositions. If true then The Prince is, at best, a chronicle of transitory glory., We all must fail in the end. Accordingly, we cannot take seriously the mainstream perception that The Prince is a manual on princely s u c ~ e s s ? ~

Page 111 :
88, , Chapter Three, , Moreover, Machiavelli presents virtir as an animating force in his depiction, of military and political success. Yet, he applies the notion of virtir so haphazardly that it is worthless as a conceptual tool. For example, Machiavelli exalts, Borgia as a man of virtir, but takes Agathocles of Sicily to task for actions that, are indistinguishable (P 7; P 8). If one of his two main engines for glory is, flawed at its core, how can The Prince be taken seriously as a handbook on govem~nent?~~, Also, Machiavelli's other animating concept is also problematic. Machiavelli vacillates between seeing Fortuna as a controlling force that mocks human, aspirations and efforts, and insisting that some human beings-those embodying, virtir-have the capabilities of managing Fortuna effectively (P 7; P 13; P 25)., The fkagility of Machiavelli's most cherished conceptual linchpins-virtir and, F o r t u n e i s taken not just as a malady of logic but as revealing a cryptic message: The Medici must fail but Machiavelli can gain., In that same vein, Machiavelli advances a bleak picture of human nature in, The Prince, insisting, among other things, that men are untrustworthy. But he, then argues that what a successful prince needs most is a trusted consigliere (P, 22; P 23). How can this be squared? Can a prince truly rely on clever, independent advisers bent on advancing their own interests? The prince may control the, powers of the lion, but intimate advisers make the prince vulnerable to the conniving~of the fox. The only consistent thread in The Prince is Machiavelli's, dogged commitment to using for his own ends those to whom he offers his services ostensibly as a mere instrument. Machiavelli is a robust Machiavellian, after all!, In that vein, Stephen M. Fallon writes:, Machiavelli places himself in a position to outfox the master he ostensibly, serves. His aims in The Prince are threefold: to gain employment, to lure his, employer into the untenable position of the prince in the text, and to promote, Florentine expansion.4s, , Machiavelli offers success to the prince who follows his advice, yet the, conclusions of his arguments implicitly demonstrate that failure must result. In, the early part of the work, careful readers detect three paramount obstacles the, Medici must confkont: they are new princes; they rule a former republic; and, they attained power through foreign armies and fortuna (P 3; P 6). But like all, gabbiani (gulls), the Medici, Machiavelli suspects, will believe only what comforts them. The tacit message-the stone cold truth-will fly by their trusting, eyes., This interpretation tends to take a kernel of legitimate criticism and explode, it into a series of motivations that far outstrip the evidence. For example, while it, is true for Machiavelli that no man can always succeed and healthy governments, do not endure forever (P 25; D I11 9), it does not follow that The Prince is not a, manual for the only success available to princes or human beings in general., Machiavelli said similar things about the need for flexibility in facing fortuna,

Page 112 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 89, , the fixed characters of human beings that resist change, and the transitory power, of even the grandest nations in The Discourses (D 111 9; D I1 pref.; D I 11). Does, it follow that The Discourses is not a manual for republican success, but, instead, a ruse to bring down popular government? The problem arises from setting too high a bar for success. For Machiavelli, the world is the context for a, zero-sum contest that no individual or nation can win perpetually. Indeed, even, great gains-more power, more wealth, further territorial expansion-sow the, seeds of eventual defeat as peace, idleness, fewer external threats, and less vigorous enemies cultivate softness. Machiavelli's measure of success is the grandeur of a relatively enduring expansionist government, best illustrated in the, Roman republic., Machiavelli is keenly aware of human limitation: no person is best suited, for all situations; no nation will reign supremely forever; Fortuna will act recurrently to upset the most careful human plans. More tellingly, Machiavelli embraces a tragic view of life: Human beings are born to suffer and die; our deepest yearnings for personal immortality, connection to enduring value, and the, revelation of a rational, just cosmos are most likely futile; all things must pass., Yet within that context lie prospects for the most worthwhile quest open to us:, the pursuit of relatively enduring glory forged on military and political battlegrounds where excellence of the human spirit may be rewarded., The interpretation at issue does not offer a reason why Machiavelli would, allegedly leave unnecessary cryptic messages in The Prince. If his intention was, to eviscerate the power of the Medici why not simply include all and only prescriptions that would promote that end? Why include conflicting advice that, allegedly illustrates the ineffectiveness of those prescriptions? Was Machiavelli, leaving clues for only the most discerning readers? Was he trying to ensure that, historians and political theorists did not blame him for not knowing the political, score once the Medici took the advice of his manual and suffered a resounding, collapse? Any such speculation makes a groundless leap of faith given the fact, that the work was not even published during Machiavelli's lifetime., The malleability of Machiavelli's twin conceptual foundations-virtir and, Fortuna-is also overstated. Several of the puzzles and apparent conflicts dissolve once we understand the differences between military virtir, political virtir,, political and military virtir, moral virtir, and civic virtir. Likewise, recognizing, the difference between Fortuna, as a personified force meddling in human activities, andfortuna, as a set of circumstances partially constituting the context, of human choices and actions, softens misunderstanding of Machiavelli's texts., In the case offered, Agathocles is taken to be a tyrant acting only fiom pursuit of, personal power; he is bent on enslaving a once-free people. Machiavelli consistently denigrates tyrants and tyranny (P 8; D I 10; D I 17: D I 33; D I1 2). Borgia, is believed by Machiavelli to be the best contemporary example of a prince able, to loosen the grip of external domination and expand territory through a combination of good fortune and considerable military skill. Machiavelli takes him, at, least at times, as one able to begin the process of reforming a corrupt state,, whereas Agathocles is seen as one determined to establish and amplify the bo-

Page 113 :
90, , Chapter Three, , nds of subjugation. Whether Machiavelli was correct in those assessments is, contestable. That he made the relevant distinctions is clearer., Machiavelli's musings on fortune are extensive and varied (P 7; P 13; P 25;, D I1 29; D I1 30; D I11 9; D 111 31: D 111 37). What emerges is a view that Fortuna will eventually defeat the greatest of men and nations because her vicissitudes are too numerous and complex. Human beings have fixed dispositions and, characters that permit some flexibility to adapt to fortuna, but not enough to, hold Fortuna at bay forever. However, leaders graced with practical wisdom,, another type of virtir, have the power to forestall Fortuna's triumph by acting, boldly when fortuna favors them, hunkering down when fortuna opposes them,, and seizing the moment when fortuna is neutral. Fortuna will eventually win as, great leaders are effective only at certain times and within particular contexts, due to their temperament. But the greatest leaders have some flexibility and are, able to pursue the needs of their times. Fortuna is not omnipotent. Within her, caprices are opportunities to earn the enduring glory that characterizes the noblest among us., Machiavelli's views on the general untrustworthiness of people and the, need for a prince to indentify trustworthy advisors are also explained. How are, trust, loyalty, and political allegiance acquired? Such jewels are won by demonstrating to advisors that their interests are tied inextricably to the well-being of, the prince. No advisor is antecedently trustworthy. Advisors, as do all human, beings, will be inclined to pursue their own interests. But by properly rewarding, ministers for their fine work, by discouraging toadies and yes-men, and by nurturing an identification of the minister's interests with those of the prince, good, advisors will become trustworthy because it is in their interests to do so (P 22; P, 23). Granted, this picture of human nature is not especially cheery, but it is quite, consistent with Machiavelli's general depiction of human motivation., Another daunting problem for those who argue that The Prince is merely a, satire or an exercise in political subversion is the number of references to The, Prince that are included in Machiavelli's other writings. Such references are, invariably serious and do not easily coalesce with the view that The Prince is a, satirical or subversive anomaly (D I11 19; D 111 42; possibly D I11 31; Ltr. 224:, 12/10/13; Ltr. 247: 1/31/15)., The Prince-as-political-subversion interpretation, though, has an even more, cutting version. Mary Dietz argues that Machiavelli intended to undermine the, Medici by rendering advice that, if followed, would dissolve their power and, hasten the restoration of the Florentine republic.46 The Prince exemplifies the, deception that it advises. It appears to embolden a prince with methods and manners for success, but if followed the prescriptions of The Prince accelerate the, prince's demise. The work is political action, not political theory., Dietz points out that Machiavelli advises the prince of a formerly-free city, to take up residence inside the city's walls. Yet he also warns that former republics are replete with vengeful citizens yearning to be fiee. Do not such lovers of, fieedom jeopardize the well-being of a prince living among them?47

Page 114 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 91, , Machiavelli also advises the prince to arm his subjects or refrain from disarming them (P 20). But would not an armed citizenry increase the possibility of, revolutionary plots against the prince? Would not a civilian militia be more, likely to destroy the man who has transformed a republic into a principality?, Machiavelli insists that only princes who fear their own citizens should, build fortresses; those who fear foreign invasion more than internal rebellion, should not build fortresses (P 20). As Machiavelli otherwise demeans the political savvy of princes who fear their own people and cautions against trusting, foreign nations the clear conclusion is that wise, powerful princes should not, construct fortresses. But Dietz points out that a fortress symbolized the end of, popular govenunent and the emergence of an elite power structure. Moreover, in, the Renaissance context fortresses were thought to be crucial to defend against, outside aggression. Machiavelli continues to offer the Medici advice that will, energize republican aspirations and accelerate the overthrow of the prince.48, Machiavelli warns princes to avoid generosity, which he associates with, lavish, ostentatious displays and expenditures. He argues that wasting resources, will compel the prince to tax the people mercilessly and to be obsessed with, maximizing revenues to offset his extravagance. Eventually, such a prince, who, began with the intention of being thought generous, will gain a reputation as a, miser and be hated by the masses (P 16). The power of a prince who is hated is,, of course, muted and fragile (P 17). Dietz points out that this advice ignores how, the original Lorenzo de'Medici, the Magnificent, had lured the support of the, masses through his well-founded reputation for g e n e r ~ s i t y .Moreover,, ~~, Machiavelli recognized that fact in another of his works (FH VIII 8). Surely, his, advice in The Prince has a concealed intention: to urge the Magnificent's grandson to tighten the purse strings, gain an immediate reputation as a tightwad, and, simmer the hatred of the people to his own detriment., Dietz also hammers competing interpretations of The Prince. One of the, most influential, sketched above, views The Prince as the first phase in a series, of political events that will eventually pave the way for republican rule. The, heroic politics of The Prince is required to facilitate the mass politics of republicanism detailed in The ~ i s c o u r s e sBut, . ~ ~why would a prince who had amassed, such power divest himself! Is not the history of executive rule quite the contrary? Does not power whet the appetite for more, not the patriotic impulse for, less? Or at the death of the prince how is mass politics likely to emerge? By, undermining this common view of the relationship of Machiavelli's two more, famous books, Dietz hopes to increase the plausibility of her own reading of The, Prince., Also, Dietz notes that Machiavelli's scheme to gain employment under the, Medici is reminiscent of his laudatory depiction of Junius Brutus in The Discourses ( D I11 2). Lacking arms, sufficient confederates, and a powerful position, to wage an open war against the kings of Rome, Brutus disingenuously ingratiated himself with those in power. Machiavelli offers Brutus as an exemplar for, those, who otherwise lack resources for effective rebellion, but are frustrated

Page 115 :
92, , Chapter Three, , with their present ruler. Is this not the tack that Machiavelli was taking in writing The Prince?, Machiavelli's strategy . . . [is] to promise greatness to the Medici lord and thus, render him susceptible to the hrther flatteries that will, in fact, undo him. Nowhere in The Prince is . . . the strategy as evident as in the famous chapter 26, . . . we might read Machiavelli's final call to action as the "bait" . . . [Lorenzo, will become] the dupe of his own grandiose expectations of earthly power and, political immortality.", In sum, Dietz's main target is the herd of contemporary gabbiani who take, Machiavelli at his surface level, those who interpret him in The Prince as rendering his best advice on how a ruler with absolute power can reform a corrupt, state and cast the foundation for an expansionist republic. Such readers defang, Machiavelli by making him less Machiavellian and more congenial to modem, methods. Unfortunately, in Dietz's view, this interpretation denies in Machiavelli the guile of the fox and, lacking that quality itself, stumbles into the trap, the Florentine set for the Medici., Dietz's understanding of the text is uncommonly interesting but the evidence for her conclusion is also frighteningly thin. For example, Machiavelli, does offer a new prince who acquires territory that had previously lived under its, own laws three alternatives in The Prince: destroy the conquered city; live there, in person; or let the city continue under its own laws, pay tribute, while the new, prince establishes an administrative elite that will be loyal to him (P 5). The first, two are the best choices. Here "destroying the conquered city" translates to restructuring the government and scattering the original inhabitants. The residents, of a former republic do not easily cast aside their allegiance to liberty, will wait, for a crisis, and move to restore their freedom. Thus, destroying the conquered, city is often wise. Elsewhere, and under somewhat different circumstances, Machiavelli advises a new prince to live within a newly conquered city (P 3; P 6)., So the Medici have two real choices-destroy Florence or live there. The probability that Lorenzo will destroy Florence is nil, so, for all practical purposes,, Machiavelli is advising Lorenzo to live within the city. Dietz takes this as dangerous, citing Machiavelli's own words (P 5). Surely, she argues, Machiavelli is, setting Lorenzo up for a fall., But Machiavelli offers similar advice in The Discourses about a prince living among the masses (D I 10; D I 16). Moreover, he often denies that the Florentines are a liberty-loving people whose memories burn with a desire for republican rule (FH VIII 8; D 1 2; D I 38; D I 49). If the prerequisites of Machiavelli's, alleged scheme to destroy the Medici from within include a freedom-loving, people who formerly lived under strong republican rule then the prospects of, success, known to Machiavelli as evidenced in his other writings, were dim., Also, the Medici were well known in Florence and had thrived during various, earlier periods. Their choice to live within the city, strive to win the favor of the, people, and nurture new allegiances would not be a radical move.52

Page 116 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 93, , Machiavelli consistently advises political leaders to cultivate the good will, of the people as opposed to currying favor with nobles (P 7; P 9; D I 16; D I 40;, D I 58). Dietz takes this advice to be duplicitous. Yet this conclusion is difficult, to applaud when Machiavelli's prescriptions in The Prince are echoed in his, other writings. Are these writings, also, attempts at subterfuge? Granted, Machiavelli's voluminous writings are not always consistent, but where they do, converge insisting that duplicity is present is a tough sell. What might underwrite the charge? What reference might establish the "truth?Machiavelli's, guidance is often contestable and, at times, wildly off the mark. But poor advice, is not automatically fraudulent., His ruminations on constructing fortresses are extensive and meandering., Dietz takes the words in The Prince, counseling the Medici to avoid fortresses, and rely on the good will of the people, as clear evidence of Machiavelli's, scheme to destroy the new rulers. In that chapter, however, Machiavelli points, out that "it is impossible to pass definitive judgment on any of these policies, [including those on fortresses] until one considers the particular circumstances, that existed in the state where the policy was adopted" (P 20). He also approves, of building fortresses as defenses against internal rebellion and external attack,, as was done by the Romans. Yet he cites examples of rulers who destroyed all, the fortresses in their newly-conquered territory: "We must conclude that fortresses are useful or not, depending on circumstances, and that, if they are useful, at one time, they may also do you harm at another. . . . I would praise both those, who build fortresses and those who do not" (P 20). Such counsel is as illuminating as pointing out that it may or may nor rain tomorrow depending on atmospheric conditions. One principle that emerges is that rulers more afraid of their, subjects than of external threat should build fortresses and rulers more fearful of, foreign powers should not construct fortresses. The only definitive advice rendered is a reiteration that rulers are in huge trouble if their subjects hate them:, the good will of the multitude is more important to a ruler's security than the, safety provided by fortresses., Strikingly, Machiavelli provides similar, but more defrnitive advice on fortresses in The Discourses (D I1 24). True, Machiavelli is at times clearer that, constructing fortresses is especially detrimental to a republic (Ltr. 3 12: 6/2/26),, and popular opinion did identify fortresses with autocratic government. But, given the ambiguity on this subject in The Prince and the more definitive discussion in The Discourses, to conclude that Machiavelli is diabolically setting, the Medici up is rash. Even if one decides that his advice is unwise it does not, follow that it is duplicitous, especially in light of the twists and turns in his, thinking on this subject., Dietz scores points with her argument on the difficulty of the transition, from principality to republic and the hurdle advocates of The Prince-as-anationalistic-call-to-arms interpretation must clear. I have discussed the matter, above and will only summarize here. Machiavelli assumes, perhaps naively, that, a prince is most concerned with his own glory, his legacy, his place in history., The highest glory resides in founding, preserving, or reforming a relatively en-

Page 117 :
94, , Chapter Three, , during expansionist state. Republics are more likely to endure and expand than, principalities. To lay the groundwork for the transition from principality to republic is in the interest of the prince whose vision involves a piece of imrnortality. Perhaps Machiavelli is projecting his own yearning for immortality and enduring glory on the prince. In an event, though, he understands the prince as, being moved by events that will transpire only after his death. Machiavelli's, preoccupation with enduring glory fuels his labors. For better or worse, he takes, that prize to be the highest worldly laurel. Whether Machiavelli is correct in that, assessment is deeply contestable; whether he is correct about the motivational, power of the quest for enduring glory is far from clear; that he is sincere in celebrating the quest for enduring glory is indisputable., On the topic of princely generosity, Machiavelli admits that those on their, way to becoming rulers should gain a reputation for generosity. He cites Julius, Caesar as a successful practitioner of that strategy. He also lauds Caesar and, Alexander for being generous with the spoils of war (P 16). As Dietz points out,, Machiavelli advises those who have acquired power that they cannot afford to, squander their own or their subjects resources. This strikes me as sound fiscal, management, not evidence of a nefarious scheme to undermine a new prince., That the original Lorenzo de'Medici, the Magnificent, gained through his reputation for generosity may have been a function of the longstanding ability of the, Medici to control banking in Florence and the fact that their rule was grounded, on economic preeminence. Without such disproportionate material stature, his, political power may well have faded. Moreover, after the Pazzi conspiracy and, the treacheries of Pope Sixtus IV, the final decade of the Magnificent's reign, featured economic austerity. Lorenzo had depleted the Medici financial empire, with his earlier generosity and in his later years raided the state treasury for his, own purposes. Perhaps Machiavelli learned a lesson. In any event, Machiavelli's, musings on princely generosity do not seem revolutionary enough to carry the, weight of Dietz's conclusions about The Prince., Dietz also takes Machiavelli to task for advocating an armed citizenry. New, rulers should not disarm subjects; if they find their subjects unarmed they should, arm them; and they should raise their own armies (P 20). An armed citizenry,, Dietz observes, is more likely to rebel and unseat the prince. Machiavelli's advice on this matter, however, is consistent throughout his writings (P 12; P 13; P, 14; D I 21; D I 43; D I1 20; D I1 30; AW 1 14-20; AW 7 207-210). An armed, citizenry is required to compete effectively in the zero-sum contest of international politics and military affairs. Mercenary and auxiliary troops are unreliable, and ultimately feckless. In principle, an armed citizenry is more dangerous to a, prince: increased possibilities for conspiracies, rebellions, and lower-level chanceries arise. But an armed citizenry is indispensable for security against external, aggression and to satisfy the hunger for territorial expansion. On this Machiavelli could not be clearer., A distinction, though, between having a "private army" or "national troops", and training a "civilian militia" is rele~ant.'~Some of Machiavelli's passages, and examples are better understood as supporting a private army or national

Page 118 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 95, , troops, rather than a civilian militia. But others (D I 21; D I1 30; AW I 14-20), may be read in terms of raising a civilian militia. Moreover, that Machiavelli, favored a civilian militia is clear from his own life. In 1507, Machiavelli was, appointed secretary of war. He raised a civilian militia. Atler a victory at Pisa in, 1509, thr.t militia failed dismally at Prato during the Holy League's artillery assault in 15 12., [Machiavelli was convinced that] the armed citizenry would be a very definite, obstacle in the path of anyone who contemplated seizing power. Second, a militia would always . . . serve as the fundamental instrument of civic education, a, means of instilling a people with respect for authority and a sense of common, purpose. Third, a militia would be less costly to a state than a standing army.54, All this, of course, can be spun in different directions by propagandists for, their own agenda. Supporters of Dietz may insist that the failure of Machiavelli's experiment showed him that civilian militia were not successful and, besides, they were a hallmark of republican, not monarchial, regimes. Thus, his, advice in The Prince sets up the Medici for a fall should they swallow his counsel. Critics of Dietz will maintain that Machiavelli was committed, for better or, worse, to civilian militia and his advice in The Prince is sincere, even if many, think it misguided. Also, the civilian militia that spit the bit at Prato was not, Machiavelli's ideal unit. The militia was composed of disenfranchised peasants:, "The militia was composed of noncitizens, the Florentine subjects of the rural, cantado, not of the citizens with a patriotic devotion to their country as prescribed by Machiavelli in The Art of ~ a r . " 'Despite, ~, the pitiful defeat at Prato,, Machiavelli never lost faith in the value of a civilian militia (AW I 30). Does, this issue, then, amount to strong evidence that Machiavelli was trying to slide, the Medici through the grease?, Even if Machiavelli could dupe the Medici through the allegedly disingenuous advice in The Prince, even if he could lay the foundation for a return of the, republic, how would that serve his grand design? The Florentine republic was in, place prior to the victory of the Holy League in 1513. How did that work out?, To drive the barbarians out of Italy either much of the peninsula needed to unite, or one region would have to become strong enough to conquer most of the others. Without the Medici connection in Rome, the chances of that region being, Florence were close to zero. The supposed cleverness Dietz believes animates, The Prince could have accomplished exactly what?, After the crisis in Italy and the sack of Rome in 1527, the Medici were,, once again, expelled and a republic was restored in Florence. Machiavelli enthusiastically applied for high government office. But having cozied up to the, Medici, Machiavelli was viewed suspiciously by some of his former republic, cronies. They denied Machiavelli a post. Dietz takes this as delightful irony:, Machiavelli had outfoxed himself. He had tried to fool the Medici into implementing advice that would have led to their ruin and the return of republican, rule. But he ended up fooling only his republican friends into believing that he

Page 119 :
96, , Chapter Three, , was rendering aid and comfort to the Medici, and when the republic was restored he was shut, A critic of Dietz interpretation, however, would conclude that Machiavelli's republican friends were not fooled at all. They understood The Prince for what it was and were leery of what they took to be, Machiavelli's wavering republican sympathies. They demanded stricter ideological obedience to the republican-party line than Machiavelli thought warranted. Fortuna will subdue us all in the end., Advocates of The Prince-as-subversion interpretation might appeal to a passage in one of Machiavelli's letters to his friend, Francesco Guicciardini: "for, some time now I have never said what I believe or never believed what I said;, and if indeed I do sometimes tell the truth, I hide behind so many lies that it is, hard to find" (Ltr. 270: 5/17/21). Is Machiavelli referring to the beginnings of, his writing the Florentine Histories, a work commissioned by the Medici in, which Machiavelli would have to finesse his considered judgments of the role, the rule of the Medici had played in the degradation of Florence? Is he referring, to his pillow talk while courting women? Is he indicting his past literary work,, including The Prince? Is he referring to his daily discussions with merchants,, friends, workers? Not clear., Advocates might also spin the confirmation in The Discourses of some, principles unveiled in The Prince in their direction. For example, The Discourses is an unabashedly republican work. If the same principles and advice on, crucial matters are in The Prince that appear in The Discourses perhaps that, means that Machiavelli is giving advice effective in republican government to a, leader of a principality. Would not implementing republican guidelines in a, principality lead to ruin for the prince? Accordingly, that Machiavelli's advice in, The Prince is consistent in critical areas with that given in The Discourses, counts infavor of The Prince-as-subversion interpretation!, The problem of this strategic move should be obvious. Some political principles, perhaps most, might well be effective in both republics and principalities., That Machiavelli offers consistent counsel on a host of military and political, matters in The Discourses, The Prince, and his other historical and military work, cannot automatically stain the sincerity of his advice in The Prince unless someone begs the main interpretive questions. This is especially the case because, much of The Prince derives from two of Machiavelli's letters to Vettori (Ltr., 219: 8110113; Ltr. 222: 8/26/13; also Ltr. ,121: 9113-21106)., In sum, unless one insists that The Discourses (and, perhaps, The Art of, War) is also a fraudulent, deceptive work, where Machiavelli's position on a, subject is consistent, strong evidence emerges that his advice in The Prince is, not duplicitous. Whether such counsel is wise, effective, appropriate, and the, like are separate questions. The Prince-as-political-subversion interpretation is a, delicious offering because it claims that The Prince exemplifies the precise principles it expounds. The interpretation encourages us to play the sleuth, find more, clues to Machiavelli's scheme, and unmask the alleged deep structure of his, vision. Best of all, the interpretation encourages a reader to luxuriate in the selfimage of a volpe, not wallow in the simplicity of a gabbiano. Unfortunately,

Page 120 :
Methods, Motivations, and Purposes: The Prince, , 97, , advocates o f this interpretation derive broad, rash conclusions from skimpy,, ambiguous textual and historical evidence. While I have not disproved their thesis, in the strict logical sense o f that term, they must advance much more to erect, a persuasive case., , Notes, 1. Jacques Maritain, "The End of Machiavellianism," The Review of Politics 4, (1942): 13,31., 2. See, for example, Frederick the Great, "Should a Prince Keep the Faith?" in Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot or Political Scientist?, ed. De Lamar Jensen (Lexington, MA: D., C. Heath and Company, 1960), 5-8., 3. Harvey C. Mansfield, Machiavelli's Virtue (Chicago: University of Chicago, Press, 1996), 264., 4. Ibid., 176., 5. Ibid., x., 6. See, for example, Anthony J. Parel, The Machiavellian Cosmos (New Haven, CT:, Yale University Press, 1992)., 7. Laurence Arthur Burd, introduction to Niccolb Machiavelli, I1 Principe, ed. Laurence Arthur Burd (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1891), 14., 8. Ibid., 24., 9. Ibid., 25., 10. Ibid., 28., 11. Ernst Cassier, The Myth of the State (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor,, 1955), 191, 194., 12. Leonardo Olschki, Machiavelli the Scientist (Berkeley, CA: The Gillick Press,, 1945), 32., 13. Norman Wilde, "Machiavelli," Internatio~lJournal ofEthics 38 (1928): 217., 14. Pasquale Villari, The Life and Times ofNiccol6 Machiavelli, trans. Linda Villari, (London: Ernest Benn Ltd., 1929), 516., 15. Franceso De Sanctis, "Long Live Italian Unity: Glory to Machiavelli," in Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot or Political Scientist?, ed. De Lamar Jensen (Lexington, MA: D., C. Heath and Company, 1960), 25-26., 16. Sir Richard Lodge, "Machiavelli's I1 Principe," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 13 (1 930): 8., 17. Benedetto Croce, "The Autonomy and Necessity of Politics," in Machiavelli:, Cynic, Patriot or Political Scientist?, ed. De Lamar Jensen (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, and Company, 1960), 13., 18. Max Lerner, introduction to Niccolb Machiavelli, The Prince and The Discourses, ed. Max Lerner (New York: Random House, 1950), xiv., 19. Giuseppe Prezzolini, "The Christian Roots of Machiavelli's Moral Pessimism,", Review of National Literatures 1 (1970): 28., 20. Isaiah Berlin, Against the Current (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,, 2001), 74-75., 21. Ibid., 4 3 4 4 ., 22. Ibid., 44., 23. Tom Holland, Rubicon (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 5, 108-149., 24. Ibid., 33, 109, 113, 143.

Page 121 :
Chapter Three, 25. Berlin, Against the Current, 7 1., 26. Alberto Moravia, "Portrait of Machiavelli," Partisan Review 22 (1955): 359., 27. Ibid., 362., 28. Guglielmo Ferrero, "Machiavelli and Machiavellism," Foreign Affairs 17, (1939): 575., 29. Moravia, "Portrait," 363., 30. Ibid., 364., 3 1. Ibid., 32. Ibid., 369., 33. Ibid., 370., 34. Ibid., 35. Garrett Mattingly, "Machiavelli's Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?", The American Scholar 27 (1958): 483., 36. Ibid., 486., 37. Ibid., 488., 38. Ibid., 490., 39. See, for example, Rafael Sabatini, The Life of Cesare Borgia (Teddington, U K :, The Echo Library, 2006); Gustavo Sacerdote, Cesare Borgia (Milan, IT: MondadoriMedusa Publishers, 1950; Clemente Fusero, Cesare Borgia (London: Pall Mall Press,, 1972)., 40. Lodge, I1 Principe, 13., 41. Edmond Barincou, Machiavelli (New York: Grove Press, 1961), 76-78., 42. Garrett Mattingly, "Machiavelli," in Renaissance Profiles, edited by J. H. Plumb, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1961), 33., 43. Stephen M. Falion, "Hunting the Fox: Equivocation and Authorial Duplicity in, The Prince," PMLA 107 (1992): 1183., 44. Ibid., 1184., 45. Ibid., 1186., 46. Mary Dietz, "Trapping the Prince: Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception,", The American Political Science Review 80 (1986): 777-799., 47. Ibid., 783., 48. Ibid., 787-788., 49. Ibid., 783-785., 50. Ibid., 780, 5 1. Ibid., 795-796., 52. John Langton and Mary Dietz, "Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or Teaching, The Prince?' The American Political Science Review 81 (1987): 1278-1279., 53. Ibid., 1286., 54. Neal Wood, introduction to Niccolb Machiavelli, The Art of War, ed. and trans., Neal Wood (Cambridge, MA: De Capo Press, 1965), xxvii., 55. Ibid., 56. Dietz, "Trapping the Prince," 796.

Page 122 :
Chapter Four, , Machiavelli's Top Ten, As noted, Machiavelli chose historical events and famous people to illustrate his, military and political lessons. He often examined his selections through distorted, lenses. The following top ten and bottom ten lists are not intended as scientific, conclusions about whom Machiavelli esteemed or disparaged most. Instead, the, lists are rough rankings that discuss figures or movements that Machiavelli used, to underscore his most cherished political and military principles.', , Top Ten, 1. Romulus (ca. 770 BC-ca. 716 BC), The legend of the founding of Rome centers on the nearby city of Alba, Longa, where Aeneas had settled much earlier after fleeing from Troy. Rhea, Silvia, a vestal virgin of Alba Longa, became pregnant. She claimed that her, suitor was the god Mars. Seduction by a god was one of the few available defenses against a sacrilege punishable by death. Rhea skirted capital punishment, and bore twin boys. The twins were seized by the king's men and dumped into, the Tiber River. Happily, the twins were tossed up on a river bank and nurtured, by a she-wolf until they were discovered and adopted by a shepherd, Faustulus., The twins, Romulus and Remus, grew up among shepherds and other coarse, men. After allegations that Remus had stolen cattle, he was taken before a magistrate, a former king, in Alba Longa. Romulus rounded up enough men to, march on the city and rescue Remus. The magistrate took the opportunity to, regain the throne. Romulus and Remus decided to found their own city., Romulus and Remus quarreled over which was the best hill upon which to, build. Romulus killed Remus when Remus disdainfully leapt over Romulus's, walls on the Palatine hill. As the first king of Rome, Romulus gained a reputation as a great warrior. Machiavelli honors Romulus for being an armed founder, of a city (P 6); for establishing strong laws that were the preconditions for security, order, and civic virrir (D I 1); and for killing Remus and, later, Titus Tatius,, a Sabine who had been elected to share office with Romulus (D I 9). Machiavelli insists that the founding of a republic or principality requires one person in, charge. While those who resort to violence and cruelty to destroy a thriving city, merit guilt, those who do so to found or reform a city are excused: "A wise man, will never criticize someone for an extralegal action undertaken to organize a, kingdom or establish a republic. He will agree that if his deed accuses him, its, consequences excuse him" (D I 9).

Page 123 :
100, , Chapter Four, , According to Machiavelli, Romulus should be judged favorably by history., He acted in accord with the common good, not from self-aggrandizement. After, all, he soon established an effective senate with extensive influence. Romulus, retained only the power to command the military once war was declared and the, authority to summon the senate. In this manner, the original institutions of Rome, were more in line with constitutional and participatory politics, not tyrannical, absolutism (D I 9). In sum, Machiavelli concludes that Romulus should be forgiven, not blamed, for slaying Remus and Titus Tatius. Establishing the constitution of a republic requires one man of excellence acting for the common good., To what degree the rich narrative of Romulus, Remus, and the founding of, Rome is legend and to what degree, if any, it is fact remains a matter of dispute.2, This debate, though, should not directly concern students of Machiavelli. Nor, should we quibble over the details of Machiavelli's historical rendering of, Romulus. Was he truly motivated by the common good? Did Romulus really, divest his power and welcome the authority of a senate? Did he not, according to, legend, become increasing arrogant and arbitrary? Was he not assassinated by, some senators because he abused his power?, Machiavelli focuses only on Romulus as founder. That Romulus had to kill, his own brother and an elected officer adds to his luster from a Machiavellian, perspective. Romulus demonstrated that he was willing to bloody his nose and, dirty his hands in the face of necessity. The laws and strong military he introduced demonstrate the prerequisites for security, order, and civic virtic that define a healthy, expansionist republic. That he acted from a vision of the common, good-at least in Machiavelli's telling-highlights his deserved claim to glory, and immortality., , 2. Moses (ca. 1392 BC-ca. 1272 BC), Born during the Jewish enslavement in Egypt, Moses was subject to the, pharaoh's decree that all male Hebrew children be killed at birth by drowning in, the Nile River. Moses's mother hid him for three months, refusing to deliver, him to be killed. Instead, she set him adrift on the Nile in a small, primitive, craft. The pharaoh's daughter, hearing the crying child floating on the river, had, one of her maids fetch Moses. Moses's sister, Miriam, observed all this and, asked the pharaoh's daughter if she wanted to employ a Hebrew woman to nurse, Moses. The pharaoh's daughter agreed and, unknowingly, hired Moses's mother, as the nurturer. As Moses grew, he was brought to the pharaoh's daughter and, was raised as her son (Exodus 2: 1-10)., Moses grew up, then, under privileged, secure conditions. One day, stunned, at seeing an Egyptian pummeling a Jewish slave, he killed the Egyptian and, buried him in the sand. The next day, he intervened in a dispute between two, Hebrews and discovered that at least one of them knew that Moses had slain the, Egyptian. Aware that he would be in danger for having killed an Egyptian carrying out the commands of the pharaoh, Moses fled to Midian (Exodus 2: 11-15)., Immediately, Moses found more trouble. The seven daughters of Reuel, a

Page 124 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 101, , Midian priest, were drawing water for their father's flock of sheep when shepherds drove them away. Moses defended the girls and helped water their flock., The grateful Reuel adopted Moses as a son, gave him one of his daughters, Zipporah, in marriage, and appointed him overseer of his sheep (Exodus 2: 16-21;, 3: 1)., After forty years as a shepherd, Moses drove the herd to Mount Horeb,, where he was shocked to see a burning bush that was not destroyed. Having, secured Moses's attention, God identified Himself and commanded Moses and, his brother, Aaron, to travel to Egypt and demand that the pharaoh free the Israelites. Moses reluctantly agreed (Exodus 3: 1-4; 4: 20-3 1)., The pharoah refused Moses's request, ten plagues befell Egypt, after which, the 600,000 Hebrews escaped. A few months later, Moses ascended Mount Sinai, and descended with the Ten Commandments (Exodus 5-18; 19: 20-25). He then, found the Israelites dancing naked, worshipping a golden calf. Moses called for, supporters, the sons of Levi responded, and Moses ordered the murders of 3,000, men (Exodus 32: 19-28)., Machiavelli esteems Moses for being an armed prophet (P 6); for taking an, enslaved people and pointing the way to reformation (P 26); for being a lawgiver with concern for the common good (D I 9); and for understanding that "in, order to have his laws accepted and his proposals adopted, [Moses had] to murder vast numbers of men, men who opposed his plans for no other reason but, envy" (D I11 30). Moses is an exemplar of military and political virtir, an embodiment of the necessity of using violent means to attain worthy ends, underwritten with a divine imprimatur. Although not explicitly recognized in Machiavelli's writings, Moses exhibits other worthy Machiavellian traits. Prior to the, killings of the three thousand, Moses refused God's invitation of starting a new, nation and, after the killings, Moses offered to have himself blotted from the, divine book (Exodus 32: 10-13, 32-33). Moses, then, was a kindred spirit to, Machiavelli: he loved his country more than this own soul. Machiavelli expects, nothing less from great liberators and founders., Moses is confronted by an extreme emergency. His people are enslaved,, their liberation depends on his military and political virti, his concern for, strictly personal glory evaporates, force becomes necessary to maintain unity,, and squeamishness is unwarranted., If you are discussing nothing less than the safety of the homeland, then you, , should pay no attention to what is just or what is unjust, or to what is kind or, cruel, or to what is praiseworthy or shameful. You should put every other consideration aside, and you should adopt wholeheartedly the policy most likely to, save your homeland's life and preserve her liberty (D 111 41)., The killings of the three thousand resonate with familiar Machiavellian, themes: how envy and ambition engender discontent that blossoms into conflicting sects that foster rebellion; the connections between ingratitude, fear, and

Page 125 :
102, , Chapter Four, , hatred; the necessity of employing violence to establish or maintain the common, good (D I 8; D I pref.; D I11 30). While one might argue that Moses, unlike, Romulus, required divine agency to accomplish his mission, that can be tallied, on Moses's behalf: Even the omni-benevolent Judeo-Christian God understands, that violence in the name of patriotism is sometimes recommended. Moreover,, Moses, unlike Romulus, was a religious reformer. The importance for Machiavelli of religion, properly fashioned, in supporting good arms and good laws in, setting the preconditions for security, order, and civic virtic is difficult to overstate., Moses crushed the bonds of slavery and demonstrated that religious commitment could animate heroic deeds. The Florentines of Machiavelli's time were, also enslaved. Lured by economic security, they had squandered their civil liberties and were dominated by foreigners. They, too, needed a redeemer, a Moses, who could wed military and political virtic to resoluteness, unsqueamishness,, and prophetic vision. God would smile on such a man (P 26)., , 3. Cyrus (ca. 590 BC-ca. 530 BC) and Theseus (ca. 1300 BC), I have joined Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian Empire, and Theseus,, legendary slayer of the Minotaur and founder of Athens, into one slot. Although, effusively honored in Machiavelli's work, they appear fewer times than do, Romulus and Moses., Cyrus's political career began in a way that Machiavelli consistently disparaged. He inherited the throne of Anshan when his father died. Hereditary monarchies were systematically weak by Machiavelli's reckoning. But one does not, become known in history as "the Great," by being a loser. Anshan was not an, independent state. Cyrus, as his father before him, was under the tight-fists of, Median overlords. Sensing the resentment of his people, Cyrus called for a revolt against the oppressive Medes. The rebellion lasted about four or five years., The Persian army was successful and conquered the Median Empire around 550, BC. But Cyrus was not finished. Understanding well the Machiavellian principle, of expansion, he conquered most of Southwest Asia and much of Central Asia,, creating the largest empire the world had yet seen. Along the way, the Lydian, Empire, under Croesus, and the Neo-Babylonian Empire, under Nabonidus, fell, to Cyrus's well-organized military machine. By the end of Cyrus's reign, the, Persian Empire enveloped Asia Minor and Judah in the west to the Indus River, in the east., Machiavelli lauds Cyrus for seizing an opportunity and welcoming the, blessings of Fortuna. Cyrus understood that the Persians bristled under the rule, of the Medes and that the Medes were weak and unmanly from extended peace, (P 6; P 26). This recurrent Machiavellian theme vibrates throughout this work:, war and politics are required to exemplify and sharpen virtir, and to resist ozio., An extended peace corrupts military and political virtic and softens the cultural, fabric of society., C y m was also the model for Scipio, according to Machiavelli. Chaste, af-

Page 126 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 103, , fable, kind, and generous, Cyrus was a wise ruler who recognized that peacetime, was not a time to rest aimlessly, but to prepare for upcoming adversity and conflict (P 14; D I11 22). Moreover, Cyrus was generous in the proper way. He ladled out the fruits of his army's plunder, pillage, and expropriations. He spent, the money of his victims, while remaining frugal with his own wealth and that, of his subjects (P 16). In this manner, Cyrus gained a deserved reputation for, generosity without jeopardizing the economic standing of his polity. In sum, his, subjects felt deep personal affection for Cyrus, whose army was filled with loyal, supporters (D I11 22). Although not explicitly noted in Machiavelli's writings,, we can be certain that Cyrus's expansionist zeal resonated warmly within the, Florentine's bosom., The story of Theseus is no less glorious. After proving his royal Athenian, heritage by lifting a heavy rock and removing the sword and shoes that lay beneath, Theseus decided to walk the bandit-infested road from Peloponnesus to, Athens instead of boarding a ship. He confronted a colorful cast of miscreants, along the way, a group rivaled only by the characters currently employed by the, World Wrestling Federation. Periphetes the Club-Bearer, Sinnis the PineBender, Phaea the Sow, Sciron the Megarian Robber, and Cercyon the Wrestler, all challenged Theseus as he strode toward Athens. Theseus slew the fearsome, quintet, forcing each perpetrator to suffer the same torments that their previous, victims had endured., Once he had established his right to royal lineage, Theseus went to Marathon and confronted a ferocious bull that had stalked the locals. He captured the, beast, took him back for display in Athens, then traveled to Delphi where he, sacrificed the bull to the god, Apollo. Soon thereafter, Crete demanded its tribute, due every nine years, from Athens-seven girls and seven boys-which, was reparation for the murder of the eldest son of King Minos of Crete while a, guest of the king of Athens. Allegedly, the fourteen children were placed in a, labyrinth where they were eaten by a frightening Minotaur, a devastating combination of man and bull., Theseus volunteered to be one of the victims. When the ship arrived at, Crete the daughter of the king immediately fell in love with Theseus and gave, him a ball of twine to mark his trail in the labyrinth. After the numerous horrifying foes he had already conquered, Theseus found the Minotaur easy prey. Atler, killing it, Theseus led the Athenian hostages back home., In a twist worthy of Romeo and Juliet, King Aegeus of Athens, erroneously, thinking his son Theseus was dead-because of the color of the sail flying on, the returning boat--committed suicide. Theseus ascended to power. He decided, to gather the scattered Athenians into one city, after settling lingering disputes, among them and convincing them that a stronger central government served, their common interests. Theseus terminated the monarchy and instituted a participatory regime. He made Athens the sole location of the new city-state, effectively relinquishing most of his own political power. To expand the city-state,

Page 127 :
104, , Chapter Four, , Theseus invited foreigners to immigrate and gain the same civil liberties as the, natives., Although eventually meeting an unhappy end, triggered by his capture of, the Queen of the Amazons, which led to further escapades such as the abduction, of Helen of Sparta (later of Troy), Theseus's legend underscores several Machiavellian themes: the need for strong central government; the noble, voluntary, yielding of political power in service to enduring glory and the common good;, and the assimilation of foreigners into an expanding polity., Theseus, too, is praised by Machiavelli for recognizing and seizing opportunity. Theseus demonstrated his strength of purpose by turning the apparent, adversity of the Athenians being scattered abroad into practical advantage (P 6;, P 26; D I 1). Romulus, Moses, Cyrus, and Theseus are Machiavelli's models of, armed founders of states. Possessing great military and political virtic, they recognized Fortuna was favorable to their vision and ambizione, and through, strong arms and sound laws, they set the foundation for secure, well-ordered, states that promoted civic virtir., , 4. Numa Pompilius (ca. 750 BC-ca. 673 BC), After Romulus had died, probably slain by conspiratorial senators, Numa, Pompilius was selected to be the next king of Rome. Numa, contemplative and, philosophical by temperament, was reluctant to accept the post. Rome was an, uncivilized mosaic of Sabines, Romans, runaway slaves, fugitives, and smaller, tribes. Numerous disparate traditions and customs coalesced uneasily. Numa,, although not a warrior by nature, had a shrewd political insight. Rome needed a, common culture to bind it more tightly. That culture would most easily be attained through strong religious rituals and institutions. Numa concluded that, religion could best sustain the laws and customs that Romulus had initiated., Numa Pompilius prefigured the glorious Machiavellian union of strong arms and, strong laws, underwritten by a vital religion that promoted military and political, virtir. Civic virtir, territorial expansion, security, order, and prosperity were, highly likely to follow., Machiavelli gushed over Numa's acute vision that religion was essential for, civilized life. The power of the gods exceeds that of any man or group of men in, compelling citizens to behave. The appeal to divine authority, then and now, is, the ultimate political trump. Numa Pompilius, understanding that his own power, was insufficient to command complete allegiance, claimed to have a special relationship with a nymph who passed him advice from the gods on matters of, governance. The unsophisticated nature of his subjects facilitated Numa's design, (D I 11)., At one point, Machiavelli praises Numa in stronger terms than even Romulus:, Anyone who reads the history of Rome with care will recognize how usehl religion was when it came to commanding armies, to inspiring the populace, to

Page 128 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, keeping men on the straight and narrow, to making criminals ashamed of themselves. So that ifone had to debate to which ruler Rome owed more, to Romulus or to Numa, I rather think that Numa would come infirst ( D I 1 1). (Emphasis added), For Machiavelli, religious worship is required for political greatness. Even, the greatest human ruler leads a finite life. The power of religion endures. The, crucial question is not whether to nurture religion in the polity. The critical question is what kind of religion to foster. The answer, for Machiavelli, is not an, emasculated Christianity, with its eye on a transcendent world that rewards the, meek, humble, and downtrodden. The solution is a robust religion that promotes, the military and political virtic required to establish or invigorate the security,, order, and civic virtic necessary for an expansionist republic. Ave, Numa Pompilius!, , 5. Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (236 BC-183 BC), Scipio was first recognized for his valor at the battle of Ticinus at the outset, of the Second Punic War. Boosted by this renown, he was elected as a military, tribune at a young age. He was part of the Roman disaster at Cannae, but gained, fhther honor for his brave quelling of a mutiny after the defeat. Although underage, he won election as a curule aedile. A cultured warrior, with a fondness, for Greek philosophy, literature, and art, Scipio accepted the military command, of the campaign against the Carthaginians in Spain at a time when no one else, had the moxie to do so. He was only around twenty-five years old and the lowest, political rank eligible for such an imperium was a praetor, whose legal age was, thirty-nine. Scipio's self-confidence, glowing wisdom, and love of country won, the day, however., Scipio waged an enormously successful campaign, showing great skill in, winning allies and appropriate compassion to conquered tribes, eventually, starching the Carthaginians in the Battle of Ilipa. While completing the subjugation of Spain, Scipio fell seriously ill. A mutiny began in the Roman army and a, revolt among some of its Spanish allies. The focus of the rebellion was insufficient pay and lack of support from the Roman government. Scipio recovered and, soothed the uprising., Returning triumphantly to Rome, Scipio was elected consul in 205 BC. His, popularity and string of military victories began to arouse envy, particularly, from Fabius Maximus who had served as (temporary) dictator and crafter of, Rome's strategy of containment against Hannibal in Italy. Scipio presented a, stirring reply, arguing that the time was ripe to take the war to Hannibal's home, turf. The Senate was moved and offered a compromise solution: Scipio would, receive permission to cross into Africa if he judged it advantageous, but he, would receive no troops to add to the garrison stationed in Sicily., Scipio went to work. He amassed volunteers and donations for an attack on

Page 129 :
106, , Chapter Four, , Carthage. When in Sicily, he mitigated past grievances the locals bore against, Rome. With his typical aplomb, tact, and generosity, Scipio attracted Sicilian, allies to his cause. He recaptured Locri, at the toe of Italy, from the Carthaginians. He left an administrator in charge, who zealously plundered and ladled out, atrocities. The Locrians appealed to the Senate. Scipio's political enemies used, the occasion to attack him for facilitating loose, military discipline. A commission was sent to investigate. By this time, Scipio had pacified the Locrians. No, one levied charges against Scipio., The commission traveled to Sicily to examine Scipio's military preparations. Its members were impressed and, upon returning to Rome, they gained the, Senate's approval for Scipio to invade Africa. In Africa, the luster of Scipio's, military skill gained enduring glory. Although consistently outnumbered, he, outmaneuvered the Carthaginians and Hannibal at every turn. After the climatic, Battle of Zama, the victorious Scipio moved toward Carthage. The enemy surrendered. Scipio laid out his terms: Carthage must destroy its naval and elephant, corps; it could no longer wage war outside of Africa; inside Africa, Carthage, could wage war only with permission from Rome; and for fifty years it must pay, annual indemnities to Rome. Scipio returned to Rome in an extended triumphal, parade, adding much wealth and incalculable pride and honor to the republic., Scipio was elected as one of the two consuls, the capstone of a Roman political career. When numerous Romans demanded that Hannibal be processed, through the street of Rome in disgrace, imprisoned, and killed, Scipio spoke out, and resisted. Eventually, though, Hannibal was stalked from Carthage into exile., Scipio entered his second consulship soon thereafter., Scipio's last military campaign was against King Antiochus of Asia Minor,, who had invaded Greece. Scipio's forces eventually prevailed. Scipio's adversaries in the Senate levied accusations against him: embezzling, acting outside, his authority during the Asian campaign, corrupting military discipline, and a, few nebulous background charges such as excessively un-Roman (pro-Greek), behavior. Scipio gave an inspired address that prevented his arrest. But the message was clear: Rome was unsafe for Scipio. He went into voluntary exile at his, villa near Naples, where he died a few years later., Machiavelli commends Scipio for his affability, compassion, generosity,, and equanimity (P 14; D I11 31). He contrasts Scipio's civic-mindedness with, Julius Caesar's overreaching power-mongering (D I 10; D 1 17). As a military, commander, Machiavelli celebrates Scipio's flexibility in devising tactics to fit, the immediate situation and his innovative strategies that used the enemy's, particularly Hannibal's, apparent strengths against him (D 111 9; AW IV 113, 115,, 122; AW VI 171, 172, 193,195)., Three specific incidents cement the glory of Scipio. First, after a great victory in Spain, some of Scipio's Roman soldiers came upon an extraordinarily, beautiful girl. They brought the woman to Scipio and presented her as a gift to, their commander. Scipio, though, learned that the lady was the fiancee of a, Spanish chieftain, Allucius. Showing his own self-restraint and keen diplomatic, insight, Scipio sent for Allucius and reunited him with his betrothed. The

Page 130 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 107, , woman's parents were overjoyed and sent money and gifts to Scipio. The noble, Roman gathered the bounty and presented it to Allucius as a dowry. These acts, of kindness and generosity, uncommon in the ancient world under such circumstances, were reported widely among the Spanish tribes. Allucius, himself, voluntarily joined Scipio's cause with almost 1,500 warriors fiom his tribe (AW VI, 179; D I11 34). Machiavelli remarks, "Of all the methods that can be taken to, gain the hearts of a people, none contribute so much as remarkable examples of, continence and justice . . . [Scipio's action] was a circumstance which was more, conducive to the reduction of Spain than any force of arms could have ever, been" (AW VI 179)., Second, earlier in Scipio's career, before he had reached the age of twentyone, while he was a military tribune, the Carthaginians crushed the Roman war, machine at Cannae. Around 70,000 Romans were killed. Scipio escaped with, about 10,000 others. Most of the survivors, shocked by the magnitude of the, defeat, waited docilely and prepared to surrender. About 4,000, one of whom, was Scipio, left the rehgee camp, evaded Hannibal's patrols, and fled to, Canusium. Still imperiled and less than four miles from the battlefield, the group, appointed Scipio and another man as commanders. But a mutiny was soon, hatched among some young nobles, who were conspiring to flee Italy. The loyalists were stunned by reports of this mutiny and contemplated their response., Scipio simply acted. With sword in hand, he stormed into the heart of the mutineers' assembly and swore an oath to Jupiter that he would never desert his, country or permit any fellow citizen to shirk his duty to Rome. Should he fail to, fulfill his pledge, he called upon the god to strike him and his family down with, a shameful death. Scipio then called upon the others to take the same oath, underscoring the request with a threat: if anyone refused, Scipio would draw his, sword against him. Scipio's ferocity, sincerity, and sheer audacity emboldened, the entire assembly. Everyone rose to take the oath. The Roman Senate followed, Scipio's lead. Rome refused to surrender or even negotiate with the victorious, Hannibal despite its stunning manpower losses at Cannae and the revolt of major, allies in southern Italy (D I 11; D I11 34). For Machiavelli, Scipio showed how, boldness can often seize the moment; how a brave deed that serves the common, good and stands as an example to others can enhance the reputation of a man of, virtu striding down the road to glory. Furthermore, Scipio is another exemplar of, republican valor who loved his country more than his own life, using an appeal, to religion as the ballast for civic virtu., Third, Scipio's earliest military feat, when he was only seventeen, occurred, at the battle of the River Ticinus. Scipio's father was commanding Roman, forces headed for Spain against the Carthaginians at the outbreak of the Second, Punic War. Hannibal's forces outnumbered the elder Scipio's by at least two to, one. The young Scipio, a neophyte in battle, was safely stationed with a bodyguard on a small hill to the rear of the battlefield. The Romans were routed., Scipio's father was wounded and fell from his horse. The remaining Roman

Page 131 :
108, , Chapter Four, , forces retreated. The young Scipio pled with his bodyguards to charge the enemy. Sensing that under the circumstances doing so was not a percentage move,, they demurred. Undeterred, the young Scipio charged into the enemy forces, encircling his father. His bodyguards, shamed by their timidity and animated by, the courage of young Scipio, followed the youth into the battle. The enemy,, awed by the sheer bravado of the deed, lost heart and departed. Young Scipio, had saved his father's life. After the battle, the boy was recommended for the, corona civica, the highest Roman military commendation. Young Scipio refused, remarking that the deed was its own reward (D 111 34)., Machiavelli prizes equanimity in great men and great states. Sustaining resolve, maintaining poise, and retaining dignity are critical to greatness. Fortuna, grinds away, human beings, states are finite, and adversity is never far away. We, should not be overconfident in victory or disconsolate in defeat. Machiavelli, attributes to Scipio, probably erroneously, the adage that: "For the Romans, if, they are beaten in battle, do not lose heart; and, if they win, they do not make a, habit of being overconfident" (D I11 3 1). No surrender, no excuses, no gloating,, no manic depression-The Roman Way!, Scipio, even for Machiavelli, was not perfect. The Florentine notes a minor, rebellion of Scipio's army in Spain against him that was allegedly caused by, Scipio's excessive leniency: "But, because [Scipio's] authority was subordinate, to that of the senate, not only were the consequences of this defect mitigated, but, it even enhanced his reputation" (P 17)., Ingratitude is a threat in every republic. Machiavelli was convinced that, Romans were the least ungrateful of any people who controlled an empire. But, even the Romans expressed ingratitude on one occasion. Because Scipio had, defeated a mighty enemy and his reputation was so impeccable, marked by uncommonly fast success at a young age, and his virtti was so undeniable and apparent, his personal authority roused suspicion. Cato the Elder, who was honored in the late republic as a model of old Roman virtues, but who in fact was an, unscrupulous, petty politician who raged with jealously, led the charge against, Scipio that eventually sent the hero of Zama into voluntary exile. Machiavelli, seems to mitigate the ingratitude of the Romans, by noting that ingratitude in, republics is less severe and frequent than in principalities, and that people who, are ungrateful fiom suspicion "have no choice" (D I 29; D I 58). But in a poem,, "Ingratitude," Machiavelli celebrates Scipio effusively-"But God from heaven, had already sent, A divine man, born in a Roman home, Such as the earth will, never see his like . . . This famous and indomitable hero, Showed to us all the, only way that leads, To the most lofty limit of man's glory . . . Another Scipio, cannot be found . . . And an infinite service full of good, Was met with infmite, ingratit~de."~, Perhaps most of all, Scipio highlights the Machiavellian theme that no single person is the right man for all circumstances. Rome benefited fiom having, Fabius Maximus ("the Delayer") in charge of the military strategy for The Second Punic War when the best tactic was not to lose, to keep Hannibal contained, in Italy, to impede the enemy's progress while gearing up for the grand finale.

Page 132 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 109, , Scipio was the right man, though, to win the war, to take the fight to enemy soil,, to devise successful tactics for glorious victory (D I11 9). We are all limited beings, none of us is capable of adapting to every situation. Fortuna and mortality, will eventually defeat us all., , 6. Cesare Borgia ("Duke Valentino") (1475-1507), Cunning grifter, colorful mountebank, ferocious warrior, charismatic opportunist, ruthless gangster, intellectual strategist, deceptive charlatan, cold-blooded, murderer. . . . Cesare Borgia was all of these and more. He was the illegitimate, son of Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia. During the same year that Columbus sailed for, the new world, the cardinal became Pope Alexander VI. Cesare was immediately the beneficiary of the first of a recurring string of nepotistic acts: he was, named archbishop of Valencia and soon thereafter was anointed as a cardinal. At, first, Cesare was content to enjoy la dolce vita in Rome. But, as Machiavelli, would have fondly predicted, ambizione seethed within Cesare Borgia., [Borgia was] a cold, relentless egotist, using men for his own ends, terrible and, even treacherous in his reprisals, swift as a panther and as cruel where his anger, was aroused, yet with certain elements of greatness: a splendid soldier, an unrivalled administrator, a man pre-eminently just, if merciless in that same justice, . . . boundless in audacity, most swift to determine and to act, not impulsive., Cold reason, foresight, and calculation were the ministers of his indomitable, wi1L4, The ecclesiastical life, although brimming with benefits and security, was, too domesticated. He cast large green eyes upon the political position of his, older brother Giovanni, Duke of Gandia, who was the main architect of Pope, Alexander VI's political stratagems. The Duke of Gandia was murdered. Insiders attributed the slaying to Cesare. In fairness to Borgia, numerous other suspects also had motive, opportunity, and means to dispose of the duke.' With the, death of his older brother, Cesare assumed the role of the pope's political, hatchet man. He traveled to Naples and crowned Frederick of Aragon king. After receiving permission from the pope and the College of Cardinals, Borgia, renounced the priesthood. God's loss was Treachery's gain. Borgia brought, Louis XI1 a papal edict annulling Louis's marriage so the monarch could wed, his latest favorite. Louis showed his gratitude by appointing Cesare the Duke of, Valentinois and pledging military aid for Cesare's proposed military adventures., The pope dispatched Cesare to subdue the province of Romagna. With the, aid of French auxiliaries, Swiss and Italian mercenaries, a dose of fraud, a measure of theater, an over pouring of ruthlessness, and recurring violence, Borgia, was soon on the move: Imola, Forli, Pesaro, Rimini, Faenza, Piombino,, Camerino, Urbino, and other regions soon fell under Cesare's heavy hands. A, conspiracy, though, quickly ensued against him. Led by some of the princes

Page 133 :
110, , Chapter Four, , ousted by Borgia, such as the Orsinis and some of Cesare's own captains, such, as Vitellozm Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, and Gianpagolo Baglioni, revolts at, Urbino and elsewhere were temporarily successful. But Louis XII, presumably, savoring his new marriage, pledged additional help. That, along with a rupture, in the solidarity of the conspirators, swung the pendulum in Borgia's favor. For, his part, Cesare managed, through fraud and savagery, at Sinigallia to eliminate, the captains who had betrayed him., Early in 1503, Borgia went to Rome to track down the last of the Orsinis., He was amassing troops for a new offensive in central Italy, when both he and, the pope contracted a virulent fever. The pope died. Cesare was incapacitated., Without his father's support, Borgia's power, especially his alliance with King, Louis XII, softened. Pope Pius 111 replaced Alexander VI, but he was old and ill., Borgia's hold on conquered regions began to loosen, town by town. Pope Pius, 111 died and was replaced by Pope Julius 11, who had long opposed the Borgias., The new pope demanded all of Cesare's remaining territories be restored to the, church. Borgia was arrested, but was freed when he surrendered his territories., Borgia went to Naples and was there arrested under order of King Ferdinand of, Spain. He was a prisoner in Spain for two years, but escaped and found refuge at, the court of his brother-in-law, the king of Navarre. He died fighting on his behalf at Viana., Unlike other members on the top ten list, Borgia and Machiavelli were contemporaries who met several times and sized each other up. Machiavelli was, among a Florentine legation that spent two months with Borgia. Bishop Francesco Soderini, ambassador of the legation, described Borgia in glowing terms:, This lord is very magnificent and splendid, and so spirited in feats of arms that, there is nothing so great but that it must seem small to him. In the pursuit of, glory and in the acquisitions of dominions he never rests, and he knows neither, danger nor fatigue. He moves so swiftly . . . he knows how to make himself beloved to his soldiers and he has in his service the best men of Italy . . . his wit, and eloquence never fail him.6, , Machiavelli acknowledges that Borgia acquired power through Fortununamely, his father's influence and allies. Cesare laid the foundations for hture, power, though, by his military and political virtu. His ultimate demise flowed, fiom a change in Fortunu-his own untimely ill health and the death of his father (P 7). After Borgia had destroyed the power of the Colomas in Romagna,, he faced several obstacles. He doubted the reliability of his own military forces,, he could not be certain of the continued support of Louis XII, and he doubted, the allegiance of the Orsini troops. His reliance on the military forces and good, will of others was bound to be his undoing (P 7)., Borgia responded resolutely. He moved against the Orsini and Coloma by, luring nobles allied to them in Rome to his side through promises of pensions, and power. After the Orsini and some of Cesare's own captains spawned the, rebellion at Urbino, Borgia hatched the glorious stratagem that won Machia-

Page 134 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 111, , velli's approval. Cleverly hiding his true intentions, Borgia arrived at a rapprochement with the Orsini. Their leaders, along with Borgia's formerly traitorous captains, arrived at Sinigallia to celebrate their supposed reunification (P 7,, P 8) Later that night, Vitelli and Oliverotto were strangled. The others were disposed of soon thereafter. Neither man showed moxie at the end. Vitelli begged, that the pope be petitioned to give him a plenary indulgence for his sins., Oliverotto sobbed and feebly tried to rat out Vitelli as the true and only source, of the injuries perpetrated upon Duke Valentino., [Borgia] was a ruthless gangster and an expert confidence man, and the revolt, of some of the smaller gangsters, his captains, gave him an opportunity to display his talents. Machiavelli watched, fascinated, while Cesare, all mildness, and good will, lured his mutinous subordinates into a peace conference, lulled, their fears, invited them to a banquet to celebrate their renewed friendship, and, when they arrived unarmed and unescorted at a rendezvous where Cesare had, hidden his bodyguards, had them seized and murdered. Machiavelli was delighted at the virtuosity of the performance.7, Borgia's telling of this incident differs. He claimed that the Orsini and, Oliverotto, under the guise of reconciliation, had amassed a major military force, at Sinigallia and were planning a h l l scale attack. Borgia took them by surprise, in a classic, justified preemptive strike.*, Another highlight of Borgia's reign, for Machiavelli, occurred in Romagna., Finding that ineffective nobles had exploited their subjects, and that internal, corruption and destructive conflict-led by hordes of robbers, bandits, and, criminals-were pervasive, Borgia acted decisively. He bestowed complete, power over the region to the cruel, effective, Remiro d'Orco. Quickly, dYOrco, established order through harsh and extralegal means. Then, fearing that the, inhabitants were coming to hate d'Orco, Borgia named a civil court of justice to, investigate complaints against him. The people received the message that Borgia, could be tough-he had appointed d'Orco-and he could be just-as he named, a court to examine d'Orco excesses. To prevent the people ffom wrongly concluding that Borgia was not completely in charge, Cesare had d'Orco killed. For, theatrical and symbolic effect, he had d'Orco sliced in two and the bodily halves, placed in the comers of the town piazza, with a chopping board and a bloody, knife beside them. The citizens of Romagna were at once pleased, awed, and, shocked (P 7)., The conventional interpretation of this horrifying deed is that Borgia used, dYOrco,then disposed of him when convenient and advantageous for Borgia: the, autocratic governor was merely following Cesare's orders and was murdered, when he was no longer required for Borgia's purposes. The more charitable rendering is that d'Orco grossly exceeded what was necessary to pacify Romagna,, expropriated and sold food for his own profit, and was also part of the conspiracy-involving Vitelli, the Orsini, and Oliverotto-against Borgia: the tyrant of

Page 135 :
112, , Chapter Four, , Romagna was properly slain for offending Borgia's sense of justice and for plotting against him?, Prior to his father's death, Borgia had gained the friendship of Roman nobles, made allegiances in the College of Cardinals, and consolidated his power, in conquered territories. Knowing his father was mortal, Borgia aspired to acquire so much force and influence that he would be able to independently resist, any attack. Cesare, wisely, moved to distance himself from reliance on mercenary troops, the French, and the papacy (P 7)., Fortuna, though, turned against Cesare Borgia. He could not complete his, master plan. He and his father were both seriously ill. His father died. Then,, Cesare, his judgment weakened, made a huge mistake. He eventually allowed, Julius I1 to be elected pope. Borgia apparently had enough influence to prevent, this. Cesare agreed to throw his support to Julius. In return, Borgia was to retain, control of conquered land and be placed in charge of the papal army. The great, con man misread Julius's intentions. Predictably, the new pope, a longtime enemy of the Borgias who both feared and hated Cesare, reneged on his promises, and moved successfully against him (P 7; D I11 4)., Regarding military matters, Machiavelli called Borgia "a model to be imitated" (P 13; Ltr. 247: 113 1/15). He had used French auxiliary troops to conquer, Imola and Forli. Sensing these were unreliable, he switched to the mercenary, troops of Orsini and Vitelli. Finding these dangerous and treacherous, he understood that he must form and train his own troops. At this point, Borgia's reputation soared as it was apparent that he was in total command of his own forces (P, 13). Machiavelli also praised Borgia's military tactics (D 11 24; AW VII 194)., A proof of the splendid discipline prevailing in Cesar's army is afforded during, his brief sojourn in Pesaro. . . . Occupation by such an m y was, naturally, enough, cause for deep anxiety on the part of a people who were but too well, acquainted with the ways of the fifteenth century men at arms. But here was a, general who knew how to curb and control his soldiers. Under the pain of death, his men were forbidden from indulging any of the predations or violences usual, to their kind.'', , Machiavelli admired Cesare Borgia's glowing ambizione, military insight,, ability to practice fraud and administer force, and willingness to do what was, necessary to found or reform a state: "I cannot think of any better example I, could offer a new ruler than that of his actions" (P 7). Borgia, though, does not, occupy the same realm as Romulus, Moses, Cyrus, and Theseus. They were, stunningly more successful, establishing polities that endured; nor did they, commit the sort of major blunder that plagued Borgia., Machiavelli also uses Borgia indirectly to once again indict the use of, power by the church (P 11). For the most part, Cesare was the instrument of, Pope Alexander VI. He was eventually done in by Pope Julius 11. The church,, yet again, had failed to act in the best interests of the country. It placed its own, interests ahead of the common good.

Page 136 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 7. Lucius Junius Brutus (ca. 545 BC-ca. 509 BC), The early Romans bristled under the monarchy of Tarquin the Proud. The, plebeians were forced into oppressive involuntary servitude, the aristocrats were, subject to recurrent purges. The son of Tarquin, Sextus, ignited the flame of, revolution. Sextus, smitten by the beauty of a married woman, Lucretia, made, his intentions known to her. She refused his amorous overtures. Sextus raped, her. Lucretia, upon being released from Sextus's custody, spewed the truth to, her husband and father, then committed suicide., The masses of Rome, led by Lucius Junius Brutus, revolted and drove Tarquin, who quickly lost his pride, out of Rome. Brutus was especially instrumental in winning the military to his cause. A republic was instituted. Roman leaders, would be elected by an assembly of the entire army; they would serve only oneyear terms, and share political power with a colleague. Brutus and the husband, of Lucretia were elected as the first consuls of Rome., Brutus restored the power of the senate and the new Roman republic was on, its way. The husband of Lucretia, who was himself a Tarquin, drew suspicion, and was soon forced into exile by the people. Shortly thereafter, agents of Tarquin the Proud returned to Rome to discuss the return of the tyrant's personal, property. They also took the opportunity to ferment counter-revolution and, found an unlikely audience in Brutus's wife and two sons. The young men, joined the conspiracy against the republic. Happily, the traitors were exposed, and brought to justice. Brutus had to choose between the rule of law and his, family. He chose the rule of law and all conspirators, including his two sons,, were executed under Brutus's supervision. Tarquin the Proud had not punished, his son, Sextus, for the rape of Lucretia. Brutus could not make the same mistake., Within less than a year, Brutus, who now passionately despised all Tarquins, led the military defense when Tarquin the Proud's Etruscan allies, marched on Rome. Legend has it that one of Tarquin's sons and Brutus clashed, head-on, each dying at the hands of the other., The English novelist, E. M. Forster (1879-1970)' famously intoned that "If, I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I, should have the guts to betray my country." The Roman historian, Plutarch (ca., 45-ca. 120), as evidenced by his description of Lucius Brutus, would probably, have agreed., That ancient Brutus was of a severe and inflexible nature, like steel of too hard, a temper, and having never had his character softened by study and thought, he, let himself be so far transported with his rage and hatred against tyrants, that,, for conspiring with them, he proceeded to the execution even of his own sons.", , Not so, Machiavelli. The Florentine hails Brutus as "the father of Roman, liberty." Recognizing that condemning two sons and supervising their execution

Page 137 :
114, , Chapter Four, , is extraordinarily harsh, Machiavelli excuses, even commends, Brutus's action, as required for the preservation of freedom. Brutus publicly and decisively destroyed those who sought to overturn the newly-formed republic. Machiavelli, reminds everyone that hostility to the state is not mollified by time or gifts (D 111, 1; D 111 3). The horrifjring actions of Brutus are classic cases of evil well-used., The survival of a new state requires extraordinary men willing to perform, at, times, acts that shock the conscience. Machiavelli insists that "killing the sons of, Brutus''-a, metaphor for destroying those plotting against self-government-is, the most effective and reliable means of preserving a state that has recently acquired freedom (D I 16; D 111 1; D 111 3). Brutus enforced the law and levied the, ultimate punishment upon his own blood. Machiavelli nods approvingly and, reminds us that he "loves his country more than his soul.", , 8. Lycurgus (ca. 850 BC), The legend of Lycurgus underscores the austerity, strength, and civicmindedness of the warrior society, Sparta. According to Plutarch, Lycurgus was, seemingly in line to inherit one of the two kingships of Sparta when his father, and older brother died. One complicating factor, though, remained. His older, brother predeceased his pregnant wife. If she gave birth to a boy he would be the, proper heir of the kingdom. The woman, sensing opportunity and placing personal advancement above maternal instinct, offered to abort the fetus if and only, if Lycurgus would marry her and make her queen. Lycurgus feigned agreement, but insisted that the pregnant woman not risk her health by undergoing an abortion. Lycurgus would see to it that upon its birth the baby would be destroyed., When the baby was born and brought to him, Lycurgus celebrated the infant, as one of the rightful kings of Sparta. The citizens of Sparta, highly impressed, by a man who would yield kingly power out of principle, insisted that Lycurgus, rule in his capacity as guardian of the newborn. As we might suspect, the, spurned mother of the newborn, her relatives, and conniving associates were, dissatisfied with the proposed arrangement. They spread lies and conspired to, poison popular opinion against Lycurgus. Troubled by such treacheries, Lycurgus decided to leave Sparta and travel until the kingly succession was sorted out., Lycurgus visited Crete, Ionia, and Egypt. He studied literature, politics, and, military matters. Predictably, the Spartans, acknowledging Lycurgus's exemplary character, pleaded with him to return as king. Prior to accepting, Lycurgus, visited the Delphic Oracle for guidance. The oracle assured Lycurgus that the, state that adopted his laws would become the most famous in the land., Lycurgus introduced a senate with power equal to the two royal houses of, Sparta. The people voted on crucial questions, but the senate decided when such, votes were taken. He reformed land ownership, dividing real estate equally. His, goal was to eliminate the crux of crime, envy, and civic divisiveness: the pursuit, of luxury., Lycurgus banned ownership of gold and silver, allowing only money made, of iron. The iron was brittle and lacked inherent value. Imports of luxuries, rob-

Page 138 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 115, , bery, and bribery allegedly disappeared 6om Sparta forthwith. Civil lawsuits,, poverty, and covetous economic striving were replaced by equality and independence., He banned all unnecessary occupations. The race for wealth became pointless. All meals, consisting of simple, bland food, were eaten together at public, facilities. Critically, Lycurgus claimed that his laws were underwritten by the, Delphic Oracle, who was an intermediary of the god Apollo. The laws were not, to be put in writing. Instead, they would be impressed upon the minds of citizens, through education, custom, and habit. Accordingly, Lycurgus focused on strictly, organizing the education of children, including the relations between men and, women. He also attended to military policy, including the use of music to stir, martial emotions., Helots, slaves conquered by the Dorians, performed the manual labor., Sparta, fearing influences that might corrupt its system, banned foreign travel, and foreign visitors. When Lycurgus was confident that his laws and educational, reforms had been internalized, he called the citizens to an assembly and told, them he was traveling to consult the Delphic Oracle on a most important matter., He implored the two kings, the senate, and the people to swear to obey the established laws and not to change them until he returned. They complied readily., Lycurgus departed. He never returned., Machiavelli salutes Lycurgus as the sole author of laws that promoted, Sparta's flourishing for eight-hundred years because they served the common, good (D I 2; D I 9); for establishing a constitution with distinct roles for kings,, aristocracy, and the people that resulted in internal harmony for eight centuries, (D I 2); and for establishing equality of wealth and less equality of status such, that the populace was less ambitious for power, as only a few citizens held positions of political stature and they lived removed fkom the people (D I 6). The, masses did not fear their rulers and did not seek political power because the, kings were appointed to ofice, influenced by the aristocratic senate, and their, best guarantee for remaining in power was to secure the people 6om harm (D I, 6). Unsurprising, Lycurgus wisely appealed to divine authority as the source of, his founding laws (D I 1I)., Lycurgus's phobias against foreign influences wrought mixed blessings., Lycurgus conceived of an insular, self-sufficient polity with limited material, needs. This aspiration nurtured internal harmony-as corrupting influences were, minimized and a smaller populace is more easily governed than larger units (D I, 6). But by prohibiting immigration and foreign trade, Sparta's population was, relatively stagnant. This prevented Sparta from becoming a thriving expansionist, state (D I1 3)., Lycurgus, though, manifests the classic attributes of a successful founding, politician. He embodied political virtir, he prudently used religion in service of, the common good, and he had a clear vision of the best governmental constitution for his time and place. While he was not required to slay any relatives, dis-

Page 139 :
116, , Chapter Four, , pose of large segments of his own people, or lead any stirring military conquests, Lycurgus exemplifies the consummate Machiavellian law-giver., , 9. Marcus Furius Camillus (ca. 447 BC-ca. 365 BC), Camillus served the Roman republic as a censor, military tribune (six, times), and dictator (five times). The post of dictator was instituted in times of, crisis and for a short term. Separating truth fiom fiction in the legend of Camillus, as with so many ancient heroes, is often impossible., Camillus's first major military success was the defeat of Veii, a strong, culturally advanced Etruscan city, through siege. Camillus seized an impressive, Veian statue of Juno, queen of the gods, and returned it to Rome. Shortly thereafter, Camillus prevailed against Falerii in a unique fashion. The tutor of children of prominent Falerian families conspired to place himself in a favored position. He presented the children entrusted to him to the Romans and assured, Camillus that the Falerians would surrender once they understood whom Camillus held hostage. Camillus, with keen and unflinching conviction in the Roman, military way, refused the treachery. He then returned the sniveling tutor back to, Falerii under custody of the children. The Falerians, impressed by Camillus's, honor and integrity, surrendered., One would think that such a glorious victory, won by exemplary character, and not through bloodshed, would have been an unambiguous triumph for the, noble Camillus. Not exactly. His soldiers aspired to plunder Falerii and were, also rankled by Camillus's distribution of the plunder garnered from Veii. These, misgivings, along with slander spread by a few envious Roman power-brokers,, led to charges of misappropriation of state funds. Camillus was forced into exile., Meanwhile, huge trouble was brewing. The fearsome Gauls attacked the, Romans at Allia, just eleven miles outside the capitol. Roman allies deserted, the, Roman army was outflanked, and Rome was about to fall into the barbaric, clutches of the enemy. The Romans play their trump card: they recalled Marcus, Furius Camillus and appointed him Dictator. Camillus gathered up the remaining soldiers strewn about the countryside and marched on Rome. The Romans in, the capitol had agreed to pay the Gauls a handsome ransom. As the ransom was, being weighed, it became clear that the Gauls had altered the scales to exact a, higher ransom than the agreement had decreed. When the Romans called them, on this chicanery, the Gauls sneered, "Woe to the conquered." Such arrogance, rarely goes unrequited. Camillus arrived with his army and, after assessing the, situation, informed the haughty Gallics that Rome had decided to pay them not, with gold, but with steel. The Romans, under Camillus, defeated the Gauls, who, presumably salvaged their crooked weighing scale and returned home., The Latins and Volscians, sensing opportunity, attacked Rome almost immediately. Camillus and his army had enough remaining verve to repel the attack. After this victory, a large segment of the populace, fearing the city of, Rome was becoming too alluring a military target, expressed a desire to emi-

Page 140 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 117, , grate to Veii. Camillus and other patriots argued against this and their passionate, entreaties won the day., But twenty years after their victory at Allia, the Gauls, proving that the, world cannot keep grasping barbarians down for long, again attacked the Romans at the River Anio. The aging Camillus, who had studied Gallic military, tactics intensely, engineered yet another Roman victory. As one of his final political acts, Camillus resolved a raging, internal conflict between the Roman, nobles and the Roman masses: He convinced the senate to thereafter elect one, patrician, representing the nobles, and one plebian, representing the masses, to, share the post of consul. Soon after, Camillus contracted and died from the, plague., Machiavelli cites the case of Camillus as illustrating the dangers of slander, in a republic. Despite his deserved reputation, excellent character, military and, political virtir, and widespread admiration from the Roman masses, Camillus, was susceptible to the slanderous treacheries of a few envious Roman connivers,, particularly Manlius Capitolinus (D I 8: D 111 8). The Florentine celebrates Camillus as a leader who knew how to use religion in service of military and political success, both for securing the statue of Juno and in keeping his soldiers, prepared for attack (D I 12: D I 13). Machiavelli talks of how Fortuna gave, Rome a horrifying shock-the invasion by Gaul-but did not want to destroy, Rome. Fortuna, then, allowed for the exile of Camillus but not his death, as he, was apparently the only general capable of turning back the invaders (D I1 29)., Most important, Machiavelli takes Camillus as a man of military and political, virtir, who overcame the envy of others once conditions dangerous to Rome, loomed and the masses understood that Camillus had used the office of dictator, only to serve the common good, not for personal gain, and that Rome required, his unique abilities to stave off disaster (D 111 30). So well had Camillus organized and trained his army that he was able to elevate their morale in one battle, where they were badly outnumbered by merely reminding them to maintain their, poise and focus on doing what they were used to doing. Another stirring example of Roman magnanimity, this (D 111 3 1)., , 10. Marcus Aurelius (121-180), Marcus Aurelius embodied the ideal of the philosopher-king. He reigned as, Roman emperor from 161 until his death. Although not a stunningly original, thinker, Marcus exemplified and refined Stoicism. As a ruler, Marcus Aurelius, was moderate, just, and effective during troubled times. The fabled Pax Romana, was breaking down. Marcus struggled with internal discord-aggravated by, natural disasters such as famines and plagues-and external threats from Germanic tribes in the north and Parthians in the east. But Marcus persevered and, improved social conditions for the disadvantaged, slaves, and criminals. He also, fiercely persecuted Christians, particularly in Gaul, because he viewed them as, superstitious immoralists whose values jeopardized the principles underlying

Page 141 :
118, , Chapter Four, , Roman greatness., The family life of Marcus Aurelius was troubled. His wife, Faustina, was, rumored to be an instigator of a conspiracy against Marcus, while his son,, Cornmodus-who was widely thought to be the product of Faustina's adulterous, affair with a gladiator-was anxiously eyeing the throne. One school of thought, is that Marcus was poisoned by a medical doctor in the employ of Comrnodus., Once Comrnodus assumed power at Marcus's death, his reign exhibited excesses of corruption, sadism, cruelty, and debauchery similar to those that devoured the terms of Nero and Caligula., In The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, historian Edward Gibbon described Marcus Aurelius7slife:, His life was the noblest commentary on the precepts of Zeno [founder of Stoicism]. He was severe to himself, indulgent to the imperfections of others, just, and beneficient to all mankind. He regretted that Avidius Cassius, who excited, a rebellion in Syria, had disappointed him, by a voluntary death, of the pleasure, of converting an enemy into a friend; and he justified the sincerity of that sentiment, by moderating the zeal of the senate against the adherents of the traitor., War he detested . . . but when the necessity of a just defence called upon him to, take up arms, he readily exposed his person to eight winter campaigns on the, fiozen banks of the Danube, the severity of which was at last fatal to the weakness of his constitution. His memory was revered by a gratehl posterity, and, above a century after his death, many persons preserved the image of Marcus,, among those of their household gods.'2, The gods of the Greco-Roman world did not provide clear rules of behavior, for everyday life. Human beings living during those periods observed natural, phenomena and their own personal qualities. Lacking a refined science to provide explanations, they mythologized their observations into a pantheon of deities-fertility, love, pestilence, famine, thunder, rain, power, anger, and the like,, were all represented. Stories were conjured that accounted for the occurrence of,, say, famine-the governing deity in this area must have been offended by human conduct. Elaborate ceremonies intended to please the gods were established, as well as rituals of atonement after the gods had been offended and had, retaliated. Beyond the felt need to curry favor with the gods and avoid divine, retribution, few specific principles of behavior followed. Philosophy was the, discipline that filled this void and tried to answer the hndamental questions of, human existence: What is the good life? Why am I here? What, if anything, is, my destiny? How should I live my life?, For around five centuries, philosophical schools of thought such as Stoicism, Epicureanism, Cynicism, Socratic-Platonism, among others, competed for, advocates and disciples. Romans were generally tolerant of foreign deities and, religious practices. But Christianity, as viewed by Marcus Aurelius and many, others, was founded on passiveness and, at best, muted allegiance to the state., These values were unsuited to the continued vitality of the Roman Empire. Conventional Roman wisdom insisted that veneration of the state was required of all

Page 142 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 119, , good citizens. Christianity, influenced strongly by Platonism, adamantly contended that this world is a pale imitation of a higher reality. Where, as here, foreign religious practices were inconsistent with the values of Roman greatness,, tolerance was misplaced. Accordingly, Gibbon's commentary to the contrary, notwithstanding-Marcus Aurelius was "beneficient to all mankind"--the emperor expressed no qualms about his persecution of Christians., Marcus Aurelius composed his Meditations during the time he was repelling an insurrection in the Danube. The work consists of reflections, aphorisms,, and principles by which good people should live their lives. A historically influential text, the Meditations crystallize Marcus's refinement of the Stoic tradition., At the crux of Stoicism are commitments to inner harmony, and single-minded, pursuit of virtue., If we take this position firmly, expecting nothing and avoiding nothing, but instead remaining content simply that we have conducted ourselves in accordance, with what we know to be right, and with truthfulness with our fellow man, then, this is the path to a happy life, and there is no man or god who can prevent us, from following it.", The Stoics defined happiness as inner tranquility. Their recipe for attaining, happiness included minimizing desire, controlling our own judgments and attitudes, and acting in accord with natural law. Stoics explained how and why following this recipe makes us happy by analyzing human desire and our relationship to the world., The broader critique of Stoicism is by now a clichk. While Stoicism can, bring consolation to those struggling under harsh conditions, its expectations are, too low for general use. The expansive richness and creativity of human experience are sacrificed on the altar of accommodation. Although it does not insist on, passivity, Stoicism inclines in that direction. Outlooks such as Stoicism, that, appeal to fate have trouble accounting for robust action. Stoicism's kernel of, insight--do not dwell on misfortune, put suffering behind you, do not become, intoxicated with unimportant pursuits or frivolous desires-is obscured by its, demand that nothing else matters that much. Even on its own terms it fails to, distinguish earned tranquility from simulated tranquility. If Bob is peaceful because he has been hypnotized into thinking his life is other than what it is, or, because he has been drugged, then his tranquility does not translate into a worthy happiness. Instead, it is merely a simulated, unearned state of mind. Bob has, been tricked into thinking his unsatisfying life is satisfying. Worthwhile happiness must be earned, not merely induced. Stoicism, though, wisely points out, that happiness is not simply achieving a set of external conditions, not just flourishing. Happiness requires some fit between a person's expectations and results,, as well as an extended internal peace., Part of the greatness of Marcus Aurelius is that he sensed weaknesses in, Stoic doctrine and tried to refine it. For example, he understood well the Stoic

Page 143 :
120, , Chapter Four, , conviction that if one chooses not to value anything in life-other than the, agency one has over his or her own judgments and attitudes-then one cannot, lose anything of value. But Marcus concluded this conviction signals a retreat,, even a withdrawal, from the world. He anticipated, then, a modem criticism of, Stoic rectitude. For Marcus Aurelius, worldly engagement entailed that we must, risk disappointment in the results of our projects and sorrow at the loss of those, people whom we cherished., He also adjusted classical Stoicism's division of phenomena into things, fully under our control and everything else. Instead of siding with the inflexible, Stoic orthodoxy that a person's will is sufficient for making morally correct, choices, Marcus Aurelius concluded that the will must be helped by things not, under its control. In such matters, human will "needs the help of the gods and, fortune."14 Marcus, then, ends up with three categories of phenomena: those, fully under the control of a person's will, those outside the control of human, will, and those partially under and partially outside the control of human will., Sometimes we should invest significant emotion in events over which we, have no control and which do not seriously harm the common good. The loss of, people whom we cherished and the destruction of our dearest projects are two, such cases. Even if those losses do not measurably detract from the common, good and even if we have no control over them, sorrow is appropriate. Marcus, Aurelius intuited that suffering, contrary to orthodox Stoicism, is not an evil as, such. Our struggles with suffering are a crucial part of creating worthy selves., The possibility of cosmic meaninglessness, the lack of any inherent order, and purpose in our world, repelled Marcus Aurelius. He prefigured the existential tension of the twentieth century: Human beings have a compelling need to, understand reality in meaningful and purposive ways, but the cosmos seems, indifferent to our yearnings. Marcus responds through faith--belief, conviction,, and action in the face of radical uncertainty. Again adjusting Stoic orthodoxy, and refusing to accept cosmic meaninglessness because doing so devalued human intellect and reason, he places his faith in a type of pantheism. The divine is, the universe and all things, including human beings., All things are implicated with one another, and the bond is holy; and there is, hardly anything unconnected with any other things. For things have been coordinated, and they combine to make up the same universe. For there is one universe made up of all things, and one od who pervades all things, and one substance, and one law, and one reason., , ,B, , The eternal journey of the divine is assumed to be worthy and grand, although ineffable. Marcus Aurelius locates the meaning of human life in its role, in advancing the divine goal. The divine, for Marcus, is not an independent being or substance, but rather the process of glorious cosmic evolution toward, more valuable ends., Constantly regard the universe as one living being, having one substance and, one soul; and observe how all things have reference to one perception, the per-

Page 144 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, ception of this one living being; and how all things act with one movement; and, how all things are the cooperating causes of all things which exist; observe too, the continuous spinning of the thread and the contexture of the web.I6, As a faith, Marcus Aurelius understood that his world view could not be independently and rationally proved. His faith, though, spawned a practical advantage: it vivified engagement with the world and nourished healthy human relations. A worthwhile human life must be purposive. The highest human purpose, is contribution to society. The most valuable human skills are scarce and make, the greatest positive impact on the common good., Marcus Aurelius, unsurprisingly, advised us to accept our mortality and, view death as transmutation and not as an end. Part of our gratitude for our lives, required that we perceive our deaths as necessary for the cosmic cycle. He does, not champion personal immortality. Instead, our souls persist after death only to, reenter the cosmos and the flow of nature., Machiavelli describes Marcus as "unassuming, a lover of justice, hater of, cruelty, sympathetic and kind" (P 19). He is singled out as a ruler who lived, honorably, was widely respected because of his great virtic, was never hated, and, was steadfastly able to maintain the military and the masses in their appropriate, roles (P 19). Marcus Aurelius is offered as a paradigm of a "prince" who ruled, effectively and garnered glory in preserving a well-established state (P 19). Although Marcus inherited rule of Rome, his was not a hereditary monarchy because Marcus had been adopted, in part because of the early recognition of his, superior character. As evidence of Marcus's effectiveness, Machiavelli remarks, that Marcus did not need praetorian guards or specific legions to defend himself., Instead, his way of life, the good will of the people, and the esteem of the Roman Senate was suflcient for his security (D I 10). Although not explicitly, stated by Machiavelli, Marcus Aurellus also stands as an emperor who wisely, employed religion and philosophy to underwrite strong arms and strong laws, all, of which nourish civic virtic. Moreover, Marcus was firmly rooted in living the, right sort of life in this world, unlike Christianity which sought redemption and, personal immortality in a transcendent realm. Although Machiavelli preferred, republics to principalities, he lavished expansive praise on the few emperors,, such as Marcus Aurelius, who ruled honorably, in service to the common good,, and with the result of increased civic virtir. In fact, Machiavelli describes only, two Roman emperors with the honorific term "virtir":Marcus Aurelius and the, wicked, but often effective, Septimus Severus., , B. Bottom Ten, 1. The Christian Church, Machiavelli's criticisms of Christian religion flow through all his writings.

Page 145 :
122, , Chapter Four, , While he recognizes and celebrates the role that religion should have in creating, a healthy, expansionist republic, he sharply rebukes the role that Christianity has, taken in Italy., First, he bemoans the values Christianity has embraced. Roman religion advocated greatness of spirit, bravery, boldness, physical action, vigor, passion,, and the quest for worldly glory. Christianity venerates humbleness, contemplation, softness, indolence, suffering as the road to redemption, and disdain of, worldly honor. In a critique that prefigures that of Nietzsche, Machiavelli argues, that Christianity has weakened the conditions required to promote military and, political virtir, and has thereby fostered civic corruption and ozio. Enduring suffering without complaint replaced overcoming resistance and obstacles. Casting, a too appreciative gaze toward eternal salvation, Christianity has debased the, material values that spawn earthly glory. As a result, Machiavelli concludes that, the people have degenerated to the status of animo efeminato (D I pref.; D I1 2;, D I 11)., Second, Machiavelli attacks the political strategies Christianity favored., Constantly aligning itself with this or that foreign dominator, the Church ensured that Italy remained fragmented and easy prey for barbarians. Instead of, subjugating regional princes, the Church brought in a foreign oppressor to subdue any Italian prince who was seemingly strong enough to unity the country. In, so doing, Christianity kept sharp focus on its own aggrandizement and power to, the exclusion of developing wider civic virtir (P 12; D I 12; P 6; P 3)., Third, the Florentine laments opportunities squandered. Religion has special authority to command the obedience of human beings, to establish order and, security, to ordain salutary laws, to reinforce military and civic discipline, and to, energize respect for the common good. Instead, Christianity, by the values it, embraced and the self-serving political strategies it employed, nurtured only, civic weakness (D I 12; D I 13; D I 1; D I 11)., Fourth, Machiavelli excoriates the hypocrisy of the church hierarchy. While, living as pampered and corrupt authorities, they preached the virtues of poverty,, austerity, and humility. The result was a loosening of piety and religious devotion among the people. Lacking glowing religious examples, the people, to the, detriment of the common good, have become irreligious and evil (D I 12; D I11, 1)., , In sum, the Roman Catholic Church requires a complete redirection, perhaps a retum to founding principles, in order to assume its rightfbl function in, the revitalization of Italy., , 2. Gaius Julius Caesar (100 BC-44 BC), As a young man, Julius Caesar was captured by pirates. Although not in a, strong taunting position, he purportedly swore to his captors that he would track, them down and crucify them once he was freed from their clutches. After being, ransomed, Caesar fulfilled his oath. This tale better captures the character of, Caesar than does any battlefield account of his destruction of the Gauls, any

Page 146 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 123, , story of political maneuvering with Pompey and Crassus, or any rendition of his, numerous stirring speeches., Either the legend of Caesar's insolence in the face of his pirate captors is, true or it is false. If true, we enjoy the vision of a relentless warrior, confident, even when seemingly confronting hopeless odds and a resolute enemy. If false,, we chuckle at the shameless self-promotion of a youth turning desperate adversity into practical, political advantage. In either case, Caesar did hunt and slay, the offending pirates. You do not tug on Superman's cape, you do not spit into, the wind, and you surely do not accost, threaten, or falsely confine Gaius Julius, Caesar., In a world where a small, gifted class of men smolder with ambizione, Caesar was aflame. He served as aedile at the age of thirty-five and two years later, wangled the post of pontifex maximus, probably through bribery. A year later,, he became praetor. After serving as governor of Spain, he formed a political, triumvirate with the wealthy Crassus and the great general, Pompey. His older,, more experienced partners assumed they could use Caesar for their own purposes then discard him when convenient. They were dialing a radically wrong, number., With the help of the triumvirate, he was elected as a consul in 59 BC. He, proved to be a gifted politician who was able to enact the triumvirate's political, program despite strong opposition in the senate. Within a year, Caesar launched, a ten year campaign in Gaul. He served as his own military propagandist, composing The Conquest of Gaul in a lean, crisp rhetorical style. Critics in the senate objected that the Gallic war was conducted more to satisfy Caesar's boundless quest for glory and riches than for definable Roman purposes. This was, Caesar's launching pad for his major aspiration: to become absolute ruler of the, Roman republic. With added wealth, military reputation, and a loyal, expanding, army, Caesar laid the foundations to attain that goal. He proved during the Gallic campaigns that he was Rome's greatest general., His enemies in the senate, especially Cato the Younger (95 BC-46 BC), an, uncompromising advocate of traditional Roman republican values, issued an, ultimatum: Caesar must resign as pro-counsel of Gaul, yield his army, and return, to Rome. Upon his return, his opponents would levy charges against him, destroy him politically, and call for his exile., After failing in attempts to negotiate his way out of the impasse, Caesar and, his army crossed the Rubicon River, the boundary of his province, and marched, on Rome. Civil war ensued. Pompey led the forces of Caesar's senate enemies., Caesar marched through Italy into Rome, meeting weak resistance. At the battle, of Pharsalus in 48 BC, Caesar's forces, although badly outnumbered, routed, Pompey's army. Caesar showed mercy at the end of the battle, insisting on no, unnecessary killings or reprisals. Following Pompey to Egypt, he installed Cleopatra, who bore him a son, as queen., After campaigns in Africa, Asia, and Spain, Caesar had eliminated all seri-

Page 147 :
124, , Chapter Four, , ous senate opposition and he had achieved his ultimate goal: he was absolute, master of Rome. By 44 BC, Caesar was declared Dictator for Life. He dressed in, the fashion of the ancient Roman kings, but rejected that title. Caesar did not, embark on any radical reforms, content, instead, to enjoy the trappings of power, and privilege while reigning pragmatically. Always restless, Caesar strategized a, war against Parthia. Prior to his embarking, a conspiracy, led by Marcus Iunius, Brutus, Cassius Longinus, and a host of senators, was hatched. Although the, plan was not a closely guarded secret, the assassins slew Caesar by brutally, stabbing him repeatedly at the feet of a statue of Pornpey. The Ides of March has, never been the same., Machiavelli is remarkably contemptuous of Caesar. With other members on, his bottom ten list, he typically mentions the brutal effectiveness of their efforts, or their military virtu even though his overall evaluation is decidedly negative., With Caesar, Machiavelli is unsparingly critical. The only positive remark about, Caesar, despite his undeniable prowess as a warrior and military strategist, in, The Prince and The Discourses is that he used the money of others wiselyCaesar plundered and pillaged his military victims, and used that money generously instead of squandering his own wealth or that of the Romans (P 16). (In, fairness, Machiavelli does examine Caesar's military virtu in The Art of War, [AW 1 34; 2 55-56; 3 96; 4 111, 120, 123-4; 5 146-7; 6 1756, 178-9; 7 201,, 2 111.), Machiavelli contrasts the tyrannical Caesar with the civic-minded Scipio; he, chastises those who have been mesmerized by Caesar's power and apparent success; he sneers at Caesar as an evil-doer; as the destroyer of Rome; as the man, who placed the yoke of slavery on the necks of Romans, while blinding the people to that reality; he labels Caesar a tyrant who exploited the corruption of the, people for his own benefit; he depicts Caesar as a man who greedily abused the, office of Dictator by extending the term of that office without authorization from, the people (D I 10; D I 17; D I 29; D I 34; AW 1 17). In contrast to warriors and, politicians who channel their personal ambition to found or reform states in the, long-term interests of the common good, Machiavelli concludes that Caesar was, a rabid opportunist who drove the final nail of tyranny into a corrupt republic., , 3. Utopianism, Philosophers such as Plato, St. Thomas More, and countless other philosophers sketched what they took to be perfect polities. Given their aims-refining, the human mind, attaining eternal salvation, establishing peace and harmony,, advancing human understanding-they crafted societal structures, laws, domestic and foreign policies, organs of enforcement, and political institutions that, facilitated their ends. Their method was utopian: constructing an ideal city or, state to demonstrate what perfect human relations and life would reflect. Utopian thinkers do not claim that their master plans could ever be realized, but, insist that their political creations represent ideals by which we can measure, existing states. As with all ideals, we should strive toward utopian prescriptions

Page 148 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 125, , while understanding that, at best, only approximations are possible. The closer, we can live up to those ideals the better human life will be. Our utopian ideals,, then, serve as mirrors which evaluate the political realities that human beings, construct., Machiavelli sternly rebukes utopian methodology as unhelpful and, worse,, as dangerous. We should not operate fiom our imagination or fantasies. To do so, is to play the fool in the complex zero-sum game of international politics. We, must, instead, develop our political theory and practice fiom the way states actually exist and operate. We must learn from history-particularly from the examples of ancient Greek and Rome, and from contemporary agents-and develop a, science of politics based on the unfolding of events in the world. Utopias are for, dreamers. Machiavelli aims to change the world, or at least describe and explain, the world so well politically that those who have the power can flourish on the, competitive battlegrounds of military and political affairs. Men of military and, political virtir should not indulge their wish fulfillments or waste time in political fantasy. To succeed, they must grapple with Fortuna while being acutely, aware of the actual ways of the world (P ded.; P 18; P 26; D ded.)., Although Machiavelli did not labor at archival history, his selection and understanding of examples were often distorted, and his political science was almost always in service of his predetermined conclusions, his self-image was, anti-utopian. Even the greatest thinkers fall prey to self-deception and psychological denial., , 4. Oliverotto Euffreducci (Oliverotto da Fermo) (ca. 1475 BC1502 BC), The short, colorfbl life of Oliverotto Euffieducci illustrates the limitations, of pursuing ambizione only for personal gain. Oliverotto was raised by a maternal uncle, Giovanni Fogliani, a leading figure in Fermo. As soon as practicable,, Oliverotto joined the mercenary forces of Paolo Vitelli. He fought for Vitelli on, behalf of the French at Pisa and Naples. In 1499, the Vitelli army was fighting, for the Florentines against Pisa. Florence accused Paolo and Oliverotto of treason. Paolo was executed, but Oliverotto was freed because of the intervention of, the political leaders of Fermo. Oliverotto then joined with Paolo's brother, Vitellozzo Vitelli, and served Cesare Borgia. Due to his boldness, developing military virtir, and passionate character, Oliverotto rose in the ranks to become second only to Vitellozzo. The Vitelli mercenaries were critical to Borgia's, conquest of Piombino., A man of Oliverotto's ambizione, ability, and self-image cannot remain a, second banana for long. He concocted a plan to seize control of Fermo, enlisting, the support of Vitellozzo and of self-serving malcontents within Fermo., Oliverotto wrote to his uncle, Giovanni Fogliani, and asked for an invitation to, return to Fermo and reacquaint himself with his childhood. He added that he had

Page 149 :
126, , Chapter Four, , entered the military to gain honor and he would arrive at Fermo with one hundred men-as a way of showing the citizens of Fermo that he had used his time, away from home wisely. Oliverotto assured his uncle that his return would bring, honor to everyone involved. In short, Oliverotto painted an appealing picture of, "local boy makes good" and returns home in gratitude to appreciative homefolks, (P 8)., Uncle Giovanni bought the act-hook, line, and sinker. Giovanni saw to it, that his nephew was accorded every honor and all due respect by the citizens of, Fermo. He ensured that Oliverotto lodged at his home. Oliverotto, after transacting the required arrangements, invited his uncle and the most influential citizens, of Fermo to an elaborate feast. After the meal and appropriate entertainment,, Oliverotto began discussing serious political and religious matters. When the, others began contributing to the discussion, he suggested they all retire to a more, private room to continue the conversation. As soon as they all entered that room,, Oliverotto's soldiers fell upon and murdered Giovanni and the others (P 8)., Oliverotto then mounted his steed, took possession of Fermo, and lay siege, to the government building. The remaining authorities, sensing the political tide, was swaying radically, pledged to obey Oliverotto and agreed to set up a new, regime with Oliverotto at its head. Within a year, Oliverotto was securely entrenched at Fermo, having established new military and political structures (P 8)., Oliverotto conquered Camerino on behalf of Borgia, then played a role in, the mounting conspiracy against Duke Valentino. Just as he was about to pursue, the expansion of his authority to other towns, Oliverotto met his master. Poetic, justice and, probably, political justice was served by Borgia's plot at Sinigallia,, which climaxed with the strangulation of Oliverotto. Fittingly, Borgia's attack, bore striking resemblances to Oliverotto's treachery at Fermo., Why, then, does Borgia make Machiavelli's top ten, while Oliverotto is, consigned to Machiavelli's bottom ten? Although noting Oliverotto's military, virtir, Machiavelli suggests that Oliverotto, instead of acting to inaugurate a new, state or reform a corrupt state, enslaved a state that was otherwise viable., Oliverotto acted selfishly and only in pursuit of his own ambizione, not in longterm service to the common good; he murdered a relative and fellow citizens in, the course of destroying Fermo; and his purposes did not lead to enhanced order,, security, and the preconditions for civic virtir. Oliverotto clearly lacked political, virtir, civic virtQ and moral virtir. Oliverotto destroyed Fermo and continued evil, well beyond the time and extent necessary. Rightly or wrongly, Machiavelli, judges otherwise with regard to Cesare Borgia. For the Florentine, Borgia was in, the process of reforming the corrupt state of Romagna by ensuring order, security, stability, and new laws-ingredients of the recipe required for developing, civic virtir., , 5. Agathocles of Syracuse (361 BC-289 BC), A poor, but honest potter's son, Agathocles raged with ambizione. He, joined the military as soon as possible and rose step by step until he was su-

Page 150 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 127, , preme commander. Agathocles wanted more. Prefiguring Julius Caesar, he, sought absolute power. Pursuant to that aspiration, he entered into a conspiracy, with a Carthaginian general who was mounting a military campaign in Sicily., One bright, sunny morning, Agathocles, under cover of discussing political, issues, convened the senate of Syracuse and its wealthiest, most influential citizens. At a prearranged signal, soldiers murdered the entire lot of Syracuse's finest. With few obstacles remaining, Agathocles, after less than thorough consideration of alternatives, named himself absolute ruler of Syracuse. Later, the, Carthaginians defeated his army twice and advanced to the walls of Syracuse., There Agathocles left part of his army to defend the city and transported the rest, to Africa to attack Carthage. He proved an able commander, forcing Carthage to, release its siege of Syracuse and seriously threatening to overrun the Carthaginians that stayed home. Carthage sued for peace, agreeing to leave Sicily in return, for its security in Africa (P 8)., Machiavelli recognizes Agathocles's military virtic, his skill in working, himself up through the ranks, the boldness of his tactics, his eagerness to confront danger and take risks, and his successful quest for power. Little, if any, of, Agathocles's success could be attributed to Fortuna. Still, Machiavelli is critical:, One ought not, of course, to call it virtir to massacre one's fellow citizens, to, betray one's friends, to break one's word, to be without mercy, and without religion. By such means one can acquire power but not glory (P8)., Agathocles was an admirable general: brave, strong, overcoming resistance, and adversity. But his long-term cruelty ill-used, brutality, and wickedness relegate him to infamy. In short, much like Oliverotto and Caesar, he lacked political, moral, and civic virtic. Agathocles, in the short run, used cruelty well, but in, the long run he enslaved a free state. The selfish ambizione and inhumane purposes of the tyrant cannot merit glory, for Machiavelli. Murdering one's fellow, citizens and betraying one's friends are acceptable only in service of humane, purposes such as founding a state or reforming a corrupt state. Similar brutality, perpetrated against a military enemy is often a required part of military virtir., , 6. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (163 BC-133 BC) and Gaius, Sempronius Gracchus (153 BC-121 BC) (The Gracchi Brothers), The Gracchi brothers were grandsons of the fabled Scipio Africanus, conqueror of Carthage in the Second Punic War in 202 BC. Tiberius, following in, his grandfather's tradition, won a military prize for being the first combatant to, scale Carthage's walls during the final destruction of that city in 146 BC. He, next served under Hostilius Mancinus in a campaign against the Celtiberians., Mancinus's strategies failed and only a negotiated peace was possible. The

Page 151 :
128, , Chapter Four, , Celtiberians, untrusting of Romans generally, would talk only with Tiberius, Gracchus, who hammered out a fair, honorable peace. The compromise saved, much of the Roman army, but if Tiberius was expecting laurels he was stunningly mistaken. The Roman people were accustomed to smoking the opposition, not retreating with their armor between their legs. Mancinus was condemned. A new commander embarked and in time destroyed the Celtiberian, nation. Tiberius's honor was besmirched and his promises dismissed. He never, forgot or forgave the ingratitude., Eventually elected as a tribune of the plebeians, despite his aristocratic origins, Tiberius understood how wealth had begun to influence all aspects of Roman life. Roman citizens were not taxed, many senators were obliged to vested, interests, and a class of wealthy oligarchs used bribery as an electoral weapon., Roman agriculture was dominated by the wealthy who used slave labor, while, small farmers were unable to compete and became fewer in number. These, events had a negative impact on the Roman army, which had traditionally, staffed its army with conscripted peasants., Tiberius proposed a land reform bill which would confiscate and redistribute large amounts of real estate held by wealthy Romans, including senators., Unsurprisingly, the senate was less than enthusiastic. Another tribune vetoed the, bill. Tiberius, more stubborn and brave than prudent, took his case to the people., After Tiberius vetoed virtually every piece of official business coming before, the tribunes, Roman government was grid-locked. He proposed that either the, tribune opposing his land bill remove his veto or be removed fiom office. The, people, tribe by tribe, voted in favor of the motion. The recalcitrant tribune was, removed. The original Gracchus land bill was approved, but the senate refused, to release the funds required to implement its provisions., To obtain the funds necessary to activate land reform, Tiberius persuaded, the people to accept the offer of deceased King Attalus of Pergamum, who had, bequeathed his kingdom to the Roman people. Tiberius had interfered with the, senate's cherished prerogatives in foreign policy. Tiberius lost the remnants of, his support in the senate and when he stood, against tradition, for reelection as, tribune he was killed in a bloody riot led by his senatorial enemies. Tiberius's, corpse and those of more than one hundred of his supporters were thrown in the, Tiber River, symbolically relegating them to the lowest rank of criminals., Gaius Gracchus was the natural heir of Tiberius's efforts. Gaius was a, gifted orator and administrator, who, like Tiberius, became a tribune. Gaius was, painstaking in driving a stronger wedge between the nobles and the people. He, made capital punishment for Roman citizens legal only if the defendant had a, trial before the people; he excluded senators from sitting on juries in certain, types of cases; he enacted law that provided that a politician removed fiom office by the people was ineligible to run in future elections; he stabilized the price, of grain, which impaired the wealthy importers from adjusting prices to maximize their profits given world events; he instituted tax farming, whereby competitive corporate bidding, from which senators were exluded, determined who, collected taxes in Roman provinces in return for a percentage of the take. In

Page 152 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 129, , sum, to call the Gracchi brothers polarizing is akin to calling free lunches popular., His enemies in the senate hoped to undercut Gaius's connection to the people by inaugurating their own fraudulent reform program. That, and an incident, in which Gaius pushed a senatorial opponent who was then stabbed by one of, Gaius's supporters, led to another bloody riot during which hundreds of Gracchus's supporters were killed. Gaius, himself, was either slain or committed, suicide., Machiavelli concedes that the intentions of the Gracchi were pure, but their, prudence and sense of timing were abysmal. The Florentine's own position on, wealth in a republic was clear: keep the public treasuries flush, keep the citizens, lean and hungry (D I 37). The Gracchi aspired to redistribute wealth and decrease the property disparity between rich and poor. The agrarian land reform, was to apply retroactively-confiscating real estate already held by nobles., Moreover, the reform provided that real estate taken from enemies would be, divided among the Roman people. The healthy conflict between grandi and, populo, so crucial to Roman liberty and the invigorated, expansionist republic,, degenerated into factionalism and sectarian violence. The grandi resented being, deprived of land they already possessed, and realized that dividing the seized, property of military enemies and spreading it among the populo was a lost opportunity for the grandi to increase their wealth. Worse, the agrarian reform, legislation seemed defective as it was retrospective, ambiguously crafted, and, easy to misapply., In future generations, civil wars between the populo (led by Marius) and, grandi (headed by Sulla), then between Caesar and Pompey, which led to the, destruction of the republic, could be traced, says Machiavelli, to the unhealthy, class hostilities generated by the Gracchi brothers. From the period of the Gracchi and the battles over land reform, social unrest and class conflict radically, increased, to the detriment of the republic (P 9; D I 4; D I 6; D I 37; D I 18)., Machiavelli calls the class enmity flowing from the agrarian reforms "the cause, of the destruction of [Roman] political freedom" (D I 6). The Gracchi initiative, led citizens to the take up of arms, to spill their brothers' blood, and to resort to, private remedies for perceived public evils. Such transgressions of law, political, custom, and social habit corroded civic virtir and, according to Machiavelli, inaugurated the downward spiral of the Roman republic., , 7, Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498), Savonarola was a Dominican priest who relentlessly railed against renaissance humanist values, the corruption of the papacy, and preoccupation with, material goods. He first preached in Florence at the age of thirty without success. He left for Bologna where his apocalyptic style began to draw attention., He was recalled to Florence around 1489 and immediately drew a receptive audience. Claiming to communicate directly with God and unveiling his numerous

Page 153 :
130, , Chapter Four, , prophetic visions, Savonarola targeted Pope Alexander VI and the Medici rulers, of Florence. He preached energetically about the final days of the world and the, need to cleanse souls in preparation for final judgment. Perhaps aided by a, widely held superstition that the year 1500 would mark the end of the earth, the, increasing economic disparity in Florence between the rich and the poor, and the, rapid spread of a plague--probably syphilis spread by returning seafarers,, Savonarola's haunting message of impending gloom and doom leavened by the, possibility of salvation resonated among the people., In 1494, Charles VIII of France invaded Florence, as Savonarola had predicted, and ousted the Medici. Savonarola filled the political gap by serving as, the spiritual leader of Florence. He struggled mightily to use his influence to, create a Christian theocracy. He and his followers inaugurated bonfues of the, vanities in which luxuries of all manner-fancy clothes, mirrors, cosmetics,, secular art, musical instruments, dice, chess pieces, humanistic poetry, and the, like-were immolated in the town square. Paintings by masters such as Michelangelo and Botticelli were among the treasures burnt. Savonarola was to fin and, recreation what Vince McMahon is to refinement and good taste., Savonarola, emboldened by his success, ratcheted up the flames of his intensity. Demanding the regeneration of Christian spiritual values, veneration of, asceticism, and repudiation of secular frivolity, he and his supporters organized, a morality police. Through spying, rumor gathered from informants, speculation,, and gossip, they passionately excoriated alleged wrongdoers, often publicly, and, warned of impending retribution., Our unworthy attributes, the ones that lead to our demise, are usually just, our worthy features, the ones that led to our ascension, exaggerated. So, too,, with the well-meaning, deluded, fanatical Dominican friar. Predictably, he had, gone too far. The world was not coming to an end, Savonarola's prescriptions, had not enhanced the quality of life, and the people began to understand the, dangers of his excesses. He was excommunicated by an increasingly irritated, Alexander VI, outbreaks at his monastery occurred, and Savonarola was taken, prisoner. Accused of heresy and schism (trying to split the union of the Church),, Savonarola and two of his main associates were tortured, hung, and burned., Their ashes were dumped eagerly into the Arno River., Machiavelli appreciated the wiles that allowed Savonarola to ascend to influence and his passion for cultural reform. Also, Savonarola used religion for, political purposes. He convinced numerous Florentines that he communicated, directly with God, even though he performed no miracles or extraordinary, deeds. His own example, the unwavering certitude of his message, and the conditions of his time were enough to garner short-term success (D I 11). Machiavelli, though, would point out that Savonarola's religious values were unworthy, of a thriving, expansionist republic. That the friar understood the crucial connection between religion and politics counts in his favor, but the particular religious, and political values Savonarola exalted strike a sour note for Machiavelli. Mildness, meekness, spiritual contemplation, and resolve in the face of suffering are, unreliable substitutes for Roman physicality, pursuit of glory, passion, and mili-

Page 154 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 131, , tarism. Vigor trumps delicacy., Savonarola was inflexible, fanatical, and focused on the transcendent, world-an infallible roadmap to failure. While Machiavelli could admire the, friar's verve, boldness, and, especially, keen awareness of the corruption in the, Church, he anticipated Savonarola's fall: "he acts in accordance with the times, and colors his lies accordingly" (Ltr. 3:3/9/98). Savonarola's deceptions were, too thin to endure, a textbook case of ineffective reform grounded on shaky, rhetoric., Moreover, Savonarola was partisan and failed to comply with a law he had, urged upon Florence. To give citizens added security, the friar had helped enact, a right of appeal from sentences in political cases. Shortly thereafter, five citizens were condemned by the government to death. They lodged their right to, appeal, but they were denied that right. Savonarola, who viewed the condemned, men as his enemies, refused comment: "This took away more of the Friar's influence than any other event . . . revealing his ambitious and partisan spirit . . ., [the event] brought him much censure" (D I 45). The rule of law can be a stem, mistress., Finally, Savonarola was an unarmed prophet. He was destroyed as soon as, his moral authority fell into question because of his fanaticism. Savonarola, lacked the means-the strong arms and secular laws-required to harden the, resolve of his remaining supporters or to persuade critics to obey his decrees (P, 6). Moses and Romulus understood that in founding or reforming a state, enemies harboring envy had to be slain. Machiavelli credits Savonarola with that, same knowledge. The friar, though, lacked a political or military position from, which to launch the required assault. He had only the fire of his pulpit and the, tenuous support of his followers (D 111 30). Again, the message is that the unarmed prophet or the leader who cannot or will not take the horrifying steps required for political success must fail. Government is not run by prayers alone., , 8. Piero Soderini (1450-1513), Appointed to office three years before Soderini rose to power, Machiavelli,, in his positions as secretary to the second chancery of the Republic of Florence, and as a member of the Council of Ten of Liberty and Peace, flourished in Soderini's service. Piero descended from a distinguished Florentine family and was, named prior of Florence and, later, ambassador to France under the Medici. After the French, under Charles VIII, ousted the Medici, the peculiar, fiery four, year influence of Savonarola held sway. Once the friar was burnt to a crisp,, merchant aristocrats regained political control of Florence. Within four years,, Piero Soderini was elected gonfaloniere b vita. The lifetime post lasted only a, decade. Machiavelli had deep affection for Soderini, who proved to be a compassionate political centrist who greatly admired Machiavelli. Under Soderini,, Machiavolli embarked on over two dozen diplomatic missions where he learned, countless lessons about political intrigue. Soderini, in concert with Machiavelli's

Page 155 :
132, , Chapter Four, , advice, instituted a Florentine militia to replace reliance on mercenary and auxiliary troops. In 1509, Pisa surrendered to Florence, bringing much honor to Soderini and to Machiavelli, who was in charge of military operations., But by 1511 a chilling political wind was blowing in Europe. The Holy, League of Mantua was formed. Led by Spain, with the aid of some German and, Italy city-states, and the Vatican, the alliance was neither holy nor a league. Its, expressed purpose was to drive the French out of Italy. Soderini was always, sympathetic to the French, who had assisted him in several ways during his rise, to and maintenance of political power. He straddled the fence, avoiding significant entanglement. His heart was with the French, his head concluded that the, Holy League was too formidable a foe. So Soderini vacillated, sending only a, token military force to France. As a result, Florence, as Machiavelli had warned,, was despised by both sides., By 1512, the Holy League, with Swiss intervention, had waxed the French., The Medici, who had allied with the league, ousted Soderini, dismissed Machiavelli, and regained political control of Florence. Soderini fled to Ragusa, then, was called to Rome under Pope Leo X. He remained in Rome trying to advance, the interest of Florence until he died in 1513., For Machiavelli, Soderini's patience, generosity, and indecisiveness sealed, his downfall. Instead of killing the sons of Brutus-those antirepublicans who, were doing the Holy League's bidding within Florence-Soderini was conciliatory, offering compromise and gifts. Soderini feared that to eliminate the sons of, Brutus would require exercising special powers that, even if successful in the, short run, would destroy the office of gonfaloniere 6 vita. Soderini failed to understand that the success of the Holy League was radically more likely to destroy that office and the republic of Florence as well. As a result of Soderini's, reluctance to dirty his hands, he fell from power, was exiled, and the republic, was destroyed. Political hostility is not domesticated by time or mollified by, presents (D I11 3)., Soderini's ultimate weakness was the frailty that eventually destroys all, politicians: inflexibility. During his fust nine years in office, his moral virtir and, civic virtir reaped great benefits for Florence. When the times changed-when, ruthlessness, decisiveness, and harshness were needed to stem the rising, hostile, political tide-Soderini could not adapt. Moral and civic virtir cannot guarantee, triumph over jealousies, political intrigues, hatred, and a bad turn of Fortuna (D, 1119; D 111 30)., Machiavelli was the envoy charged with explaining Soderini's wishy-washy, policies to Louis XI1 of France. Despite Machiavelli's warnings, Soderini insisted on political neutrality to the detriment of the republic. Even after it was, clear that the Holy League would triumph, Soderini was wrongly convinced that, the Spanish would accept money in return for keeping the Medici out of Florence (Ltr. 203: 9/16/12; P 21)., Although retaining numerous fond memories of Soderini, Machiavelli, summarized in an epigram his judgment of a politician unwilling to do what was, necessary to save the Florentine republic, a leader who strove to retain his moral

Page 156 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, purity at the expense of his country., The night Pier Soderini passed away,, His soul was halted on the brink of hell;, And Pluto yelled: "No hell for you-you fool!, In children's limbo you can only stay."", , 9. King Louis XI1 (1462-1515), Louis XI1 ruled France for seventeen years. He made his royal bones prior, to becoming lung by commanding the French army in an invasion of Northern, Italy. The French conquered Milan, were expelled, but, later, after Louis had, become king he neutralized the League of Venice, the alliance that had driven, Louis's predecessor, Charles VIII, from Italy in 1495. By 1499, Louis XI1 had, dominion over Milan, which he held until being crushed by the Holy League in, 1512., Around 1476, Louis was compelled to marry Jeanne of France, the daughter, of his second cousin, King Louis XI. After the death of Charles VIII, who left, the world without an heir to the throne, Louis XI1 assumed the monarchy. He, aspired to annul his marriage to Jeanne and wed Anne of Brittany, widow of, Charles VIII. With an eye toward expansionism, Louis XI1 hoped a marriage to, Anne would bring Brittany under the French sphere of influence. But Jeanne, contested the annulment and Louis advanced shaky, contradictory grounds. An, insider deal was required. Enter Pope Alexander VI (Rodngo Borgia) and his, son, Cesare. Borgia brought Louis XI1 a papal edict annulling Louis's marriage, to Jeanne. In return, Louis appointed Cesare the Duke of Valentinois and promised military aid for Cesare's upcoming military escapades., Louis allied with Ferdinand of Aragon to conquer the Kingdom of Naples, around 1502. But within a year, the countries quarreled and the Spaniards drove, Louis out of Naples. Nine years later, the Holy League pushed Louis out of, Northern Italy. Then, King Henry VIII of England attacked France on one side, while Swiss mercenaries, acting for the Germans, launched an invasion from, another side. Louis negotiated a settlement., Louis's union with Anne produced two surviving daughters. Anne, though,, died in 1514. Within months, Louis XI1 married Mary Tudor, sister of Henry, VIII. Louis probably hoped for one final chance to spawn a male heir and an, alliance with England would greatly relieve his foreign relations problems., Louis, however, died within three months., History has been kind to Louis XII, depicting him mainly as a temperate,, compassionate ruler. Some, such as Machiavelli, question his fortitude, robustness, and understanding of foreign policy., Machiavelli spends considerable time and space chronicling Louis's errors, in trying to hold territory in Italy where the region was much different from

Page 157 :
134, , Chapter Four, , Louis's native land, France. Twice, he lost Milan. The frst time "all that was, needed to throw him out was Duke Ludovico [Sforza] growling on his borders", (P 3). The second time he fell prey to the Holy League around 1512. Machiavelli, charges Louis with six major errors: the king squandered alliances with weak, states of dubious military worth; he invited a powerful foreign state, Spain, to, intervene in Italy; Louis did not spend enough time in or live in Italy; nor did he, establish French settlements in Italy; he enhanced the strength of one of the, more effective Italian regions, the Papal States; and Louis launched an untimely, attack against Venice (P 3). Machiavelli is unswayed by those who would argue, that King Louis wisely permitted the Papal States to seize Romagna and Spain, to swallow up the Kingdom of Naples to evade war. The Florentine, anticipating, boilerplate wisdom emerging after World War 11, insists that appeasement is, ineffective military strategy; it only delays the battle until a time less favorable, than the present (P 3; P 11). Machiavelli, of course, is referring to the subsequent defeat of France by the Holy League., Machiavelli stresses that by continuing the policies of King Louis XI, Louis, XI1 enlarged the reputation of the Swiss, upon whom France relied for infantry,, at the expense of France's own military capabilities. France's infantry was weak, or nonexistent, and its cavalry depended on the Swiss for support. The French, ended up so impressed by the Swiss that they were afraid to fight them and, without Swiss support they were unable to defeat anyone else. Louis XI1 did not, understand that an armed force combining mercenaries and natives is, in the, long run, inferior to an army of citizens only (P 13)., In passing, Machiavelli notes that King Louis XI1 was hostile toward the, Florentines, although Florence's vacillating foreign policy contributed to the, unfortunate situation (D I1 15). King Louis XII, perhaps a moderate, beloved, ruler in France, remains a poster monarch for inept, unworthy foreign and military strategies. As international policy is the ultimate ground of civic virtir for, Machiavelli, Louis's reign was doomed to failure., , 10. Marcus Manlius Capitolinus (died ca. 384 BC), Marcus Manlius was a Roman consul who, according to legend, was in the, capitol prior to an assault by the Gauls, circa 386 BC. Alarmed by quacking of, the sacred Roman geese, he repulsed the first assaulters and help drive the Gallic, force from the hill. For his heroic deed, he won great acclaim and added to his, name-literally. Henceforth, he was known as Marcus Manlius Capitolinus., Shortly thereafter, though, with the Gauls seemingly in control, Roman forces, scattered about the countryside, and the ransom of Rome agreed upon, the glowing valor of Marcus Furius Camillus redeemed Roman pride and chased the Gallic barbarians out of the city., Manlius, according to historians Livy and Plutarch, was a proud, jealous, noble who despised his peers for usurping his glory. He was especially envious, of Marcus Furius Camillus. Had not Manlius staved off Gallic defeat and softened the enemy? Why was Camillus the toast of the town? He had only taken

Page 158 :
Machiavelli's Top Ten, , 135, , advantage of the Gauls as the ransom was being parceled out, when the barbarians were lax and off guard. Manlius had confronted the savages when they were, hlly armed and intent on seizing the Capitol. Surely, but for Manlius's pluck,, Camillus's fortunate opportunism would have been impossible. So reasoned the, self-serving mind of Marcus Manlius Capitolinus., Accordingly, Manlius simmered with frustrated expectations, unrequited, entitlement, shameless self-pity, and abject jealously of Camillus's widening, reputation. Then, he boiled over. He spread rumors that Camillus had embezzled, public funds, an allegation that had earlier forced Camillus into exile. Then he, took up the cause of plebian debtors against their patrician creditors. Roman law, dealt harshly with debtors who were unable to repay their obligations. Manlius, worked hard to circumvent the law and appealed to the people directly. Factionalism between wealthy and poor increased. Manlius wrapped himself in populist, garb in order to elevate his reputation and deflate the standing of Camillus, who, was a patrician creditor. Manlius's scheme backfired. He was impeached, accused of sedition, alleged to have kingly aspirations, eventually sentenced, and, tossed by tribunes from the top of the Tarpeian rock, near the site of his greatest, moment at the capitol., Machiavelli refuses to impute charitable motives to the actions of Marcus, Manlius Capitolinus. He accepts the historians' assessment and paints Manlius, as having a boundless appetite for glory, a mean-spirited jealously toward Camillus, and a recklessly predatory streak-all of which exacerbated class factionalism to the detriment of Rome (D I 8). According to Machiavelli, Manlius, slandered Camillus and when called to account for his allegations, he would, not-because he could not-substantiate the charges. Machiavelli concludes, that Manlius's end was well deserved and an appropriate manner to dispose of, slanderers who pander to class division (D I 8; D 111 8)., The Florentine also assures readers that any misgivings the people bore after Manlius was eased off the Tarpeian rock were grounded on Manlius's admittedly admirable actions against the Gauls. But Machiavelli remained convinced, that had Manlius been brought back to life Romans would have condemned him, to death again (D I 58). The execution of Manlius was a prime case of the rule of, law in action (D 111 1)., Manlius embodied a repellent urge to seize political power, but did not, properly evaluate the temper of the times. His efforts to foment riots against the, senate and disrespect for the rule of law were properly answered by a Roman, people who still retained civic virtic. Manlius was executed so Rome could remain f?ee (D 111 8). So must end all power-mongers in a state where the common, good flourishes., , Notes, 1. In composing the biographies and histories of the figures discussed in this chap-

Page 159 :
136, , Chapter Four, , ter, I consulted Machiavelli's accounts as well as the following sources: Plutarch, The, Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, trans. John Dryden, ed. Arthur Hugh Clough,, vol. 1 and 2 (New York: The Modem Library, 1992); Philip Matyszak, Chronicle of the, Roman Republic (New York: Thames & Hudson, 2003); Edward Gibbon, The Decline, and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1-3 (New York: Everyman's Library, 1993); Mary T., Boatwright, Daniel J. Gargola, and Richard J. A. Talbert, The Romans (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)., 2. See, for example, John Noble Wilford, "More Clues in the Legend (or Is It Fact?), of Romulus," New York Times, June 12, 2007; Peter Kiefer, "Cave May Hold Secrets to, Legend of Ancient Rome," New York Times, November 21,2007., 3. Niccolb Machiavelli, Lust and Liberty: The Poems of Machiavelli, trans. and ed., Joseph Tisiani (New York: Ivan Obolensky, 1963), 103, 106-108., 4. Rafael Sabatini, The Lfe of Cesare Borgia (Teddington, UK: The Echo Library,, 2006), preface, 162., 5. Ibid., 61-71., 6. Ibid., 166-167., 7. Garrett Mattingly, "Machiavelli," in Renaissance ProJiles, ed. J. H . Plumb (New, York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1961), 26-27., 8. Sabatini, Borgia, 193., 9. Ibid., 187-188, 193-194., 10. Ibid., 125-126., 11. Plutarch, The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, trans. John Dryden, ed., Arthur Hugh Clough, vol. 2 (New York: The Modem Library, 1992), 572., 12. Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1-3 (New, York: Everyman's Library, 1993), 8 S W ., 13. Marcus Aurelius, "The Meditations," in Essential Works of Stoicism, ed. Moses, Hadas (New York: Bantam Books, 1960), 3.12., 14. Ibid., 1.17., 15. Ibid., 7.9., 16. Ibid., 4.40., 17. Machiavelli, Lust and Liberty, 47.

Page 160 :
Chapter Five, , Ends and Means, The renowned twentieth-century political theorist, Leo Strauss, expresses forcefully a popular view of Machiavelli:, Contemporary tyranny has its roots in Machiavelli's thought, in the Machiavellian principle that the good end justifies every means. At least to the extent that, the American reality is inseparable from the American aspiration, one cannot, understand Americanism without understanding Machiavellianism which is its, opposite.', In two sentences, Strauss accuses Machiavelli of being the father of tyrannical movements such as fascism and communism, the proud exponent of the, principle that the good end justifies every means, and anti-Americanism even, though Machiavelli died about two hundred fifty years prior to the founding of, our republic., Strauss goes on to charge that Machiavelli, sensing that he needed to soften, and misdirect readers fiom the harshness of his principles, cleverly added the, final chapter of The Prince to stir hearts and to cloud minds., The information regarding the political prerequisites of the liberation of Italy is, withheld in [chapter 261 which is explicitly devoted to the liberation of Italy, because Machiavelli desired to keep the noble and shining end untarnished by, the base and dark means that are indispensable for its achievement. He desired, this because the teaching that "the end justifies the means" is repulsive, and he, wanted the The Prince to end even more attractively than it began.2, Moreover, Strauss insists that Machiavelli understood and advocated that, fieeing Italy firom the barbarians required nothing less than a political and moral, revolution., The liberation of Italy means a complete revolution. It requires first and above, everything else a revolution in thinking about right and wrong. Italians have to, learn that the patriotic end hallows every means however much condemned by, the most exalted traditions both philosophical and religious.', , Did Machiavelli Ever Write That, "The Good End Justifies Every Means"?, In a word: "No." The closest he came-and, , from a philosophical standpoint the

Page 161 :
138, , Chapter Five, , difference is akin to that between the heights of Mutt and Jeff-is in The Prince., In some English and American translations of that work, particularly those composed in the fust half of the twentieth century, the phrase "end justifies the, means" appears. For example, the Modem Library edition of The Prince, based, on a translation by Luigi Ricci in 1903 as revised by E. R. P. Vincent in 1935, reports:, In the actions of men, and especially of princes, from which there is no appeal,, the endjustiJies the means. Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and main-, , taining the state, and the means will always be judged honorable and praised by, every one, for the vulgar is always taken in by appearances and the issue of the, event (P 1s ) . ~(Emphasis added), Those translators projected a principle or phrase unknown to Machiavelli, upon his work, perhaps to make it relevant to contemporary readers. In every, translation I have read in the past, say, thirty years that phrase is absent. For, example, David Wooten's translation is an example of contemporary English, renderings:, In the behavior of all men, and particularly of rulers, against whom there is no, recourse at law, people judge by the outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds, on to power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and, everyone will praise them. The common man accepts extemal appearances and, judges by outcome (P 18)' (Emphasis added), Machiavelli is making an empirical claim: the masses, as a matter of fact,, evaluate actions, especially those of politicians, by their results. Machiavelli is, not lodging a normative claim: he is not concluding that human beings should, evaluate actions only by their outcomes. He is not arguing that the end justifies, the means as a feature of sound moral principle. In fact, Machiavelli's observation that "the common man accepts extemal appearances" is more redolent of, condescension than affirmation. The implicit message is: Wise men, spurning, mass opinion, would do well not to evaluate actions only by results. In fact, Machiavelli rejects the proposition that the results of actions are necessary or sufficient for properly evaluating those actions (P 25; AW I 29-32; D 111 35; D I 9; D, I 53). But Machiavelli insists systematically throughout his writings that politicians must operate on the way human beings are, not as they ought to be. Thus,, rulers must recognize the manner in which their actions will be evaluated by, most people., , Even If Machiavelli Did Not Write the Words"The Ends Justify the Means9'-Do Not His, Doctrines Clearly Rest on That Principle?, A critic might agree that Machiavelli never penned the words nor vividly under-

Page 162 :
Ends and Means, , 139, , stood the normative implications of the phrase. Still, she might counter, large, amounts of his doctrine tacitly endorse Strauss's interpretation. And not just, what Machiavelli says in The Prince about the salutary uses of fraud, force, coercion, and the like. In The Discourses, Machiavelli is unrepentantly giddy when, recalling the stunning cruelty of Romulus killing his brother (D I 9), Brutus, overseeing the execution of his sons (D I11 1; D I11 3), and Moses helping to, whack three thousand of his countrymen (D I11 30; D I11 41). The Florentine, relentlessly exalts strong men of robust military and political virtir who are willing to dirty their hands in service of founding or preserving a healthy, expansionist state, or reforming a corrupt state. What is this other than implicit agreement that "the good end justifies every means"?, As an aside, the imagined critic's strong case obliterates one of Strauss's, points: that Machiavelli tried to honey coat his political messages in The Prince, by adding an emotional finale. In his unabashedly republican paean, The Discourses, Machiavelli reveled in the horrifying deeds of Romulus, Brutus, Moses,, and a bunch of others. He never tried to whitewash their slayings; instead, he, used such mind-boggling actions to graphically underscore his unyielding political message: The great leader bent on securing military and political glory must, not shy from bloody business that would petrify lesser men. In The Prince, Machiavelli composed twenty-five chapters of strategies, much of them relying on, force and fraud, to found a principality. To speculate that one patriotic chapter at, the end of that book would pull shades over the eyes of readers is unreasonable., Even the most simpleminded supporter of Machiavelli cannot successfully turn, him into a liberal humanist. Nor would the Florentine aspire to that label., To demonstrate my conclusion that Machiavelli did not hold, even tacitly,, the principle that "the good end justifies every means," I must begin with two, sets of distinctions., The first distinction is between justiJications and excuses. To just~fian act, is to defend the act as just, right, and appropriate. The perpetrator of the act admits performing it, but advances reasons which claim to show that the act was, proper; he accepts responsibility for the act, but argues that he should be exonerated from blame because the act was not blameworthy: "I did act X and was, responsible for X, but I should not be blamed for X because X was not wrong, because of R (the reason or set of reasons allegedly supporting the performance, of X)." Human beings try to justify acts that are typically viewed as unjust,, wrong, or inappropriate by appealing to the special set of circumstances giving, rise to that act. "I lied to spare grandma's feelings" may be a valid justification., Imagine that grandma is a wonderful lady but mediocre baker. She spends time, and effort concocting an apple pie for your enjoyment. When you visit, she, proudly slices you a piece. Having tasted her cooking efforts in the past, you, would rather swallow a locust washed down with motor oil than pound down, her pie. Still, you choke down the dessert, praise it effbsiveiy as one of the best, confectionaries you have ever sampled, and thank your grandmother. Although, lying to your grandmother is almost always wrong, in this case you may well be, justified because you know how sensitive she is to criticism. Acts that are typi-

Page 163 :
140, , Chapter Five, , cally wrong are sometimes justified by appeals to self-defense, necessity, emergency, unavoidable conflict of interests, avoidance of gratuitous harm, and the, like. Such conditions may demonstrate that an action that is usually or almost, always wrong is, under the circumstances, morally right., To excuse an act is not to defend the act as just, right, and appropriate. Instead, the perpetrator petitions to be exonerated from blame, either partially or, entirely, because he was not completely responsible for performing it. The agent, of the act may claim that he did not actually intend to perform the act, perhaps, because he was incompetent at the time he did it or because he was coerced into, doing it: "I did act X and X is morally tainted, but I was not (completely) responsible for doing X because of C (some special set of circumstances such as, coercion, incompetence, lack of intent, or the like).6 An excuse presupposes, wrongdoing and precludes justification. If an act is justified then an excuse is, neither required nor appropriate. "The dog ate my homework" is a classic excuse. Student claims she did her schoolwork, but she cannot turn it in to her, teacher because her curious canine gobbled it up. The student is not asserting a, justification-she is not asserting that failing to turn in homework is appropriate--but, instead, says that she is not responsible for the failure. Assuming she, was neither negligent nor reckless in placing the homework too close to her, bowser, she may have a legitimate excuse. Actions are excused because they, were done inadvertently, accidentally, through mistake, under duress or other, necessity, from non-blameworthy ignorance, by someone with diminished mental capabilities, while temporarily deranged, while under the influence of drugs, in a non-blameworthy way, while suffering from a mind-altering disease or, while insane, and the like. All such underlying conditions mitigate or erase the, moral agent's responsibility for wrongdoing., The second distinction, one Machiavelli makes, is between evil well-used, and evil ill-used (P 8). The distinction turns on traditional moral considerations:, intention, motivation, foreseeable and actual results of actions. Evil well-used is, aimed at securing the most valuable goals: founding or preserving a healthy,, expansionist state, or reforming a corrupt state; driving out foreigners as a prelude to the other ends; facilitating the common good by removing obstreperous, elements as a last resort; and the like. Such evil occurs in one fell swoop, it does, not persist. And the means used are compelled by necessity; they are required, for the valuable goals. Finally-and this is probably redundant-the valuable, goals serve the common good., Effective mercy may require evil well-used, harsh measures needed for order, security, and unification. A chief executive should not shrink fiom being, considered cruel if his purpose is to keep citizens united, faithful, and safe. The, sensitive ruler-who is too squeamish to use evil well-may, through misguided, short-term compassion, permit rebellions and insurrections to develop which do, more long-range harm than the cruelest ruler (P 18; P 19; P 2 1; D 111 3: D 111 9;, D 111 30; Ltr. 203: 9/16/12)., Evil ill-used is, at bottom, gratuitous cruelty. It is not required to attain the, most valuable goals and may be counterproductive to those ends. Evil ill-used is

Page 164 :
Ends and Means, , 141, , often disproportionate, recurrent, and frustrates the common good. Moreover, it, sometimes advances the cause of tyranny., Using the two sets of distinctions, I would argue that Machiavelli never, calls evil anything other than evil.' Accordingly, Machiavelli does not enter the, realm of justification, only that of excuse (P 18; D I 9). Military and political, leaders are often forced by necessity in service of the most valuable ends to perform actions that are normally morally abhorrent and remain morally tainted, even during exigency. Such leaders take responsibility for the choices they, make, but not for the circumstances that induced those selections. The exercise, of military and political virtic often requires unpleasant choices that issue in, morally-tainted, but excusable, actions. Leaders must choose between degrees of, evil, avoid unnecessary cruelty and follow conventional morality if possible, but, be prepared to exercise harsh means when unavoidable to attain paramount, goals (P 17; D I11 3)., Machiavelli rejects the notion that every means are permissible for any, valuable goal. The means must be necessary to attaining the most valuable political goals; they must pass the criteria of evil well-used. The private ambition, of founders, preservers, and reformers of states is insufficient. The common, good must be implicated in the goals. Furthermore, the nature of the state is crucial. The state must be effective, aim at the common good, and have the requisite purposes. In sum, tyrannies are unworthy. Not every action that serves every, state is a candidate for Machiavelli's approval. Crucially, Machiavelli's program, is not a general moral theory, but a recommendation only for chief political officers: the prince in a principality, the monarchical or executive element in a republic. The Florentine is not counseling private citizens in their everyday dealings, despite the laughable ways that contemporary writers of self-help literature, struggle to trade on his name (The Machiavellian Way to Corporate Power,, How Machiavelli Would Train Your Dog, Let MachiaveNi Guide Your Rise up, the Job Ladder)., Accordingly, the language of justification is misapplied to Machiavelli; not, every good goal is a candidate for his approval, only the most valuable political, ends; not every means are acceptable even for those most valuable political, ends; the private ambizione of military and political leaders is always insufficient; the domain of his advice is restricted to chief political executive officers, in salutary principalities and republics; he does not think the most refined, evaluations of political actions focus solely on outcomes; he never calls evil, anything but evil; he argues against the rule of offsetting good against evil; and, he often invokes necessity as the coercive engine of political actions. Necessity, compels human beings to act as reason demands under the given circumstances, (D 1 24; D 111 12)., If the actions of chief political officers were always morally j u s t 8 e b i n, the typical sense of unambiguously morally right under the circumstances-then, they would not need to learn how not to be good. Yet Machiavelli takes that, knowledge to be crucial for effective statecraft (P 15; D I 9; D I 18). The capability and willingness to use evil well are uncommon personal attributes, but

Page 165 :
142, , Chapter Five, , required of those aspiring to exercise robust military and political virtir (D I 18)., Aspiring leaders must overcome moral squeamishness and dirty their hands as, they perform morally dubious acts. The attainment of earthly power and enduring glory are the rewards Machiavelli identifies for those few who can accomplish the mission (P 8; P 26; D I 10). Of these, the more important is deserved, glory, which confers on men a spark of immortality and permits them a measure, of revenge on the grim reaper., Furthermore, Machiavelli accepts the validity of conventional morality for, ordinary citizens and in the private realm. He also takes conventional morality, as relevant for leaders and commanders, at least when they are managing internal affairs. Power obtained through inhumanity and evil ill-used cannot reap, enduring glory (P 8; D I 10; D I11 40). Nor does Machiavelli, contra Berlin, embrace Roman (pagan) morality as the sole appropriate guide for political and, military leaders. One of his major themes is the conflict between the imperatives, of conventional morality and the duties required by the political and military, offices of power. The imperatives of morality do not simply evaporate., In sum, Machiavelli, contra Strauss, is not inciting a revolution in values., Nor does he state or implicitly adopt an obtuse slogan such as "the good end, justifies every means." Nor does he tack on the final chapter of The Prince as, the ultimate manipulation of shallow readers. Nor does he embrace tyranny,, either consciously or tacitly. Moreover, he might well consider the United States, of America the best historical exemplar-surpassing, except for duration of, worldly supremacy, even his beloved Roman Republic--of his principles. But, that is a story for later telling., If Machiavelli advances a normative doctrine on these matters then the relevant principle is "a fav e n d excuse some (typically horr~JLing)means." We, must now examine the reasons for and persuasiveness of that principle., , What Ends Trigger Excuses? Why?, A chief political executive must follow conventional morality if possible, but be, prepared to transgress morality if necessary (P 18). Only a few ends excuse the, use of means that are almost always wrong: Founding or preserving a healthy,, expansionist state, or reforming a corrupt state; driving out foreigners as a prelude to founding or invigorating a state; facilitating the common good by removing obstreperous elements as a last resort; and the like. These ends, for Machiavelli, are required for a social life that can transform the people in positive ways,, allow military and political leaders to satisfy their yearning for glory, and confer, on a nation the reward of immortality., A fragmented, corrupt city-state ensures the further degeneration of citizens,, foreign domination, and the collapse of civic and moral virtir. Without a strong, nation-state, citizens are vulnerable and insecure, suffer from a poor competitive, position in relation to other nations, and endure an impoverished quality of life.

Page 166 :
Ends and Means, , 143, , A strong nation-state thwarts foreign invasion, teaches citizens to rise above, selfish individualism, nurtures communal bonds, increases public wealth and the, spiritual quality of life, and promotes civic and moral virtic. For Machiavelli, the, choices are few and stark: A nation will either be fragmented, corrupt, and vulnerable to foreign domination or a nation will be unified, saturated with civic, virtic, and able to dominate. The difference between the two types of situations, begins with the degree of military and political virtic embodied by a nation's, leaders; it continues with the quality of a nation's armed forces, laws, religion,, and education., A popular television show in the 1980s, Hill Street Blues, featured a hardscrabble police sergeant, Stan Jablonski, who supervised morning roll call. After, disseminating information and outlining the day's agenda, Sgt. Jablonski advised his fellow officers: "Let's do it to them before they do it to us." This captures part of Machiavelli's philosophy. Because of a scarcity of resources and, the nature of human beings, the world is a zero-sum contest (P 3; D I1 pref.)., Competition between states is inevitable; governments will always wage war on, one another; a successful state is one that has a strong, well-prepared military, and expansionist aspirations; the freedom of my homeland depends on the defeat, of yours. Enduring peace can be purchased only at the cost of enslavement. We, have to do it to you before you do it to us. And rest assured that if we do not,, you will. If Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882) observed that, "In this, world a man must be either anvil or hammer," sign up Machiavelli as a thumper., Contemporary moralists argue that preemptive military strikes are warranted if and only if a potentially wrongful aggressor poses a sufficient threat:, "A manifest intent to injure, a degree of active preparation [by the potentially, wrongful aggressor] that makes that intent a positive danger, and a general situation in which waiting or doing anything other than fighting, greatly magnifies, the risk" are the elements that determine whether a sufficient threat is present.8, Sufficient threat, then, does not automatically require the promise of an imminent attack., Under Machiavelli's worldview, foreign states alwuys have a manifest intent to injure; their degree of active preparation is limited only by the strength of, their military and their other martial adventures; and waiting or doing nothing, magnifies the risk because it allows some potential aggressors to grow more, powerful. Accordingly, for Machiavelli the line distinguishing legitimate preemptive military strikes fiom wrongful aggression becomes much fuzzier than, the boundary drawn by contemporary moralists. Prudential considerations may,, though, warrant waiting to be attacked instead of striking first (D I1 12)., More subtly, moralists who cringe at this world-view will recoil at Machiavelli's corollary. The existence of moral virtic and civic virtic depends on military and political virtic; the exercise of military and political virtic-because of, the nature of the world and human beings (D I 1; D I1 pref.; D I11 43)--requires, morally horrifying deeds at times; thus, the enterprise of morality itself is, grounded in founding acts that morality judges abominable. The aspects of life, human beings hold dear-art, science, religion, order, family relations--depend

Page 167 :
144, , Chapter Five, , on the security generated by military and political virtk (P 12; P 19; D 111 33)., Lefi to their own wits, human beings are strongly inclined toward wickedness (P, 18; P 23). Patriotism, the pursuit of a common good, and the development of, civic virtk must be nurtured; they are not natural human impulses. Without, these, human beings are alienated and wallow in their basest, natural instincts., Only a state with strong arms, powerful laws, a robust religion, and sound education can transform citizens (D I 4; D I 16; D I 55). Proper habits, internalization of morality, and compliance with moral and civic virtk occur through the, necessity grounded in military and political virtk (D I 1; D 12; D 1 11; D I 12)., Effective leadership and unshakeable resolve when confronting the unpleasant choices posed by adversity transform the character of citizens. The military, and political virtir of leaders and the civic and moral virtk of citizens are mutually sustaining. Moses participated in the slaying of three thousand golden calfworshipping Israelites (Exodus 32: 19-28). As far as we know, God did not, flinch., , What Is the Result?, Given the nature of the world and of human beings, expansionism is the best,, really the only, way of serving the common good, resisting civic corruption, and, promoting the health of the state. Well-trained and disciplined citizen-soldiers, must contend for glory, honor, and victory. Again, your nation cannot withdraw, from the international zero-sum game (D 111 2). Even if your nation, perhaps, because of the domesticating influence of Christian religion, desires to opt out of, the contest, other nations will not permit it (D I 6; D I 19). Strength and vigor, bear respect and honor; appeasement, humility, and avoidance court servitude, (D138;DII 13;DII 14;DII 15)., Machiavelli's moral circle is tight. When dealing with fellow citizens, a, chief political officer must follow conventional morality if possible, but, if necessary, some evil acts are excused by the paramount value of a few ends (P 18;, D I 9; D I11 12; D 111 41). But when wheeling and dealing in international affairs, where zero-sum military and political games abound, success is critical., Again, follow conventional morality if possible and prudent. Preemptive action,, though, is the rule, not an exception. Always remember that given the scarcity of, resources and basic human nature, Sgt. Stan Jablonski stated it correctly: "Let's, do it to them before they do it to us." Machiavelli insists that international affairs are conducted in a context that English political philosopher, Thomas, Hobbes (1588-1679), would later call a state of nature: an arena where moral, restraints go unobserved and where each party is at war against everyone else., Under conditions of supreme emergency-when the safety and survival of, your country is at stake-Machiavelli advises that "you should pay no attention, to what is just or what is unjust, or to what is kind or cruel, or to what is praiseworthy or shameful. You should put every other consideration aside, and you, should adopt wholeheartedly the policy most likely to save your homeland's life

Page 168 :
Ends and Means, , 145, , and preserve her liberty" (D 111 41). Contemporary ethicists define supreme, emergencies in terms of imminent, horrifying danger. Respecting moral laws, prohibiting harm to innocent people may facilitate, under such circumstances,, the enslavement or extermination of a nation by a wrongfhl aggressor: "A world, where entire peoples are enslaved or massacred is literally unbearable. For the, survival and fieedom of political communities-whose members share a way of, life, developed by their ancestors, to be passed on to their children-are the, For Machiavelli, failure under such, highest values of international ~ociety."~, circumstances invites servitude, the breakdown of sound arms and laws, and the, collapse of civic and moral virth., Chief political officers are placed, fiom the outset, in an ambiguous moral, position. The duties of their offices preclude a purely impartial appraisal of alternative actions. Morality from a God's-eye view demands we consider equally, the interests of all those affected by our actions. An innocent life crushed in one, state bears the same moral disvalue as an innocent life destroyed in another, state. Chief military and political officers represent particular countries and bear, special responsibilities to their citizens. They are not simply calculating whether, to let innocents in the abstract perish, but are instead contemplating letting their, own people die. The security and protection of their citizens is one of the primary responsibilities of their office. Unless one holds a chillingly abstract ethical position-lives are lives, we have equal responsibility for everyone, no special duties to anyone-the normative relevance for chief military and political, officers that their own citizens are threatened is unmistakable. They cannot be, moral impartialists and satisfy the strictures of their offices. The moral and political puzzle is to spell out how much partialism is appr~priate.'~, Moreover, Machiavelli recognizes a distinction between a politician managing internal matters and a military commander manipulating foreign affairs:, "There is a moral element in Machiavelli's notion of political glory, he thought, there were modes of conduct incompatible with political glory, whereas this, element is absent from his notion of military glory, for this sort of glory is, achieved through deserved success in war, whatever the methods used."" General William T. Sherman famously intoned that "War is Hell." Machiavelli, would disagree: war is worse than hell. At least in hell people presumably reap, what they have sown; they receive deserved retribution for their freely chosen, deeds. In war, appeals to notions of desert and merit lack an audience., In a movie debuting in 1970, Patton, lead-actor George C. Scott appears before an American flag and instructs his troops, "No SOB ever won a war by dying for his country. Wars are won by making the other SOB die for his country", (paraphrased.) We can imagine Machiavelli smiling., , The Case for Partialism, The duties of military and political office require leaders to place special value

Page 169 :
146, , Chapter Five, , on the interests of their constituents. In fact, the entire moral enterprise, understood properly, presupposes the partiality in personal relations. That is, the sorts, of dispositions and virtues that comprise the moral enterprise can only be acquired through the experiences and habits learned in personal relations characterized by partiality. Personal relations are nonfungible: if X has a personal relationship to Y, then Y is one of X's ends and that end is precisely Y and not any, other person. The particularity of the other person grounds the value and bond of, friendship, at least in part. Also, the intimacy of fkiendship promotes general, virtues such as honesty, loyalty, empathy, and self-making. Intimacy requires, partiality--by definition, we cannot be intimate with everyone-and treating, family and friends preferentially is sound.12, We must recognize that the unique and valuable ends of family and personal relations cannot be achieved without the socially recognized institutions of, family and friendship. While the precise nature and strictures of these institutions are reimaginable, some form of family and friendship is necessary lest important values evaporate. By viewing morality merely as a set of abstract rules, and principles, impartialists-those who insist that everyone's interests must be, considered equally in all cases--open themselves to the charge that they ignore, paramount functions of morality such as developing and nurturing personal relationships as well as trusting local communities., Partialists also illustrate the alleged poverty of viewing the value of personal relations in purely instrumentalist terms. If some impartialists are willing, to admit a certain level of partiality only because doing so has an instrumental, value for the general moral enterprise, they miss the mark. Personal relations, bear value for their own sakes. Imagine being in a personal relationship and discovering that the other party has done certain actions for you only out of a sense, of duty or from an ideal of universal beneficence or for reasons of general moral, development. You would likely conclude that the other has misunderstood the, nature of personal relations. Personal relations are not merely different in degree, from impersonal relations, they are metaphysically different in kind: the metaphors of mutual bonds, connectedness, attachments, although faintly capturing, the truth, are too effete., Personhood presupposes partiality in the sense that one's identity and personal integrity must consist in part of projects, aspirations, and life's plans that, have unique status in one's priority of values simply because they are hers. To, require people to calculate impartiality would be to alienate them from their attitudes, convictions, projects, and actions. Also, a world in which I considered, everyone's interests equally would be a world in which profound affection for, others no longer existed, a world that eliminated the values of specialness and, belonging. Intimate friendships involve the parties' recognition of each other as, special, noninterchangeable people. They and only they have certain unique, qualities, or combinations of them, or ways of embodying and expressing them., We do not live in a sea of undifferentiated "humanness.", The trick, though, is to carve out an appropriate place for partialism in, moral theory and practice. Not all partialism in personal relationships is fair. Nor

Page 170 :
Ends and Means, , 147, , does legitimate partialism in international affairs-the times when promoting, the interests of one's country is warranted-underwrite ignoring the well-being, of the world community generally. This is especially the case if, contrary to Machiavelli's view, international affairs are not conducted in a state of nature., , Was Machiavelli a Tribal Act Consequentialist?, A tribal act consequentialist or, more narrowly, tribal act utilitarian, strives to, select the course of action that, under the circumstances, best advances the collective interests of his group. He is not a classic utilitarian who impartially considers the interests of every human being (or every sentient being) affected by, actions spurred by moral choice. Instead, he restricts his domain of concern to a, small unit-perhaps, country, city, organization, or family. Unlike nonconsequentialist moralists, who insist that individuals have rights that insulate, them from being used for the public good or in service of advancing the interests, of the majority, the tribal act consequentialist has only the communal good at the, forefront of his moral calculations. Individual rights, under this view, are respected only insofar as doing so promotes the best, overall results. Moreover,, they are subject to recurrent scrutiny as new situations and circumstances arise., At first blush, to label Machiavelli a tribal act consequentialist seems fair.13, He is willing to transgress conventional morality in deference to the common, good; he considers the interests of his city-state or nation as monumentally more, important than the interests of foreigners or the international community as a, whole; he is willing, at times eager, to sacrifice individuals for what he takes to, be the common good; and he carehlly calculates the respective outcomes of, contemplated actions., But first judgments, like visiting relatives and shiny rings, do not always, pass carefbl examination. Machiavelli advises chief political officers to follow, conventional (non-consequentialist) morality if possible, both domestically and, internationally. In a well-grounded polity, doing so domestically will be the, norm. Some excusable transgressions, though, will occur. "The sons of Brutus", must be eliminated if they threaten the safety and security of a republic; founding or preserving a healthy, expansionist state, or reforming a corrupt state will, require evil well-used; promoting the common good will occasionally demand, the removal of recalcitrant elements. But, domestically, not every action is subject to consequentialist moral or political calculations. The default mindset is, compliance with conventional morality. Violations of those norms are more circumscribed than the number occurring under tribal act consequentialism. Demonstrating that a marginal gain in the collective interest can be attained by, say,, oppressing a minority group or exploiting an individual is insufficient to trigger, an excusable transgression under Machiavelli's view., Internationally, conventional morality is followed if and only if strategically, and prudentially sound. But given the structure of the world as a zero-sum game,

Page 171 :
148, , Chapter Five, , the nature of human beings, and the need for preemptive military and political, action, Machiavelli pays no lip service to the brotherhood and sisterhood of nations. Accordingly, his judgments on such matters are grounded in expediency;, his military responses are often disproportionate; and he extols the principle of, "doing unto others before they do unto you." Even here, though, the structure,, boundaries, and composition of the tribe change. As foreigners are defeated and, brought under the umbrella of Machiavelli's expansionist republic, they gain, moral status he would previously deny them. Eventually, they become citizens, worthy of domestic consideration. Machiavellian membership has its privileges., , The Problem of Dirty Hands, In politics and elsewhere, we sense at times that a particular action is the best, course to pursue, but that o w efforts nevertheless involve doing something, wrong. Chief political officers must often transgress clear, paramount moral, principles and are rightly required to do so by the demands of their positions., The paradox of being morally required to violate moral standards seems irresolvable and deeply unsatisfying., Michael Walzer eloquently poses the critical questions for the problem of, "dirty hands.", Sometimes it is right to try to succeed, and then it must also be right to get, one's hands dirty. But one's hands get dirty from doing what it is wrong to do., And how can it be wrong to do what is right? Or, how can we get our hands, dirty by doing what we ought to do?I4, , The notion of "dirty hands" is as old as the Bible. Pontius Pilate, Roman, governor of Judea, offers the crowd a choice of prisoners, one of whom would, be released. The crowd selects Barabbas as the fortunate son, while calling for, the crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate's query, "But what evil hath he done?" only, hardens the crowd's resolve. Fearing a possible riot should he push his case,, Pilate washes his hands before the multitude and self-servingly judges that "I am, innocent of the blood of this just person" (Matthew 27: 15-24). If only the problem of dirty hands was so easily dissolved., The phrase "dirty hands" is found in Jean-Paul Sartre's play of the same, name in which the revolutionary protagonist declares:, How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your, hands. . . . Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing: To do nothing, to remain, motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kid gloves. Well, I have dirty hands., Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in filth and blood. But what do you, hope? Do you think you can govern i ~ o c e n t l ~ ? ' ~, , In the same vein, Machiavelli often derides sensitive, self-styled goody two-

Page 172 :
Ends and Means, , 149, , shoes politicians who, in the name of morality, refuse to do that which is necessary to establish or preserve a healthy, expansionist state, or reform a corrupt, state; to expel military barbarians as a prelude to founding or invigorating a, state; and to slay the sons of Brutus in order to save the republic (P 21; D I 38; D, I1 13; D I1 14; D I1 15; D I11 3; D 111 9; D 111 30; Ltr. 203: 9/16/12). Preoccupied, with his own self-image as a virtuous person, the timid leader self-indulgently, sacrifices his country on the mantle of his moral ego. The military or political, chief officer, then, who aspires to moral purity may become strategically paralyzed, fail the duties of his office, and jeopardize the well-being of his country, and its citizens: "The integrity of the martyr is saved at his own ex ense,, whereas the statesman's refusal to compromise is paid by his people."'gDirty, hands situations typically involve overriding the claims and interests of an individual or group to promote the collective interests of the whole or the unit which, the moral agent represents., Bernard Williams sketches the systematic nature of the paradox of dirty, hands for politicians:, A politician might find himself involved in, or invited to, such things as: lying,, , or at least concealment and the making of misleading statements; breaking, promises; special pleading; temporary coalition with the distasteful; sacrifice of, the interests of worthy persons to those of unworthy persons; and (at least if in, a sufficiently important position) coercion up to blackmail.", Other, more dramatic dirty hands enigmas include "the justification of political assassinations as an action that can dramatically correct the course of history; whether it can be right to yield a targeted judge to terrorists in exchange for, the safety of many innocent hostages; what to do if one should meet a guerrilla, leader who stipulates that if one will personally slay just one small peasant he, will spare the rest of the otherwise-doomed group; and whether, as a leader of a, country in civil war, one ought personally to order that a captured opponent be, tortured to extract information that one expects will save lives."", The paradox of dirty hands apparently rests on two convictions: seemingly, absolute moral prohibitions sometimes must yield in political (and in everyday?), contexts; and a good person will feel and be guilty from having broken those, prohibitions, while a person bearing political virtir will understand the necessity, of sometimes doing so. Some dirty hands cases flow from social forces demanding wrong-doing; where wrong-doing is elicited as an unintended consequences, of social processes., Chief military and political officers, acting on our behalf and in our name,, sometimes act in ways that are incontestably condemned by conventional morality except that under unusual circumstances such acts prevent great harms or, achieve great goods. Choosing under imperfect conditions and with only probabilistic evidence, the officers judge that no other morally permissible alternative exists and that the likelihood of securing the desired ends is high. The contemplated act is experienced, simultaneously, as required and prohibited. Good

Page 173 :
150, , Chapter Five, , people seem forced to reject their principles for the sake of accomplishing crucial goals. They are pressured by necessity into acting on consequentialist, grounds, yet are judged deficient by non-consequentialist moral principles., Machiavelli sensed this acutely. He points out that founding or reforming a, corrupt state requires extraordinary, violent, cruel means. Morally virtuous men, are unlikely to be drawn to such tactics. Morally evil men gleefully adopt the, necessary means, but are unlikely to promote the good thereafter. The desired, combination-a morally good man willing to temporarily embrace evil and use, it well-is extremely rare (D I 18). This accounts for the gushing praise Machiavelli lavishes on the few who fit the bill: Moses, Romulus, Theseus, Lycurgus, and their like., The crux of the paradox of dirty hands for political officers is the partialism, demanded by their stations. Impartial morality, where everyone's interests are, equally important, competes with the partiality of the executive, who is charged, with advancing the particular interests of his own citizens or specific group., While the degree of warranted partialism is contestable, the existence of a duty, to be partial is clear. (This tension also appears, typically less strikingly, in everyday morality wherein moral agents advance the interests of their families,, fiends, and loved ones instead of promoting the more abstract general good.), Government officials, as agents of the public, are responsible for greater,, more enduring consequences than private citizens. Unlike everyday people, they, have control of the coercive, violent apparatus of the state. Their roles often require that they advance the interests of their citizens above those of the international good. To shrink from using evil well is to betray the trust of their constituents., A common solution to the problem of dirty hands, at least for Machiavelli,, is to claim that he advances two autonomous, often competing, realms of value:, the political and the moral.I9 At times, proper political action requires violating, the demands of morality. Chief military and political officers act in our name for, wider purposes, but their roles demand that they perform deeds that violate our, morality., This solution is appealing and has a long, distinguished genesis. Unfortunately, it is unpersuasive. Machiavelli does not posit two independent moral, spheres of value. As I have argued earlier, for Machiavelli, politics is constrained by conventional morality domestically. Variances from conventional, morality are excused by several critical purposes domestically; while, internationally, Machiavelli places morality in the context of the conditions of the, world and of human beings. Although this position bleeds firom conceptual and, empirical wounds, it does not advance two independent moral spheres-the political and the moral. Machiavelli concludes that political necessity sometimes, excuses the transgression of conventional moral principles. Moreover, even if, Machiavelli did posit two autonomous realms of value that could somehow resolve the paradox of dirty hands for chief political officers, he could not help, private citizens make terrifying choices in tragic moral dilemmas. Although the, paradox of dirty hands may well be a core aspect of political and military life-

Page 174 :
Ends and Means, , 151, , as tragic dilemmas happen frequently and systemically-it also infects individual moral options at crucial times., The magnitude, gravity, and number of dirty hands dilemmas are most striking in military and political contexts, but everyday people also confront them, now and then. In the novel, Sophie's, the lead character is imprisoned, at Auschwitz with her two children. A vicious Nazi doctor orders her to choose, between the lives of her seven-year-old daughter or her ten-year-old son; otherwise, both will be killed. Sophie, permitted only a few seconds to answer, saves, her son. She is consumed with guilt she never overcomes, which, of course, was, the point of the doctor's offer. From the standpoint of moral logic, her forced, choice between two unbearable options exonerates her from responsibility if her, act was justified: she was forced by necessity to select one of her children or, refuse to select one in which case both would be killed. Still, she experiences an, unspeakable anxiety, the legacy of the moral impurity that haunts her act. Saving, a child was a valuable end; doing so by selecting another child to perish is horrifying; if coercion and necessity hmish only an excuse, then some guilt may, remain., Morality is directed toward the appropriate navigation of the roles we undertake in our web of personal relationships. Politicians assume a role most of us, never face. They act in the name and on behalf of an entire nation, state, county,, or city. They control the coercive power of those social units. Their responsibilities are wider and deeper than those of ordinary citizens. They sometimes take, risks or are called on to make decisions with frightening foreseeable and numerous unforeseeable consequences. In that vein, the problem of dirty hands is a, critical feature of military and political life. Still, all of us in personal and professional relationships, some of which conflict at times, and are thereby subject, to gravely ambiguous moral choices., Consequentialism offers another possible solution. Only if every moral, choice is made with an eye toward maximizing the good in the instant situation,, and only if every relevant reason for and against an action in that situation is, taken as a moral reason, and only if all moral reasons are measurable by a common standard, then no moral dilemmas or deeply ambiguous moral choices, should arise. Sometimes our calculations will be difficult to sort through and the, long-range effects of our actions are typically speculative, but at least in principle a correct, justified moral answer should exist. Even in rare cases of a quantitative and qualitative tie-two alternative actions produce the same overall good, effects-we would be justified in choosing either course. Although fallible human beings acting in good faith will surely make some mistakes in perceiving, and computing the possible results of their actions, that does not vitiate the fact, that a morally right answer exists., Such an act consequentialism, though, is untrue to moral experience. That, all reasons for and against an action are commensurable is highly unlikely; that, all the relevant reasons for and against an action are moral reasons is equally, suspicious; that the good must be tallied and maximized on each occasion does, not square with how we make moral choices; and that deeply ambiguous moral

Page 175 :
152, , Chapter Five, , choices can be whisked away by abstract theory falsifies the anguish of numerous political and moral decisions. Moreover, act consequentialism wrongly excludes the dispositions of moral agents and how they factor into perceptions of, actions. The only relevant disposition under this view is the inclination to, maximize good consequences in particular cases., Rule consequentialism, which takes moral standards as mere guidelines that, may be ovemden in particular cases, fares only a tad better. When we do violate, our moral rules we justify those transgressions in ways that honor the status of, our moral standards independently of their utility in previous cases. We do not, take our moral rules to be grounded in and dependent upon only their capability, of maximizing the good in particular cases. We do not ground the authority of, moral principles only in their useklness. Accordingly, justified variances from, our moral rules are less frequent than act utilitarianism would sanction., In any event, neither route is open to Machiavelli. He is not a moral consequentialist bent on maximizing the good on each occasion. Although he does not, sketch an ethical theory and never invokes natural laws, his writings assume a, conventional morality that identifies good and bad acts apart from their instant, context. He tacitly accepts the existence of moral standards that are not hostage, to recurring calculations of utility in the immediate circumstances. Machiavelli's, standards are conventional. Although he deeply admires Roman (pagan) morality, he neither accepts it as a wholesale replacement for conventional morality, nor does he unveil a new morality. Habitual responses and internalized dispositions, nurtured by good laws and vigorous religion, are pivotal to civic virtir. But, chief military and political officers must learn to use evil well; they must navigate their roles and social relationships outside the comforting embrace of easy, moral justifications. Only if Machiavelli was a full-blown consequentialist, would chief military and political officers be advised only to become better calculators and discerners of the good. Machiavelli's counsel would be purely epistemological and, perhaps, psychological. But Machiavelli is not a rabid moral, consequentialist and he insists that chief military and political officers must, learn how not to be good, how to live in the quagmire of ambiguity where their, actions are not fully morally justified, but (only partially) excused because of the, pressures of necessity and the ways of the world., The core debate on the problem of dirty hands is between moral pessimists, and moral optimists. Moral pessimists find an intractable guilt in morally ambiguous cases even where our actions are excused. Moral optimists argue that if, our actions in such cases are justified we are innocent, and if our actions are, excused we are not responsible for any wrong and thus are not guilty., Walzer argues for the moral pessimists. When recognized moral rules are, overridden, their normative force remains: "We know we have done something, wrong even if what we have done was also the best thing to do on the whole in, those circumstances . . . this does not mean that it isn't possible to do the right, thing while governing. It means that a particular act of government may be exactly the right thing to do in utilitarian terms and yet leave the man who does it, guilty of a moral wrong."2' If a chief political officer violates conventional mo-

Page 176 :
Ends and Means, , 153, , rality in service of, say, Machiavellian-endorsed goals-if he uses evil well-he, is both simultaneously morally right and morally wrong: he may be establishing, or reforming a corrupt state, but he is also employing evil. If a chief political, officer refuses to soil his hands and abides by conventional morality, he is also, both simultaneously morally right and wrong: he honors conventional morality,, but at the expense of the polity: "It is by his dirty hands that we know [the moral, politician]. If he were a moral man and nothing else, his hands would not be, dirty; if he were a politician and nothing else, he would pretend that they were, Walzer is not concluding merely that a politician will sometimesfeel guilty,, but that he will be morally guilty in such circumstances. He argues that the best, solution is for the politician to pay a socially expressed penance or penalty proportionate to his deeds. The politician's felt angst, guilt, and internal suffering, are insufficient because they depend too much on the sensibilities of the particular politician and they lack social expression. The politician's acts were committed in our name and on our behalf. The measure of his atonement is his willingness to publicly accept a proportionate penalty or penance. Walzer notes, sadly,, that there are no authorities who could administer the appropriate penalty and no, social institutions up to the task.23Moreover, chief political officers have a duty, to conceal their dirty hands from us to the extent possible. Citizens may know,, abstractly, that their leaders must soil their hands but are usually shrouded from, the exact occasions., Walzer's formulation-an act can be the best moral alternative yet be morally wrong-underscores the paradox of dirty hands, but stuns logicians. Walzer, seems to be violating the basic laws of logic when making the point in this fashion. That logical frail is assaulted by moral optimists., Moral optimists2'argue that if an act is truly the best moral alternafivewhether based on consequentialist or non-consequentialist grounds-then the act, is justified. If the act is justified then the politician who commits it is responsible, for it but innocent because no wrongdoing has occurred. If the act in question is, morally excused then the action was not, strictly speaking, morally right but the, politician is not responsible for it because his compliance was coerced. Coerced, acts are involuntary and cleanse us of moral culpability. Accordingly, the conventional logic of the relationships between voluntariness, responsibility, moral, culpability, justification, and excuse militate that no act is simultaneously both, right and wrong in the sense moral pessimists describe., If, afier performing certain political acts requiring horrifying means, a chief, political officer feels guilt that is a psychological problem. He has no reason to, feel such if his action was, indeed, morally justified or excused. Perhaps he, needs a short lecture on basic moral concepts. Or as one moral optimist puts it:, "[Walzer's moral pessimism] is conhsed philosophy and bad psychology. If our, good politician knows that he is doing wrong, then he should not do it: no one, can act rightly by acting wrongly. Given that he acts rightly and conscientiously,, then, if he believes himself to be guilty, what he needs is therapy, not pena n ~ e . "In~ sum,, ~, feeling guilty in such circumstances is not a sign of a morally

Page 177 :
154, , Chapter Five, , sensitive politician, but a person who is either morally confused or irrational., Machiavelli was neither a moral theorist nor an academic philosopher. He, is, though, invariably cited in discussions about the problem of dirty hands, and, is sometimes credited with being the first writer to articulate the paradox.26 He, suggested that chief political officers, those exercising robust military and political virtic, must be willing to risk their souls in fulfilling their duties in service, of their country. Machiavelli, though, never explores the interior life of those, historical figures he admired. He never acknowledges explicitly the emotional, experience of moral transgression that pervades contemporary accounts of the, paradox of dirty hands. The internal horror Sophie endured finds no parallel in, the deeds of Romulus, Moses, Brutus, Borgia, and their ilk. Was Machiavelli,, implicitly, a moral optimist or moral pessimist?, Machiavelli fastidiously, even excitedly, reports the shocking deeds of, Romulus, Moses, Brutus, Borgia, and several others. He never questions, whether alternate actions were available to them. Might Romulus have reasoned, with his brother? Was there a way short of murder that could have resolved the, situation? Did Moses truly have to help whack the three thousand nitwits intent, on worshipping a golden calf of their own invention? Was his method really a, last resort? Might Brutus have finessed the judicial problems of his sons yet preserved the republic? Machiavelli never explores or even raises such queries. On, one level, then, he endorses such bloodcurdling exploits as understandable, as, excusable. But Machiavelli does not view the actions as justifiable in the contemporary, philosophical sense of that term. His heroes have learned how not to, be good., The most charitable philosophical reading of Machiavelli's position is that, although the mortifying acts of Romulus, Brutus, and others are excused, the, agents of those deeds nevertheless bear a measure of moral culpability. Unlike, fervent moral optimists, Machiavelli does not take these types of excuses to, completely cleanse moral agents from all responsibility. These excuses greatly, mitigate responsibility, but do not erase all vestiges. That is why chief military, and political officers risk their souls., Machiavelli, then, is a moral pessimist, but he does not locate the paradox, of dirty hands in a logical puzzle: How can it be morally wrong to do what is, morally right? Instead, the problem of dirty hands arises fiom the inability of, some excuses to totally exonerate moral agents from all responsibility, culpability, and guilt. For Machiavelli, some moral excuses do not cleanse completely,, some military and political actions are not entirely coerced, and the moral agent, bears some responsibility for the deeds to the extent his action was voluntary., When shocking acts that typically offend the conventional moral conscience are, performed under circumstances where they are excused from a Machiavellianvantage point-when evil is well-used-the deeds are still problematic even, though required to promote the greatest values. Although consequences play a, major part in Machiavelli's strategic calculations, he is not a straightforward, consequentialist in matters of morality. Despite his systematic recognition of, necessity, he does not take that circumstance as a complete justification of hu-

Page 178 :
Ends and Means, , 155, , man action. Nor does Machiavelli take necessity as a complete excuse that totally cleanses human agents of all moral responsibility: "Dante and Petrarch also, seek the redemption of Italia, but Niccolb is the only one to point out that the, agent of that redemption must enter evil and risk his soul."27, Whereas classical ethical theory sought to eliminate or soften evil, Machiavelli aspires to find a preacher to teach the people "the way to go to the Devil. . ., and learn the way to Hell." (Ltr. 270: 5/17/21) Machiavelli wants people to learn, how to cope with evil in order not to fall prey to its allure and be defeated by it., What does it mean to risk one's soul in fulfilling one's duties to country?, Machiavelli is far from explicit. It might mean eternal damnation in the fires of a, theological hell. Perhaps the additive culpability of numerous instances of evil, well-used is enough for a man to lose his soul. (But didn't God cheer Moses for, wiping out the 3,0007 Won't God lavishly honor the prince who liberates Italy?), For Machiavelli, the cost may be worth the candle. In his play, Mandragola, the, lover Callimaco rages, "the worst that can come to you is to die and go to hell;, but how many others are dead! And there are so many good men in hell! Are, you ashamed to go there? Face your lot; flee evil, but, not being able to flee it,, bear it like a man; do not prostrate yourself, don't degrade yourself like a, woman" (M 4:l). For Machiavelli, "Hell is an exclusive club. For real men, only."28 Machiavelli insists that he loves his "native city more than my own, soul" (Ltr.33 1: 4/16/27). He lauds those citizens who "esteem their fatherland, [much more] than their souls" (FH 111 7: AW I, 7)., He recognizes Plato, Plutarch, Livy, Tacitus, and other famous men of antiquity. These, he is told, are the damned of hell, because it is written: "The wisdom of this world is the enemy of God." As they stroll off, Niccolb hears himself being asked, "With whom would you rather go?" "Me?" he said, ''1 am not, tagging along with those ragbags to go to paradise. I am staying with that other, company, to talk about the state and go to, Machiavelli, though, is hopeful that God will not permit men of admirable, military and political virtir to fry in hell because of a few moral technicalities., Aside from the biblical examples of Moses, Peter, and David, Machiavelli suspects God's forgiveness is more expansive than commonly tho~ght.~'After all,, God, too, is neither a moral theorist nor an academic philosopher. Praise the, Lord!, Risking one's soul can also bear an earthly connotation. The appropriate use, of evil transforms the agent. What we do reflects and reinforces the values we, embrace, or not. The number, magnitude, and far-reaching effects of violent acts, tear into the fabric of personal character. Might not chief military and political, officers become morally desensitized? Might they not rationalize the use of evil, where it is not well-used? Might not each use of evil strike a corrupting influence? Is not the common good hostage to the chief political officer's capability, of maintaining his soul in the face of many confrontations, internationally and, domestically, with the forces of evil?, The healthy polity does not want to be led by militarists and politicians who

Page 179 :
156, , Chapter Five, , have lost their souls: "Only those who are reluctant or disinclined to do the morally disagreeable when it is really necessary have much chance of not doing it, when it is not necessary."" Yet to run that risk is precisely what such leaders, must do. Although Machiavelli does not delve into the interior life of his heroes,, the ability to rise with full hearts, despite countless temptations and situations, which militate otherwise, is pivotal for leaders to preserve a healthy, expansionist state. Is it possible for such leaders to preserve their sensibility to moral costs, yet use evil well on a continuing basis? Does occupying public office permit a, leader to depersonalize his morally disagreeable acts?, Although many of a politician's decisions in dirty hands situations are, rightly concealed from public scrutiny, even those that are revealed will be, judged by the multitude only by their success in attaining critical goals, according to Machiavelli (P 18). The public, then, is an untrustworthy evaluator of a, politician's actions in such cases. Success may have blossomed through good, luck or accident. Failure and disappointment may have resulted from bad luck or, an unavoidable sequence of events. Judging actions only by their results is an, unreliable guide. Appropriate social expression, evaluation, and limitation of a, politician's anguish in dirty hands contexts is unavailable. Are chief military and, political officers, then, the only rightful judges of their own cases? Must they, retain a supra-moralism that empowers them to evaluate what they do independently from their doing it? Or does Morality, in imagined personified form, hover, over a politician's decisionmaking? Or God?, To understand the interpretation with which I am saddling Machiavelli, let's, return to Sophie's choice, then some military examples. A moral optimist32, would argue that Sophie should not feel guilty because she was not guilty. In the, novel, Sophie repeatedly insists that she is unable to choose between the lives of, her son and her daughter. Either because she loves them equally or because the, respective values of the lives of her children are incommensurable, Sophie can, arrive at no judgment. But the Nazi persists, as all virulent Nazis must. He, forces Sophie to make a choice by threatening to kill both children if Sophie, does not select one to live. Sophie relents and chooses her son. The moral optimist, however, insists that Sophie is not revealing a preference for her son over, her daughter, but merely a rational desire that one child survive rather than both, children die. The coercion, duress, and vicious pressure that the Nazi places on, Sophie exonerates her from any guilt because her actions were not voluntary., Indeed, she did not make a choice in any meaningful sense at all. Sophie is not, morally culpable because she is not responsibility for the death of her daughter., Her deed is fully excused, perhaps even justified under the circumstances. That, Sophie feels pervasive guilt which greatly contributes to her later suicide is a, tragic consequence of the horrifying event, but utterly unnecessary. A proper, understanding of the logic of voluntary acts, moral responsibility, coerced, choices, justification, and excuse concludes that Sophie was not in fact guilty of, anything except performing the only rational deed available under the circumstances. She did the "ri t thing" given the petrifying context., Moral pessimists,&owever, take the distinction between (a) not preferring

Page 180 :
Ends and Means, , 157, , her son over her daughter and (b) merely desiring, rationally, that one child survive rather than both children die to be a thin reed on which to base the case for, Sophie's innocence. Sophie's act was coerced by a type of necessity, but she, nevertheless intentionally betrayed her daughter. Sophie was moved by moral, considerations to commit a moral violation: "In order to minimize further evil,, arising from the unchecked evil of these immoral circumstances, the agent is, forced to cooperate with evil, firthering its immoral projects."34 Yes, Sophie, desired rationally that one child survive rather than both children die, but she, chose her son. She could have chosen her daughter (and, thus, betrayed her son)., The point of the sadistic Nazi's proposition is that Sophie must be implicated in, the death of one of her children. His offer did not flow from benevolence: "Hey,, today is Goebbels's birthday. We should let a child live. Mothers know best., Your call, Sophie dear." Yes, Sophie has minimized evil. She has acted reasonably under the paralyzing circumstances. Still, Sophie's felt guilt is appropriate. She is part of the causal chain of decisions leading to her daughter's death;, her intentional act, a choice forced by necessity, selected her son's life and her, daughter's death; and her hands are dirty. Even though the context provides a, clear moral excuse, Sophie is morally stained. The excuse supplies incomplete, bleach. To argue that Sophie is in need of a quick lecture on the logic of ethical, concepts or extended psychotherapy to expunge her irrational guilt is to grossly, misconstrue moral experience., Being a moral pessimist, Machiavelli-if he was willing to apply his political analysis to a private, personal choice-would probably intone, dramatically, and approvingly, that Sophie has risked her soul for love of her family. Her act, was forced by necessity, which supplies a legitimate excuse. Such excuses,, though, do not exonerate completely. The sadistic Nazi has succeeded in dirtying Sophie's hands., Does the manner in which Sophie made her choice make a difference?, Moral pessimists will insist that she did ultimately select her son to be saved. To, claim that Sophie merely desired that one child live instead of two children die, is a tad disingenuous. But suppose that Sophie took out a coin, flipped itheads, my son lives; tails, my daughter lives-and abided by the results. Here no, preference for the life of one child over the other exists. But would tossing a, coin to determine who lives and who dies be taken as cavalierly devaluing life, generally? Would Sophie's hands still be stained for callous disregard? Or might, she appeal to a principle of fairness: each had equal chance to survive?, Suppose the Nazi upped the stakes. He gives Sophie a loaded gun. She must, select only one of her children to live. She will register her choice unmistakably, by shooting the other child. Is she refuses, the Nazi will shoot both with Sophie, as the audience. (If Sophie takes the pistol and tries to shoot the Nazi both children will be murdered but only after they are excruciatingly tortured while, Sophie watches.) If Sophie shoots one of her children-perhaps after a coin toss, to determine which one-does this affect her guilt? Should it?, What if Sophie had refused to choose the life of one child over the other?, She clutches her genitals and sneers at the Nazi, much like Caterina Sforza Ri-

Page 181 :
158, , Chapter Five, , ario during the Renaissance, (D I11 6) "I can make more babies." Both children, are killed. Has Sophie washed her hands, a la Pontius Pilate? Is she morally pure, even though she did not minimize evil? Or has she betrayed both of her children?, Machiavelli, again, was not counseling personal morality. His domain was, military and political. Sophie's choice, thus, is uncommonly interesting but not, the best illustration of his position., Consider President Truman's decision in 1945 to attack Hiroshima with an, atomic bomb. Spurred by concern that Nazi Germany was on the verge of building an atomic bomb, scientists urged President Roosevelt to beat Hitler to the, discovery. The scientists succeeded in their pleas, atomic bombs were produced,, and eventually dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Truman gave, three reasons for his decision to use these weapons of mass destruction: Japan, had attacked the United States without warning at Pearl Harbor; Japan had violated international law by treating prisoners of war (POWs) inhumanely; and the, bombing of Japan would shorten the horrors of the war by forcing an immediate, surrender.35, Moralists would raise immediate concerns. Atomic bombs cause wideranging harm to innocent citizens-those who are civilians, those opposed to the, war, those who are inherently innocent because they are infants or mentally incompetent, and those belonging to fkture generations who will endure the residual effects of the bombing. Even if the government and the leaders of Japan forfeited certain rights because of their transgressions of international law it does, not seem that all of the people of Japan forfeited their basic human rights., Moreover, the use of atomic bombs-at that time the most destructive weapon, devised by human beings-might well be a disproportionately grave response to, the wrongs committed by the Japanese state against the United States. Using, such fearsome weaponry was unprecedented and seems to assume that once, wrongful aggression takes place the defending nation may rightfully use any, means to attain victory; that the defenders are exonerated from all moral blame, regardless of their methods; that having a just cause in war guarantees that a, nation's means of engaging in that war are automatically purified., Advocates of Truman's policy argued that the leaders of Japan, sensing the, war was lost, braced for a last-ditch defense. Amassing about two million soldiers, Japan hoped to make the upcoming battle so costly that the Allies, suffering high casualties, would negotiate a peace. The Allies calculated that an invasion of Japan could result in one million Allied deaths with Japanese losses, much higher. The use of atomic bombs, on the other hand, would be so psychologically terrifying-if the United States could drop bombs on two Japanese, cities with such ease and horrifying effects, they could in principle destroy the, entire Japanese mainland-that the war would end more quickly with fewer, deaths on both sides.36, The estimates of casualties by the United States were based on the premises, that Japan would fight tenaciously to the end and that the United States would

Page 182 :
Ends and Means, , 159, , accept only unconditional surrender. Walzer argues that these premises are suspect:, The Japanese case is sufficiently different from the German so that unconditional surrender should never have been asked. Japan's rulers were engaged in, a more ordinary sort of military expansion, and all that was morally required, was that they be defeated, not that they be conquered and totally overthrown.. . ., If killing millions (or many thousands) of [innocent] men and women was militarily necessary for their conquest and overthrow, then it was morally necessary-in order not to kill those people-to settle for something less.37, Whether the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was morally, justified by contemporary standards is not crucial to the illustration. We do, know that President Truman, although he expressed confidence publicly in the, rightness of his decisions, harbored misgivings privately. He was concerned that, destroying hundreds of thousands of Japanese people, almost all civilians, was, frightening. He told confidants that atomic bombs were not military weapons at, all, but used to kill women, children, and unarmed citizens. Truman gave orders, to stop atomic bombing.38, Let's assume that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were morally, justified or excusable. If President Truman felt guilty for his decisions even, though he suspected that they were appropriate under the circumstances would, that guilt be misplaced, properly remedied by psychological therapy, or a sign of, irrationality? In a world where our calculations of results are uncertain but, where extreme devastation is stark and incontestable our moral universe is more, ambiguous than philosophical niceties permit. To say, "Hey, if the bombings, were unjustified then they should not have occurred. If the bombings were justified or excusable then no guilt is appropriate because no wrong has been done,", is too facile. We often wonder whether our actions were justifiable or excusable, given the complexity of the contexts in which we make choices. Those doubts, are not always easy to dismiss. Perhaps we feel guilty because we are unsure, whether we did the right thing and a short lecture in the relationship between, moral concepts is not enough to assuage our guilt. Nor would psychotherapy, remedy our lot., Still, moral optimists would insist that feeling guilty does not mean you, should feel guilty or that you were guilty. Moral pessimists would rejoin that, excuses are often only partially exculpatory. For pessimists, Truman should feel, guilty because he does bear some guilt for ordering the bombings even if we, assume that his decisions were, all things considered, warranted by the duties of, his office., Machiavelli is a moral pessimist, but this example is international in scope., Because of his penchant for preemptive military action and his inclination to see, supreme emergencies everywhere, he would evade deep moral guilt. On the, other hand, he could never imagine weapons as indiscriminately destructive of, life as atomic bombs. The existence of such arms might have precipitated a revision of his principles.

Page 183 :
160, , Chapter Five, , During World War 11, English operatives broke a German message code, and concluded that the Nazis were about to bomb Coventry. If the citizens were, warned and evacuated, the Germans would have been alerted that their code had, been broken. This breakthrough was thought to increase the probability that the, Allies would eventually defeat the Axis powers, but if the Germans knew about, it they would devise another code. Winston Churchill allegedly decided not to, order the evacuation of the town, thereby preserving the illusion that the German, codes were still effective. Doing so, failed to adequately protect the citizens of, Coventry. Whether this account-which has been disputed-is accurate in all, respects is not crucial for my purposes. Let us suppose that the chief political, officer of England, under the circumstances described, intentionally and knowingly permitted the bombing of Coventry in deference to the perceived greater, good of winning the war., Assuming the probabilities and consequences of the action were correctly, calculated, many would argue that Churchill's action was warranted under a, lesser-of-two-evils or lose-a-battle-to-win-the-war theory. True, the innocent, citizens of Coventry were used as mere means for a greater good, but evacuating, them would have resulted in much greater overall carnage. Thus, a moral optimist would conclude that Churchill's action was justified or completely excusable; that he was innocent of wrongdoing; and that he should feel no guilt about, his decision., A moral pessimist might argue otherwise. The sacrifice of innocent citizens,, without their knowledge and consent, is morally objectionable. The situation, does not appear to be a supreme emergency wherein the force of moral prohibitions eases. Churchill's action is excusable, but not entirely so. Some residual, guilt is, therefore, appropriate. Machiavelli, assuming he did not view the situation as a supreme emergency, would cast his vote with the moral pessimists., Moral optimists have a better way to resolve the paradox of dirty hands., The paradox results, they would argue, fiom taking moral principles as absolute,, at least in the sense that they cannot legitimately be overridden by aggregating, public consequences. Yet, in political contexts duties of office require that such, moral principles be overridden. Political morality, which depends so heavily on, consequentialist reasoning, seems to conflict with private morality, which rests, on absolute principles and individual rights whose normative force remains, steadfast in the face of aggregate utility. Accordingly, the good politician who, discharges his duties of office apparently compromises his goodness as a private, person because he violates moral norms. He soils his hands., The moral optimist, however, reminds us that the moral structure of political decisions is not different fiom that of private morality. Moral principles,, expressing individual rights, remain prior to aggregate utilities, but bear different weight in relation to one another. Politicians, instead of servilely following, consequentialist winds, make moral decisions where moral principles and individual rights conflict. Citizens and foreign governments must, at times, be deceived and coerced by political acts, but only where more fundamental moral, principles and individual rights are in play. Political and military leaders face so-

Page 184 :
Ends and Means, , 161, , called dirty hands situations more than private citizens because they must protect the rights that have been entrusted to them. Their offices require them to, make decisions about conflicts of moral principles and individual rights which, are not at stake in private decision-making. Still, political and military leaders, should decide from the same framework that animates conventional morality., The test is always which moral principles and individual rights are stronger, not, a differentiated morality that privileges consequentialism in politics but absolute, principles in private decision-making. Accordingly, politicians who must override certain principles and rights to honor others more compelling are not guilty, and should feel no guilt. They may sense regret for having infringed the rights of, some innocent people, but if they accurately judged the case and advanced the, stronger moral claims their hands are clean. The pardox of dirty hands, then,, emerges fiom a confusion: wrongly concluding that two separate kinds of normative reasoning are required of public officials and private citizens, and that in, fulfilling his public duties the good politician must automatically renege on his, private moral duties.39, This version of moral optimism is the cleanest way to sanitize the problem, of dirty hands only if every apparent case of consequentialist political reasoning, can be accurately redescribed in terms of (non-consequentialist) moral principles, and individual rights. Violations of moral norms in the name of utility are illegitimate; moral principles and individual rights often conflict; as long as military, and political leaders satisfy the more compelling principles and rights their, hands are clean even where harms have been inflicted on those with lesser moral, claims., Moral pessimists, however, will doubt whether all consequentialist political, reasoning can be accurately redescribed as a struggle of (non-consequentialist), moral principles and individual rights. Moreover, Machiavellian moral reasoning often trades off more important rights of foreigners, from the standpoint of, objective morality, to advance less important rights of his compatriots. To say, that such trade offs are categorically wrong is to erase the problem of dirty, hands by semantic fiat. The strong partialism required by military and political, office is a prime agent fueling the problem of dirty hands. This is so even under, contemporary moral outlooks that would not go as far as Machiavellian partialism. Also, in domestic contexts politicians at times sacrifice paramount interests, of a few people for lesser interests of the multitude. To argue in such instances, that only a struggle of conflicting principles and rights, and not consequentialist, considerations, is in play is unpersuasive., , Why Do Some Excuses Only Partially Exonerate?, Moral optimists remind us that conventional moral wisdom insists that if strict, necessity is in play-if a moral agent is forced to choose-then her responsibility for moral unpleasantness evaporates because she did not act freely. Those, moral pessimists, such as Machiavelli and Walzer, who conclude that some ex-

Page 185 :
162, , Chapter Five, , cuses only partially exonerate and that vestiges of moral guilt appropriately dirty, the hands of the agent must account for why this is so., One possibility arises from the conditions of choice. When writing philosophy our examples come neatly packaged: epistemological ambiguities are neatly, smoothed over, probabilities are easily proclaimed, and calculations of results, are tidily stipulated. Sound pedagogical reasons exist for doing so. We want to, illustrate a principle or point without having to quibble over distractions. In the, real world of military and political decision-making, however, critical choices, are often made under conditions of radcal uncertainty. Leaders, denied the comforting certitudes of philosophical examples, may well agonize over whether, their choices will cause moral unpleasantness without securing the desired benefits. Have they acted in vain?, This possibility undoubtedly accounts for the feeling of guilt some leaders, bear, but is less successful in demonstrating that excuses only partially exonerate. Leaders facing radical uncertainty--over facts, probabilities, and outcomes-must still act. If they act in good faith, doing the best they are able under the circumstances, they do not seem culpable when events later conspire, against them. They might feel guilty, from the outset right up until they discover, their decision did not trigger the desired effects. But in the court of moral logic it, does not follow that they are responsible for any moral wrongs merely because, of the conditions under which they choose., A second possibility is that guilt and the feelings of dirty hands is an emotional response to choosing in a situation where incommensurable values are in, play. Perhaps Sophie understood intuitively that a mother forced to select one, child's life over another child's life has no proper standards of comparison. She, cannot evaluate, from any common criteria, the two possibilities she is offered., The situation resists rational resolution. To be compelled to press down on one, side instead of the other is to be ushered into a hall of irrationality., Again, this possibility accounts for feelings of guilt, but not the reality of, guilt. Sophie may have reasons to be guilty and might even be guilty, but the, incommensurability of the values in play cannot indict her in the court of moral, logic. If her choice was unavoidably irrational it does not follow that she is, guilty of any wrongdoing., A third possibility is that guilt arises from the manner in which the official, performs the act. Determining what to do-deliberating over ends, means, and, alternatives-is only one part of the action. The other part is executing the act in, an appropriate manner. Abraham Lincoln's mantra, "with malice toward none,, with charity for all," addresses what he took to be the proper spirit in which to, approach decision-making and to carry out the acts required for restoration of, the republic. An agent can perform the right action for morally flawed reasons: I, can save a drowning child because I seek to be honored, not because I care about, the value of human life or because I recognize that so acting is the morally right, thing to do. An agent can perform morally disagreeable actions in a laudable, manner: The restoration of the republic after the civil war required some harsh, measures that Lincoln hoped would be performed in an appropriate fashion.

Page 186 :
Ends and Means, , 163, , This possibility, though, can account for feelings of guilt in dirty hands, situations only where politicians perform actions from inappropriate reasons or, cany out their decisions with a malignant spirit. In such cases, the politicians, would have to recognize the wrongness of the manner in which they performed, the deeds in order to suffer the anguish. But even there, the deserved anguish is, an add-on and not the core of guilt. Politicians need not perform morally disagreeable acts in an improper manner. When they do, they add another dimension of possible guilt-the wrongness of their manner of carrying out the act-to, whatever guilt is appropriate to the act itself. Moreover, when politicians perform morally disagreeable acts in a proper manner, the issue of whether guilt, from the act itself is appropriate remains. In sum, this possibility expands the, question of guilt but does not touch the primary matter first raised., A fourth possibility is that guilt arises because agents sense their own negative transformation. Performing acts recognized as morally disagreeable can, compt character. Our settled righteous dispositions, our instinctive responses,, and our ethical sensibilities are threatened by a series of situations in which we, must transgress paramount moral principles in deference to a supposed greater, good. We may feel guilty as we sense that it becomes easier and easier to carry, out such deeds. We may perceive that we are risking our souls-jeopardizing, or, at least compromising, our core values that partially constitute who we are. Guilt, may dog our sense of incremental corruption., Again, this possibility raises only the origins of our feelings of guilt, not, whether we are in fact morally guilty of anything. In this case, even the feeling, of guilt may be too strong a description. Regret, a sense of loss, and ambivalence about our occupation may be more accurate than feeling guilty about our, personal transformation. Moreover, the core question remains: Independently of, our misgivings or even our feelings of guilt, are we guilty?, A fifth possibility creases the mark. Suppose a moral agent is not restricted, to only two morally disagreeable choices. For example, no one is burdened with, an antecedent duty to become a military or political leader, or to remain a leader, once he has assumed the post. In a dirty hands situation, the chief military and, political officer has another choice beyond the two unpleasant options: he may, resign. Strictly speaking, a military or political leader bears some responsibility, for not choosing this third option. Even if he cannot resign, without gravely, jeopardizing citizens, at the moment of choice, the fact that he assumed leadership with full knowledge that the job description included facing circumstances, that would dirty his hands is enough to render him somewhat responsible for, moral transgressions that occur., Peter Digeser adds ballast to the moral pessimist's position:, By being given a set of alternatives that are morally dubious, politicians can, to, a degree, be excused for dirtying their hands. The excuse of necessity does diminish blame . . . but it does not remove blame altogether. Officeholders who, are placed in a position in which they must dirty their hands have the option of

Page 187 :
164, , Chapter Five, resignation . . . the fact that they seek oftice and desire to hold onto it does imply something about the moral responsibilities that attach to, , The idea here is that necessity is not strict in such cases. The military or political officer has a third way. He has an excuse that partially exonerates him, fiom full responsibility, but not choosing the third way and assuming the duties, of office knowing that he inevitably would confiont dirty hands situations burden the moral agent with some degree of responsibility., A sixth possibility is also apparent. "The dog ate my homework" is a feckless response if I placed the paper in Fido's feeding dish, ladled gravy over it,, and covered it with the dog's favorite dinner. Or if I was negligent in placing my, homework in a spot inviting to my dog, I cannot convincingly shuck all responsibility for the loss. That is, if I am responsible, fully or partially, for the circumstances under which my homework disappeared, I cannot properly invoke my, canine's appetite as a legitimate excuse for my failure to pony up the work in, class. Accordingly, when military and political officers, by their antecedent acts,, are partially responsible for the circumstances under which they brave unappealing choices, they bear proportionate responsibility and are only partially excused, in the court of moral logic., A seventh possibility is more controversial. Might the enormity of the violation of a nearly absolute moral principle warrant only a partial excuse for the, moral agent? Murdering a brother, helping to slay three thousand fellow countrymen, overseeing the execution of sons, exploiting a confederate by using him, to pacify a region and then slicing him in two when convenient, a mother's, choosing to save the life of a son over the life of a daughter . . . are not these, transgressions of moral principles that are absolute or nearly so? Even if the acts, were warranted by extraordinary circumstances, should not their mortifying natures render the agents partially responsible? Should not their excuses be only, partially exonerating?, The moral optimist would be unswayed. To call a moral principle nearly absolute just means that it may be overridden on only a few occasions. If the instant case is one of those occasions then no squeamishness about the numerous, times when the principle may not be violated is called for. If the instant case is, not one of those rare occasions, or if the principle is altogether absolute, then the, agent should not violate the principle at all. In either case, no guilt or even feelings of guilt should arise., The moral pessimist, perhaps smuggling in epistemological uncertainty and, uncertainty of attaining desired outcome, would insist that some acts are so horrifying, even if warranted, that feelings of guilt would arise in all but the most, insensitive moral agents. More telling, those feelings reflect the partial responsibility borne by the agent who is only partially exonerated., Moral pessimists press their point. An action may be justified or excused,, yet still be somehow wrong. When making an overall evaluative judgment of, whether to perform an act given the circumstances-whether based on consequentialist or non-consequentialist grounds-we may properly conclude that the

Page 188 :
Ends and Means, , 165, , act is justified or excused. But the morally unavoidable features of that act still, count against the action and its agent. That is, the overall judgment of what to, d o - t h e proper evaluation that we should perform the act--does not expunge all, the wrongness of the values that constitute that act. The wrongness of certain, parts of the act persists as a disvalue. The feeling of guilt that results is righteous, and appropriate, not simply an unwarranted neurosis that merits psychological, therapy or a lecture on the logic of moral concepts.41, Moral principles are absolute not in the sense that they cannot be overridden, under particular circumstances, but in the sense that even when they are justifiably or excusably overridden the wrongness of transgressing them remains. The, experience of having dirty hands resonates with that conviction. The most important cases of dirty hands include significant "betrayals of a person, value, or, principle."42 Although Machiavelli lacked the conceptual apparatus of twentyfirst century moral philosophy, he intuitively accepted that dirty hands were the, inevitable consequence of the clash between absolute moral principles, the requirements of public office, and the necessities of navigating in the zero-sum, contest that adjudicates international affairs. The actions, even if excusable in, Machiavelli's view, of political leaders nevertheless strain from the persisting, wrongness of some of their constitutive values. That is why strong men blessed, with military and political virtf must risk their souls to found, reform, and lead, their nations., To think otherwise is to conflate justified acts which contain no disvalues as, part of the overall judgment that they should be performed with justified or excused acts that do. For example, working for famine relief, helping my neighbor, paint her house, and feeding my dog are all morally permissible, justified acts, that, other things being equal, include no disvalues or wrongful components., Dirty hands situations-which by definition do include disvalues and wrongful, components--often result in proper judgments that acts are justified or excused., To assess all justified acts in the same way-they involve no overall wrongness,, exonerate the agent from all responsibility, and thus involve no guilt-is to distort our moral experience and grossly minimize the anguish of moral choice., Some dirty hands situations, such as Sophie's, implicate the agent in executing the immoral designs of another person. Sophie was immorally coerced into, sparing the life of one of her children at the expense of the other. Her action was, justified-in that she minimized the amount of evil possible under the circumstances. Yet, she senses the stain on her hands or, more accurately, the compromise of her soul. Should Sophie feel morally righteous? After all, she did the, best she could under the circumstances? What would it say about her if she was, able, perhaps after a quick talk on the logic of moral concepts, to brush off the, tragedy of having been forced to bring about the death of her daughter? Having, the appropriate moral response is crucial to a filly human life. The feeling of, guilt is evidence of understanding that even justified or excused acts do not always purify the wrongness or disvalues they embody., The moral optimist may well be correct: Sophie is not morally culpable. But, not all guilt flows from moral culpability. Michael Stocker observes:

Page 189 :
166, , Chapter Five, There is shame and guilt in regard to one's ancestors and in regard to one's fellow citizens, colleagues, and others with whom one identifies. So, too, there is, shame and guilt over what one merely brings about--e.g., the shame and guilt, even a careful driver might feel over the death of a child who suddenly darts in, front of the car.43, , The constituting values of an overall evaluation of what to do and how to, act do not disappear as values once the evaluation is finalized. What is required, under the circumstances may still be bad even though justified or excused. Justified or excused betrayals of a person, value, or principle retain their wrongful, features; an accurate, overall assessment that they are the best we can do under, the circumstances does not cleanse all wrongness and disvalue., I am arguing, then, that a morally pessimistic version of the problem of, dirty hands is implicit in Machiavelli's work and that I find that rendition compelling. Critics will howl. First, they will accuse me of yoking Machiavelli to a, supra-historical framework of analysis and obsessing over the logic of moral, reasoning at which Machiavelli would scoff. Second, many will contest the coherency of moral pessimism in this context., In response, I will go further. With Walzer, I take Machiavelli, with the, possible exception of Aristotle, to be the first theorist to understand intuitively, and acutely the problem of dirty hands in military and political matters. Yes, I, am making his view explicit in the context of twenty-first century moral concepts. I am not claiming he operated with these concepts. But he participated in, the tension between accepting absolute moral principles, recognizing the duties, (particularly the obligation to advance the interests of constituents over those of, foreigners) of public office, and the necessities urged by particular circumstances. Surely, for Machiavelli, principles are not morally good only because, they are useful. Machiavelli is not a utilitarian in that sense. He did not work out, the resulting implications nor did he resolve the conundrums. But, then, I am not, sure we can smooth out the irregularities either., An eighth possible explanation of why some excuses only partially exonerate revolves around the problem of questionable partiality. Suppose Sophie's, choice was between the lives of her two children or the lives of fifty equally, innocent youths: If she chooses to save the lives of her children, the fifty others, will be slaughtered; if she chooses to save the fifty, Sophie's own children will, be slain. If Sophie chooses to save the life of her children, does she bear any, responsibility for the deaths of fifty innocent children? Is her partialism justified, or fully excused or only partially excused? Let's change the case again. Sophie's, choice is between having her two children tortured excruciatingly for two weeks, or the lives of fifty equally innocent children: If she chooses to save the lives of, the fifty others, her children will be tortured; if she permits the torture, the lives, of fifty children will be spared. In this case, the values to be compared are no, longer lives to lives, but lives to periods of torture. Sophie chooses to prevent, her children from being tortured. Is she partially responsible for the deaths of the, fifty others?

Page 190 :
Ends and Means, , 167, , Military and political officers are required by their job descriptions to promote the interests of their partisans over the interests of the international good., The extent of warranted partialism is contestable-no contemporary moralist, would endorse the degree of partialism advocated by Machiavelli in international affairs. But might some responsibility and some guilt for harmful outcomes to foreigners arise from implementing partialistic reasoning under conditions of rmcertainty? Might some occasions of preferring the interests of our, own to the interests of outsiders exonerate moral agents incompletely?, In all such appeals, moral optimists will insist that a right answer exists. If, the act is permitted then it is justified and the moral agent incurs no guilt. If she, feels guilty that is a psychological, not philosophical, concern. Only if the act is, unjustified does guilt ensue. In such cases moral agents should feel guilty because they are guilty. Moral pessimists rejoin that moral experience is not so, neatly packaged. Degrees of uncertainty pervade our assessment of circumstances, weighing of alternatives, deliberation over means, and evaluation of, different ends. The duties of public office complicate matters further because the, ideal moral vantage point of impartialism is compromised systematically: military and political leaders must promote the interests of their country., Machiavelli must remain a puzzle for contemporary moralists. His understanding of necessity, contrary to current usage, does not allow a chief political, officer to lodge a legitimate claim of justification. Necessity permits only a, claim of excuse which does not fully exonerate the actor from responsibility in, Machiavelli's court of morality. For Machiavelli, limitations on a leader's range, of alternatives do not fully exonerate him from responsibility. Machiavelli takes, moral principles to be absolute, or almost always so, and violations are evil in, proportion to the havoc they cause. Leaders are sometimes partly responsible for, the antecedent conditions that nurture necessity, the horrifying nature of certain, of their acts, and their prior understanding of the inevitability of resorting to evil, when they freely assumed office combine to make them partially responsible for, moral horrors that ensue. Leaders who have already lost their souls-those who, feel no pangs of conscience when violating moral norms-are too likely to promote tyranny. The perhaps impossible task for chief military and political officers is to preserve their souls while consistently and systematically using evil, well. Machiavelli's model invokes a solitary actor, estranged from simplistic, evaluations by results only, aspiring to but suspicious of honors conferred by the, masses, commanded by the duties of office to advance the interests of his country above those of the international community. Surrounded by packs of jackals, and wolves immersed in a zero-sum contest in which the winners harvest glory,, power, and virtir while the losers suffer humiliation, impotence, and servitude,, leaders must soil their hands and risk their souls., The multitude will, naively, judge only by the results. If the evil used turns, out to facilitate desired ends-such as the founding, preserving, or reforming of, a healthy, expansionist republic-the masses will judge the means praiseworthy., If the evil used does not succeed, the people will evaluate the means harshly., But actual outcomes flower from numerous causes, some of which are planted

Page 191 :
168, , Chapter Five, , by Fortuna. To evaluate leaders only by results is to bestow too much credit or, too much blame for circumstances and events outside their control. Machiavelli, stresses the current situation and the reasonably foreseeable consequences of, alternative possibilities. Our predicted outcomes and assessment of present circumstances arise from our own acts and evaluations. The actual results occur, at, least in part, from things beyond our command., , Is the Doctrine "A Few Ends Excuse Some Means", Just as Pernicious as the View that the, "Good End Justifies Every Means"?, Harvey Mansfield warns that "It is sometimes claimed in extenuation of Machiavelli that he never said, 'the end justifies the means.' No, but he said worse:, that the end makes the means honorable, and that moral men believe this."" I, would deny that what Machiavelli said is "worse." More fundamentally, Machiavelli says that the means will be judged honorable because the masses are, lured by external appearances and evaluate actions only by their outcome (P 18)., Machiavelli, then, is not claiming that the judgment of the masses, which he, considers vulgar in this context, "makes" the means honorable in any higher, sense. Moreover, the problem of dirty hands illustrates how one can argue that, an action is tainted with evil but required by the duties of office and is, thus,, honorable to perform. Moral optimists will dispute that analysis, but the position, of moral pessimists such as Machiavelli is at least plausible and in my view persuasive., I have argued that for Machiavelli only a few ends excuse the use of means, that are otherwise wrong: Founding or preserving a healthy, expansionist state,, or reforming a corrupt state; driving out foreigners as a prelude to founding or, invigorating a state; facilitating the common good by removing obstreperous, elements as a last resort; and the like. These ends, for Machiavelli, are required, for a social life that can transform the people in positive ways, allow military, and political leaders to satisfy their yearning for glory, and confer on a nation, the reward of historical immortality., Still, a critic would respond, those "few ends" cover more ground than first, suspected. None of the goals listed is attained by merely a single act. They all, require numerous, perhaps recurring, uses of evil. In what way does the doctrine, "A few ends excuse some means" amount to a moral improvement over the, view that "The good end justifies every means"?, The critic is correct that my interpretation of Machiavelli's positions still, endorses numerous harsh, cruel measures in the name of treasured goals. No, whitewash of Machiavelli is possible or desired on that score. But the excuse, doctrine narrows the scope of what defines a "good end." Not just any desired, goal legitimizes every means used to attain it. Moreover, the excuse doctrine

Page 192 :
Ends and Means, , 169, , caps the amount of moral disagreeableness at the level of evil well used. Any, measures exceeding that cap call into question the ends sought. That is, going, beyond the level of evil well used suggests a leader is most probably a tyrant, focused on the accumulation and exercise of power as such, instead of a Machiavellian executive striving for personal glory in the context of transforming, citizens for the common good., Further, the excuse doctrine implicates a leader's conscience in a way that, the justification view does not. If my actions are fully justified, as moral optimists never tire of pointing out, I have no reason to feel guilty because I am not, guilty: my action was the morally right thing to do under the circumstances. If, my actions are excused in a fashion that only partially exonerates me from responsibility, I should harbor some guilt and serious misgivings. If so, perhaps in, the future I will be more reluctant-than I would be under the justification, view-to use cruelty in circumstances where it is not warranted. Perhaps under, the justification view it is easier in the future to rationalize the use of harsh, means and to dismiss countervailing reasons., I must temper my argument by pointing out, again, that Machiavelli does, not delve into the psychology of his historical favorites, nor does he examine the, interior life of his hypothetical military and political leaders. Accordingly, I am, not claiming that Machiavelli stated, or even held explicitly, the contrasts that I, am urging. I am proposing, instead, that such contrasts are implicit in Machiavelli's work as we interpret it in a contemporary framework., , Assessment of Machiavelli, Evaluating a thinker who wrote centuries ago invites charges of anachronism:, foisting a twenty-first century perspective on a sixteenth-century writer; expecting the writer to anticipate five hundred years of military, political, economic,, and historical developments; and stridently chiding the writer for his shortcomings as a clairvoyant. A degree of anachronism is inevitable, even clarifying., Too much is unfair and obfuscating., I'll begin with problems in Machiavelli's work that were discernible in his, own time, as evidenced in the work of one of his closer friends, Francesco Guicciardini (1483-1540). Guicciardini was a lawyer by trade who played significant, roles in Italian politics as Florentine ambassador to Spain and Papal Governor of, Romagna. He also wrote, among other things, Florentine History; Ricordi, a, series of maxims and aphorisms on politics and life; the History of Italy; and, Considerations on the "Discourses" of Machiavelli. While Machiavelli held, ofice in the Florentine republic, Guicciardini eyed him suspiciously as Soderini's acolyte. Once the Holy League ousted Soderini in 1512, the two men, shared an enmity toward Medici rule in Florence, although that sentiment did, not stop either man from seeking employment from the Medici. In 152 1, Machiavelli, while traveling as an emissary to the Franciscan friars in Capri, passed

Page 193 :
170, , Chapter Five, , through an area governed by Guicciardini. The two men enjoyed lively, profound political discussions and soon began a series of correspondences that, ended only when Machiavelli died. Machiavelli had famously written to another, friend, Francesco Vettori, "I love Messer Francesco Guicciardini, I love my native city more than my own soul" (Ltr. 331: 4/16/27)., If Machiavelli represented cool calculation punctuated, and often distorted,, by fiery idealism, Guicciardini was the iceman: unabashedly ambitious, obsessed with personal honor, disdainful of religious sentiment, seemingly devoid, of personal warmth, relentlessly contriving, and committed to the primacy of, reason over passion and will. Guicciardini was shorn of both illusion and hope., He shared several principles with Machiavelli: the deceptions and guiles of politics; a strong conviction that a state was only as enduring as its military might;, and the need to free Italy from the oppression of foreign dominators and internal, clergy. But Guicciardini, unlike Machiavelli, was not a dreamer. The aristocratic, iceman did not entertain thoughts of a savior who could redeem the honor of the, Italian peninsula. To perceive a need was not to conjure a solution., [Guicciardini] knew that without some renown and respect a man could amass, riches but rarely preserve or increase them. He also knew that the lofty ideals, he cherished would not interfere with his personal success only if he considered, them his own private prejudices. He could speak of piety, honor, liberty, justice, morality, and the hope to see Italy freed from foreign oppressors to a few, trusted friends. . . . But his decisions in the world were never to be dictated by a, desire to change it.45, , Guicciardini's objections to Machiavelli are both methodology and substantive. Although he takes many potshots at Machiavelli's method at arriving at, political conclusions, Guicciardini has three major misgivings. First, he argues, that Machiavelli's idolization of ancient Rome skews his political conclusions., He charges that Machiavelli's worship of Rome leads him to ignore differences, in historical circumstances and lures him into misleadingly idealizing the policies and actions of the Roman republic as a nearly perfect standard (C 1 29; C I, 49; C 111 24; R C 110; R C 117). Second, Guicciardini accuses Machiavelli of, asserting his conclusions too categorically and universally. Too often, Machiavelli writes as if a matter can be settled by a bright-line rule where more nuance, is present and derives broad conclusions from inadequate evidence (C I 3; C I, 26). Finally, Guicciardini rejects Machiavelli's quest to discover political rules, of behavior from the dustbin of selective history (C I 39; C I 40: R C 114). In, sum, Guicciardini pegged Machiavelli, ironically, as too impractical and idealistic., On matters of substance, Guicciardini is even more leery. He lodged numerous objections to details in Machiavelli's position. The following six objections illustrate the trajectory of Guicciardini's criticism., First, he rejects Machiavelli's view of human nature. For Guicciardini human beings, contrary to Machiavelli's view, are naturally inclined to seek the, g o o d ( C I 3 ; R C 134;RC 1 3 5 ; R B 4 ; R Q 4 ) .

Page 194 :
Ends and Means, All men have a natural inclination to goodness, and, all other things being, equal, like good better than evil, and if any have a different tendency, it is so, far contrary to what is normal for others, and against the first object given by, nature, that he must rather be called a monster than man (C I 3)., Despite this natural inclination to the good, Guicciardini notes that human, nature is fragile and easily tempted to stray from righteousness. A system of, rewards and punishments must reinforce our natural inclination lest we stumble, toward moral degeneration (R C 134; R Q 4)., Second, Guicciardini is an unabashed aristocrat who harbored no faith in, the judgments of the masses. Whereas Machiavelli took the multitude to be better evaluators of at least a few matters than a prince, Guicciardini relentlessly, disputed that finding (C I 2; C I 5; C I 7; C I 58; R C 140; R C 201; R B 113)., A people full of ignorance and confusion, and possessing many bad qualities,, , can only be expected to overthrow and destroy everything. . . . One cannot deny, that a people in itself are a treasury of ignorance and confusion. Hence, purely, popular governments have at all times been short lived (C I 5; C I 58)., , Third, Guicciardini, while acknowledging the necessity of harsh measures, at times, takes Machiavelli to task for too readily accepting violent means where, more humane alternatives are available (C I 26)., The prince must take courage to use these extraordinary means when necessary,, and should yet take care not to miss any chance which offers of establishing his, cause with humanity, kindness, and rewards, not taking as an absolute rule, what [Machiavelli] says, who was always extremely partial to extraordinary, and violent methods (C I 26)., Fourth, Guicciardini undermines a crucial Machiavellian conviction: that, the amount of good and bad in the world is constant; that the state of the world, is always the same in every age, with only the location of privilege, power, and, relative greatness changing. This conviction is important in setting up Machiavelli's portrait of the world as a zero-sum contest in which one nation's gain, must be purchased by the losses of other nations. Guicciardini argues that the, amount of overall virtd, the quality of art, the level of military discipline, the, refinement of literature, the vitality of religion, and the temper of social customs, do not remain constant through history. One historical era, overall, is not just as, corrupt and as glorious as every other (C I1 pref)., Fifth, Guicciardini calls into question Machiavelli's understanding of the, greatness of Romulus and, by extension, Machiavelli's general depictions of his, historical heroes. According to Guicciardini, Romulus was "thought to have, been assassinated by the senate for arrogating to himself too great authority", instead of conforming to Machiavelli's account wherein Romulus ceded most of, his power to the senate, retaining only the authority to convene that body and to, command armies during war time (C I 9).

Page 195 :
Chapter Five, , 172, , Sixth, unlike Machiavelli, Guicciardini rejected the possibility of a unified, Italy., Guicciardini, a thoroughly practical man . . . regarded any scheme for the unification of Italy as the idle vision of a dream; indeed he was almost inclined to, think it undesirable in itself, and to regard the stimulating influence of a number of independent states as a compensation for the weakness of a divided nation. In any case he was convinced that Italy could not cut herself adrift from, the past. . . he rejected the idea of a great and general fatherland for all Italians,, the notion of which had been gradually permeating the intellectual atmos-, , here.^^, , Finally, Machiavelli, in a meandering argument, concludes that in a republic, that has not been corrupted attacking some citizens whom ought to be rewarded, and being suspicious of some who merit confidence are "mistakes" that bear a, benefit: citizens remain good and less ambitious because they fear punishment, (D I 29). Guicciardini rejoins that "every kind of ingratitude and injustice is always pernicious and the republic must be ordered in such a way that the good, are always honored and the innocent not alarmed" (C I 29)., Guicciardini's complaints anticipated the core of modem objections to Machiavelli's writing. Machiavelli claimed to derive his political conclusions from, observations about human nature and historical examples, mostly drawn from, the Roman republic. Despite his aspiration and subsequent reputation, Machiavelli was far from objective. He selected his examples carefully, choosing only, those that supported his foregone convictions. He was not above falsifying historical accounts if doing so supported his conclusions better than the actual accounts. Why would a supposed detached political scientist use such unreliable, and disreputable methods? Despite his renown as the founder of cool, calculating, dispassionate statecraft, Machiavelli embodied deep idealism and romanticism. Disgusted by the rancid disgrace of being dominated by barbarians, while, at the same time observing the skills and courage of individual Italians in duels, and competitions involving only a few, Machiavelli placed his trust in the ascent, of one great man to wreak vengeance and to drive the stranieri from his homeland. Following the tradition of Plato and Aristotle, he was convinced that once, this "Superman" emerged, the masses would be spiritually transformed, a republic could emerge, virtic would flourish, and the state would prosper. His treatises, are not the labors of an objective scientist, but rather the poems, yearnings, and, implorations of a lover. His emotions, passion, and anguish permeate his writings. They frequently cloud his thinking, they sometimes animate his insights,, but they always starkly reveal the source of the blood in his veins. In short, the, methodological strengths and weaknesses of Niccolb Machiavelli flow fiom his, relentless patriotism., The differences between Guicciardini and Machiavelli on human nature are, ones of degree and starting point. Although Machiavelli's picture of human nature is harsher-stressing the inherent inclination toward selfishness and shortterm benefit-he also details possibilities for transformation. Sound leadership,

Page 196 :
Ends and Means, , 173, , strong arms, well-crafted laws, and robust religion nourish civic and moral virtir., A multitude that is initially turned to anarchistic chaos can be molded into exemplifying a praiseworthy collective national character. Such change is possible, only if human nature contains prospects for the good. While Guicciardini emphasizes the inherent inclination of human nature to seek the good, his considered view of quality of the people's judgment is less sanguine than Machiavelli's. For Guicciardini, the initial turn toward the good does not issue in, practical wisdom. To say that human nature includes possibilities for good and, for evil is trivial, but true. Machiavelli's depiction of human nature is undoubtedly harsh, disproportionate, unfair, and unpersuasive. But these distortions are, tempered by Machiavelli's profound faith in the power of a strong state and its, prospects for elevating the masses. His drawing of human nature, then, is more, of a prelude to the importance of strong leadership and sound government than a, claim to metaphysical precision., That Machiavelli's writings celebrate violent means and extraordinary, measures is beyond dispute. Machiavelli is proudest when he venerates deeds, that most people would find unspeakable: murdering a brother for political reasons; supervising the execution of counter-revolutionary sons; zapping three, thousand countrymen who falsely worship; eviscerating a governmental patsy in, order to shock and awe townsfolk. Machiavelli does not seriously consider, whether other means of resolving the situations were recommended nor does he, explore the consequences for the interior life of those who commanded the killings. Ironically, despite his dark vision of human nature, Machiavelli is most, appreciative that Romulus, Brutus, Moses, and Borgia acted in ways from which, most leaders would shrink: they learned how not to be good when necessary., More profoundly, Machiavelli's world view lines up a relentless international zero-sum contest that morphs into a self-fulfilling prophesy. Once national leaders are convinced that the world is a battleground for survival, glory,, and virtic, they have additional reason to act in ways that reinforce that conviction. Preemptive military strikes, aggressive expansionism, and "doing it to them, before they do it to us" calculations are muted only by the strength of a country's armed might, its current international commitments, and other prudential, considerations. From Machiavelli's sony vision of international relations, arises, a vicious cycle: assuming that a state of nature exists ensures that it does exist., Guicciardini neatly undermines Machiavelli's observation that the overall, amount of virtir in the world remains constant. This thesis is important for Machiavelli's zero-sum worldview. On its face, the thesis is unconvincing for the, reasons beyond those advanced by Guicciardini. Even if the overall results or, comparative positions of, say, four nations remain the same, the quality of their, participation in international affairs-ne, measure of virtic-may increase in all, cases. For example, the overall records of all teams in the American League in, professional baseball must balance out to a .500 percentage, an equal number of, wins and losses. But the overall quality of play in 2007 is clearly superior to the, quality of play in 1905. Modem athletes, independently of the use of performance-enhancing drugs, are faster, larger, stronger, and have access to superior

Page 197 :
174, , Chapter Five, , training methods and much better equipment. True, the overall records of all, teams must end in a constant .500 win-loss percentage, but it does not follow, that the overall amount of baseball excellence remains the same. And this should, be especially so for Machiavelli, who otherwise disparages those who judge, actions only by their results. Accordingly, within Machiavellian philosophy is a, philosophical nugget that can destroy his view that the overall amount of virti, remains constant: virti cannot be judged by results alone. Once we abrogate the, position that the overall amount of virtii in the world remains the same, we take, the first step in mollifying Machiavelli's depiction of the world as a series of, ruthless zero-sum events., Rarely is Machiavelli interpreted as a man undergoing existential crisis. Yet, that is precisely what he suffered. He was haunted by an obsession to resist the, Grim Reaper; to carve out a piece of enduring glory; to realize an historical immortality bestowed only on those able to harness ambizione, attain military and, political virtii, and transcend the natural depravity of mankind. Mortality, extinction, to evaporate from the historical record . . . these were the punishments, meted out to the multitude who led lives of tranquil desperation. Nothingness, and indifference were the cruelest cosmic responses to the deepest human yearnings., The grand aspirations, profound patriotism, burning ambition, and relentless, passion of Machiavelli's interior life, though, coalesced uneasily with his, worldly fortunes., [Machiavelli] lived an irregular, almost bohemian life. He was a brilliant failure, never really managed to achieve his ends: he never made love to the, women he wanted, satisfied his ambitions, reached the top in his political career, and was never taken seriously as a thinker during his lifetime. He died penniless: he never even succeeded in persuading the republic of Florence to pay his, arrears and to reimburse him for his expenses. He never managed to get his immortal works published. He was the permanent victim of political changes. . . ., Such is the fate of very intelligent men who are, however, not intelligent, enough to conceal their intelligence and lull other people's fears and suspicions, to sleep. Machiavelli was, in reality, too much of a dreamer and an optimist to, achieve practical resu~ts.~', , Machiavelli, unlike Nietzsche, never anticipated the glory history would, render him. When discussing the types of men who merit praise, Machiavelli, lists heads and founders of religion, founders of republics or principalities,, commanders of armies who have expanded territorial holdings, and, finally, authors (D I 10). Although he burned to earn enduring glory in service to his country as a political consigliere, Machiavelli attained historical prominence as an, author. At his death, he could not have forecasted the literary distinction his, work would reap. He never fully understood the teeming artistic virtii he exuded., Ironically, Machiavelli, during his lifetime, was never Machiavellian enough to, realize his dreams.

Page 198 :
Ends and Means, , Notes, 1. Leo Strauss, Thoughts on MachiaveNi (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,, 1958), 13-14., 2. Ibid., 67., 3. Ibid., 67-68., 4. Niccolb Machiavelli, The Prince and the Discourses, trans. Luigi Ricci and ed. E., R. P. Vincent (New York: Random House, Inc., 1950), 66., 5. Niccolb Machiavelli, Selected Political Writings, ed. and trans. David Wootton, (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1994), 55; Dante Germino, "Second, Thoughts on Leo Strauss's Machiavelli," Journal of Politics 28 (1966): 803-807., 6. See, for example, John Austin, "A Plea for Excuses," Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57 (1956-1957): 1-5., 7. Germino, "Second Thoughts," 805., 8. Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Harper Collins Publishers,, 1977), 80-8 1., 9. Ibid., 254., 10. Raymond Angelo Belliotti, Seeking Identity: Individualism and Community in an, Ethnic Context (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995), 4-28., 11. Russell Price, "The Theme of Gloria in Machiavelli," Renaissance Quarterly 30, (1977), 628., 12. Belliotti, Seeking Identity, I f 14., 13. I have made that mistake more than once. See Raymond Angelo Belliotti, "Machiavelli and Machiavellianism," Journal of Thought 13 (1978): 293-300; Raymond, Angelo Belliotti and William S. Jacobs, "Two Paradoxes for Machiavelli," Terrorism,, Justice, and Social Values, ed. Creighton Pedan and Yeager Hudson (Lewiston, NY: The, Edwin Mellen Press, 1990): 1-14., 14. Michael Walzer, "Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands," Philosophy, and Public Affairs 2 (1973): 164., 15. Jean-Paul Sartre, No Exit and Three Other Plays (New York: Random House,, 1976), Act V, p. 223-224., 16. arti in Hollis, "Dirty Hands," British Journal of Political Science 12 (1982):, 390., 17. Bernard Williams, "Politics and Moral Character," in Public & Private Morality,, ed. Stuart Hampshire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 59., 18. S. L. Sutherland, "The Problem of Dirty Hands in Politics," Canadian Journal of, Political Science 28 (1995): 482483., 19. See, for example, Benedetto Croce, "The Autonomy and Necessity of Politics,", in Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot or Political Scientist?, ed. De Lamar Jensen (Lexington,, MA: D. C. Heath and Company, 1960), 13-16., 20. William Styron, Sophie's Choice (New York: Random House, 1979)., 2 1. Walzer, "Political Action," 171, 161., 22. Ibid., 168., 23. Ibid., 179., 24. See, for example, Gerald F. Gaus, "Dirty Hands," in A Companion to Applied, Ethics, ed. R. G . Frey and Christopher Wellman (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2003):, 167-79; H. Oberdiek, "Clean and Dirty Hands in Politics," International Journal of, Moral and Social Studies 1 (1986): 4 1-6 1; R. M. Hare, Essays in Political Morality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).

Page 199 :
176, , Chapter Five, , 25. Oberdiek, "Clean and Dirty Hands," 53-54., 26. See, for example, Walzer, "Political Action," 175., 27. Sebastian De Grazia, Machiavelli in Hell (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, Press, 1989), 35 1., 28. Ibid., 323., 29. Ibid., 341., 30. Niccolb Machiavelli, "An Exhortation to Penitence," in The Chief Work and, Others, ed. and trans. Allan H. Gilbert (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1989), 170174., 31. Williams, "Politics and Moral Character," 64., 32. Gaus, "Dirty Hands," 176-178., 33. Michael Stocker, Plural and Conflicting Values (Oxford: Clarendon Press,, 1990)., 34. Gaus, "Dirty Hands," 176., 35. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 264., 36. Ibid., 266-267., 37. Ibid., 267-268., 38. Henry A. Wallace, The Price of Vision: The Diary of Henry A. Wallace, 19421946, ed. John Blum (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), 473474., 39. Alan H. Goldman, The Moral Foundations of Professional Ethics (Totowa, NJ:, Rowman and Littlefield, 1980), 70-73., 40. Peter Digeser, "Forgiveness and Politics: Dirty Hands and Imperfect Procedures," Political Theory 26 (1998): 7211119., 4 1. Stocker, Plural and Conflicting Values, 9-36., 42. Ibid., 18., 43. Ibid., 30., 44. Harvey Mansfield, Machiavelli S Virtue (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,, 1996), 27., 45. Luigi Barzini, The Italians (New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1964), 171., 46. Laurence Arthur Burd, introduction to Niccolb Machiavelli, N Principe, ed., Laurence Arthur Burd (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1891), 26., 47. Barzini, The Italians, 165-166.

Page 200 :
Chapter Six, , Machiavelli's Final Letter, To My Honored, Very Magnificent Readers and Friends Everywhere,, but especially the United States of America:, I have been unable to write for about four hundred eighty years. I have so, much to tell, I have learned so many glorious things, but today I can only begin., I was wrong! The Eternal Prince is more forgiving than those earthly bandits-the priests and prelates-lead people to believe. Upon my death, I was, immediately escorted into the Realm of Highest Honor. I honesty thought it, would go the other way. I had thought that the most interesting afterlife would, be in hell, conversing with bold scoundrels willing to risk their souls for their, homelands and for enduring glory. But there is no hell. We make our own hell, on earth by creating false limits and living in abject conformity to false idols of, our own making., I am very grateful to have earned enduring glory posthumously. I sought, recognition so assiduously while I was alive, but I lurked in all the wrong places., My literary talents far outstripped my political and military aptitudes. As a man, of action, I was insufficiently Machiavellian. Here, in the Realm of Highest, Honor, my discursive flair is better served. Best of all, no cursed barbarians gain, entry., How the world has changed since I departed. We view the changes in science, technology, communication, transportation from our vantage points in, Omega City and even we immortals marvel at human ingenuity. In other respects, however, the world never changes. (I am pleased to have gotten that, point correct even in the sixteenth century.) The world remains a competitive, battle ground; only the weapons and methods vary. I never foresaw the power of, economics. I thought only in terms of military force and political skill. Paraphrasing one of my new friends, Mario Puzo, "a diplomat can steal more political influence with a briefcase full of money than thousands of men with guns.", The United States of America-what a glorious republic! Granted, a republic much different than I had imagined, but the critical elements glow brightly:, institutionalized conflict among the social classes; a wonderfkl tradition of free, speech; unequaled military might; a commitment to expanding influence; a, country built on welcoming new people and transforming them; and which nation in history better practices the intimidation of the lion and the deception of, the fox? I must also mention your founding acts: Driving the Red Coats into the, sea; murdering and marginalizing the natives who inhabited the land; and enslaving a foreign, darker-skinned people to serve as inexpensive labor. These, brutalities were not inflicted at the command of one great man, but a small cote-

Page 201 :
178, , Chapter Six, , rie of founding fathers assumed their proper roles. Were not these atrocities, transgressions of traditional morality? Have they not been excused by the, scribes of history? Sure, they are duly noted and scolded as deplorable, horrible,, excessive, and the like. But then what?, Americans conquered territories such as Texas by force; abandoned allies, who had benefited them such as France; exploited countries internally troubled, such as Panama; attacked Spanish Florida; waged war with Mexico, all the, while under the banner of God, natural law, and political justice. The methods, were necessary given the fortunes and necessities of the times and the results, have been worthy. You have fought wars to win, using your superior technology, to great advantage. You dropped atomic bombs on an enemy during World War, I1 and called it merciful. You dropped poisonous chemicals, Napalm, on an enemy in a later war and called it strategic defoliation. You stockpile the latest and, most devastating nuclear weapons and struggle mightily to prevent other countries fiom acquiring them. You argue that only the United States of America will, use such weapon wisely; other nations will wrongly threaten and attack their, neighbors. Yes, the competitive edge is a beautiful thing!, Better still, you expand your influence through economic leverage. You, control other countries and their foreign policy through their dependence on, your economic largesse. (I must confess I never saw this coming. I was economically nalve.) You build temporary allies only to turn them into enemies, when expedient. Yet, your greatest enemies in the world war, once defeated,, became some of your closest allies. You have come to understand the art of generosity in victory. Yes, winners can afford to be gracious-at least once the, hardcore belligerents have been destroyed., And what are your intelligence agencies but instruments of force and fiaud?, All the while your public relations machine strikes responsive chords in the people: support the troops wherever they are, whatever they do, and for whatever, reasons they are doing it; the enemy are hordes of evil-doers; those opposing, military solutions are soft, traitorous, and render comfort to the despicable enemy. Beautiful! No country has ever embraced, refined, and implemented my, political principles as well as the United States of America., You have made mistakes; more it seems in the last few decades. You have, misperceived your self-interest. What was the scheme two decades ago? You, sold weapons to one enemy in return for its help in releasing hostages held by, another enemy, then used the profits fkom the sale to promote counterrevolution, in yet another country. All this violated your laws. But your princes wisely create buffers between themselves and such machinations; their ministers protect, them from responsibility. You call it "plausible denial." I cheer that expression., You sometimes confuse overwhelming a defenseless enemy and toppling its, government with establishing a salutary ally. At times, you utterly confuse the, history and traditions of your target. Could you truly have believed that your, latest enemy would wave democratic flags the moment its dictator was destroyed? Did you really think that the conditioning of centuries of oscillating, between political repression and theocratic control could be totally expunged

Page 202 :
Machiavelli's Final Letter, , 179, , with the destruction of the reigning autocrat? You are obliged to offer no apologies except a few to your own people for wildly misunderstanding your own, interests and miscalculating the national character of others. Be careful. Such, errors can facilitate your downfall., While you are relentlessly accumulating most of the world's scarce resources, you implore the heavens for world peace. Why not? Is not world peace, in the self-interest of the nation holding the best military, technological, and, economic cards? The world, although stunningly larger than I had imagined,, remains a zero-sum arena in crucial respects., My own country, Italy, has disappointed. Why, it cannot even produce, babies these days. Italy has proved unworthy of its Roman legacy. And Florence, . . . how the mighty homeland has fallen: a city of tourists, gold merchants,, leather emporiums, and a gaggle of cafoni riding vespe with cell phones stuck in, their ears!, No, the United States is the true progeny of the Roman republic. (You are, even named after an Italian.) America, I salute you. Buona Fortuna!, 25 December 2007, Niccolb Machiavelli,, in Omega City,, The Field Beyond

Page 204 :
Appendix A, , Texts and Their Abbreviations, As is common practice in Machiavelli scholarship, where I have cited from Machiavelli's writings the references in all cases have been given immediately in, the text and not in the endnotes. All references are to chapters or sections, not, page numbers, unless otherwise stated. For example:, References, AW245=, D155=, FHI3=, Leg. 13. 18 =, Ltr. 247: 1/31/15 =, M4:l =, P 18=, , The Art of War, Book 2, page 45 (Wood edition), The Discourses, Book I , chapter 55, Florentine Histories, Book I, section 3, The Legations, #13, section 18, Letter 247: January 3 1, 1515, (Atkinson and Sices edition), Mandragola, Act Four, Scene One., The Prince, chapter 18, , Abbreviations, AW, , The Art of War. Edited and translated by Neal Wood. Cambridge, MA:, De Capo Press, 1965., , D, , Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius ("The Discourses'~in, The Chief Works and Others. Edited and translated by Allan H. Gilbert., Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1989., , D, , Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius ("The Discourses'~in, Selected Political Writings. Edited and translated by David Wootton., Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1994., , FH, , Florentine Histories. Edited and translated by Laura F. Banfield and, Harvey C. Mansfield. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988., , Leg., , The Legations in The Chief Works and Others. Edited and translated by, Allan H. Gilbert. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1989.

Page 205 :
Appendix A, , 182, , Ltr., , Machiavelli and His Friend: Their Personal Correspondence. Edited, and translated by James B. Atkinson and David Sices. DeKalb, IL:, Northern Illinois University Press, 1996., , Ltr., , The Letters of Machiavelli. Edited and translated by Allan Gilbert,, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961., , M, , Mandragola. Translated by Mera J. Flaumenhafi. Prospect Heights, IL:, Waveland Press, Inc., 1981., , P, , The Prince in The Chief Works and Others. Edited and translated by, Allan H. Gilbert. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1989., , P, , The Prince in Selected Political Writings. Edited and translated by, David Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1994., Citations to Francesco Guicciardini, "Considerations on the 'Discourses' of Machiavelli" in Selected Writings. Edited by Cecil Grayson. Oxford: Oxford, University Press, 1965., , CI29=, , "Considerations on the 'Discourses' of Machiavelli," Book I,, chapter 29., , R=, , Maxims and Reflections (Ricordi). Edited and translated by, Mario Domandi. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Press, 1972., , R C llO=, , Ricordi, Series C, number 110., Citations to Friedrich Nietzsche, , BGE =, , Beyond Good and Evil (1886). Translated and edited by Walter Kaufinann. New York: Random House, 1966., , BGE 28 =, , Beyond Good and Evil, section 28., , WP=, , The Will to Power (fiom unpublished notebooks, 1883-1888)., Edited by Walter Kaufmann; translated by Walter Kaufinann, and R. J. Hollingdale. New York: Random House, 1967.

Page 206 :
Texts and Their Abbreviations, , 183, , WP 983 =, , The Will to Power, section 983., , Z=, , Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1885) in The Portable, Nietzsche. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Viking Press, 1954., , Z I=, , Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Book I , "On the Three Metamorphoses." Translated by Walter Kaufrnann. New York: Viking, Press, 1954.

Page 208 :
Appendix B, , Biographical Notes: Medici Scorecard, Medici: Dynastic family of rulers who dominated Florentine politics fTom 1434., They were expelled in 1494, returned in 1512, expelled again in 1527, and returned in 1530. They were major players in Florence and Rome during the Renaissance., Cosimo de'Medici (1389-1464): From 1434-1464, he was the unelected, de, facto ruler of Florence. His political influence flowed from his control of banking and personal connections. He masterminded the Peace of Lodi (1454-1494), whereby the five major regions of Italy (Venice, Milan, Florence, Papal States,, and Kingdom of Naples) halted armed hostilities., Lorenzo de'Medici ("the Magnificent") (1449-1492): Grandson of Cosimo., Ruled Florence from 1469-1492. A target of the Pazzi conspiracy of 1478, he, escaped. Renowned as a patron of the arts. Father of Giovanni de'Medici, Pope, Leo X., Giuliano de9Medici (1453-1478): Brother of the Magnificent. Murdered in, 1478 during the Pazzi conspiracy. Father of Giulio de'Medici, Pope Clement, VII., Giulio de'Medici (1478-1534): Son of Giuliano, who was slain during Pazzi, conspiracy. Elected as Pope Clement VII in 1523. While a cardinal, he commissioned Machiavelli's Florentine Histories in 1520. Botched the defense of, Rome circa 1527., Piero de'Medici (1471-1503): Eldest son of the Magnificent. Ruled Florence, from 1492-1494. A feckless ruler with few political skills, he was ousted by, Florentine citizens after bungling the defense of the city from the invasion of, Charles VIII of France. Died while later serving in the French army., Giovanni de'Medici (1475-1521): Middle son of the Magnificent. Elected as, Pope Leo X in 1513. That election triggered the amnesty that released Machiavelli from prison. A spendthrift who patronized banquets, arts, theater, poetry,, and numerous charities, he expanded the practice of selling indulgences to raise, money for the bankrupted papal treasury.

Page 209 :
186, , Appendix B, , Giuliano de'Medici (1478-1516): Youngest son of the Magnificent. Briefly the, ruler of Florence around 1512 and the person to whom Machiavelli fist wanted, to dedicate The Prince. Resigned and became Duke of Nemours by marriage to, French royalty., Lorenzo de'Medici (1492-1519): Son of Piero (1471-1503), grandson of the, Magnificent. Upon the resignation of his Uncle Giuliano (1478-1516), Lorenzo, grew in influence in Florence, taking the title of captain general. Pope Leo X, also appointed him Duke of Urbino. Machiavelli dedicated The Prince to him., Lorenzo is rumored to have died from the effects of syphilis.

Page 210 :
Bibliography, Books, Anglo, Sydney. Machiavelli: A Dissection. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.,, 1969., Barincou, Edmond. Machiavelli. New York: Grove Press, 1961., Baron, Hans. The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance. Rev. ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966., Bartlett, Kenneth. The Italian Renaissance: Part Three. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching, Company, 2005., . The Italians before Italy: Part Two. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company,, 2007., Barzini, Luigi. The Italians. New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1964., Belliotti, Raymond Angelo. Happiness Is Overrated. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2004., .Justrfying Law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992., . The Philosophy of Baseball: How to Play the Game of Life. Lewiston, NY: The, Edwin Mellen Press, 2006. (Chapter Three), . Seeking Identity: Individualism versus Community in an Ethnic Context. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995., . Stalking Nietzsche. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998., . What Is the Meaning ofHuman Life?Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi, 2001., Berlin, Isaiah. Against the Current. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001., Boatwright, Mary T., Daniel Gargola, and Richard J. A. Talbert. The Romans. New York:, Oxford University Press, 2004., Bock, Gisela, Quentin Skinner, and Maurizio Viroli, ed. MachiaveNi and Republicanism., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990., Butterfield, Herbert. The Statecraft ofMachiavelli. London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1940., Caranta, Angelo. Machiavelli Rethought: A Critique of Strauss ' Machiavelli. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1978., Cassirer, Ernst. The Myth ofthe State. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1955., Chabod, Fredrico. Machiavelli and the Renaissance. London: Bowes and Bowes, 1958., De Grazia, Sebastian. Machiavelli in Hell. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,, 1989., Falco, Maria J. Feminist Interpretations of Niccold Machiavelli. University Park: The, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004., Fleisher, Martin, ed. Machiavelli and the Nature of Political Thought. New York:, Atheneum Publishers, 1972., Fontana, Benedetto. Hegemony & Power. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Press, 1993., Fusero, Clemente. Cesare Borgia. London: Pall Mall Press, 1972., Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Vol. 1-3. New York:, Everyman's Library, 1993., Gilbert, Felix. Machiavelli and Guicciardini. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,, 1965.

Page 211 :
188, , Bibliography, , Goldman, Alan H. The Moral Foundations of Professional Ethics. Totowa, NJ: Rowman, and Littlefield, 1980., Guicciardini, Francesco. Maxims and Reflections. Edited and translated by Mario Domandi. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972., . Selected Writings. Edited by Cecil Grayson. Oxford: Oxford University Press,, 1965., Hadas, Moses, ed. Essential Works of Stoicism. New York: Bantam Books, 1960., Hampshire, Stuart, ed. Public & Private Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University, Press, 1978., Hare, R. M. Essays in Political Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989., Holland, Tom. Rubicon. New York: Doubleday, 2003., Holy Bible. King James Version (161 1). Nashville, TN:Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990., Hulliung, Mark. Citizen Machiavelli. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983., Jensen, De Lamar, ed. Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist? Lexington,, MA: D. C. Heath and Company, 1960., Machiavelli, Niccolb. The Art of War. Edited and translated by Neal Wood. Cambridge,, MA: De Capo Press, 1965., . The Chief Works and Others. Edited and translated by Allan H. Gilbert. Durham,, NC: Duke University Press, 1989., . Florentine Histories. Edited and translated by Laura F. Banfield and Harvey C., Mansfield. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988., . 11 Principe. Edited by Laurence Arthur Burd. Oxford: The Clarendon Press,, 1891., . The Letters of Machiavelli. Edited and translated by Allan Gilbert. Chicago:, University of Chicago Press, 1961., . The Life of Castruccio Castracani. Translated by Andrew Brown. London: Hesperus Press Ltd., 2003., . Lust and Liberty: The Poems of Machiavelli. Edited and translated by Joseph, Tusiani. New York: Ivan Obolensky, Inc., 1963., . Machiavelli and His Friends: Their Personal Correspondence. Edited and translated by James B. Atkinson and David Sices. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1996., . Mandragola. Translated by Mera J. Flaumenhaft. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., 1981., . The Prince and Selected Discourses. Edited and translated by Daniel Donno., New York: Bantam Books, 1966., . The Prince and The Discourses. Translated by Luigi Ricci and revised by E. R., P. Vincent. New York: Random House, Inc., 1950., . Selected Political Writings. Edited and translated by David Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1994., Mansfield, Harvey C. Machiavelli S Virtue. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996., Matyszak, Philip. Chronicle of the Roman Republic. New York: Thames & Hudson,, 2003., Najemy, John M. Between Friends. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993., Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil (1886). Translated and edited by Walter, Kaufmann. New York: Random House, 1966., . Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1885) in The Portable Nietzsche. Translated by, Walter Kaufmann. New York: Viking Press, 1954.

Page 212 :
Bibliography, , 189, , , The Will to Power (from unpublished notebooks, 1883-1 888). Edited by Walter, Kaufmann. Translated by Walter Kaufrnann and R. J. Hollingdale. New York: Random House, 1967., Olschki, Leonardo. Machiavelli the Scientist. Berkeley, CA: The Gillick Press, 1945., Parel, Anthony J. The Machiavellian Cosmos. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,, 1992., ,ed. The Political Calculus. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 1972., Pitkin, Hanna. Fortune is a Woman. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984., Plumb, J. H., ed. Renaissance Profiles. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1961., Plutarch. The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. Translated by John Dryden. Edited and revised by Arthur Hugh Clough. Vol. I and 2. New York: The Modem Library, 1992., Pocock, J. A. G. The Machiavellian Moment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,, 1975., Prezzolini, Giuseppe. Machiavelli. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1967., Rebhorn, Wayne A. Foxes and Lions: Machiavelli's Confidence Men. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988., Ridolfi, Roberto. The Life of Niccold Machiavelli. Translated by Cecil Grayson. Chicago:, University of Chicago Press, 1963., Sabatini, Rafael. The Life of Cesare Borgia. Teddington, UK: The Echo Library, 2006., Sacerdote, Gustavo. Cesare Borgia. Milan, IT: Mondadori-Medusa Publishers, 1950., Same, Jean-Paul. No Exit and Three Other Plays. New York: Random House, 1976., Skinner, Quentin. Machiavelli. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 198 1., Stocker, Michael. Plural and Conflicting Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990., Strauss, Leo. Thoughts on Machiavelli. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958., Styon, William. Sophie's Choice. New York: Random House, 1979., Villari, Pasquale. The Life and Times of Niccold Machiavelli. Translated by Linda Villari., London: Ernest Benn Ltd., 1929., Viroli, Maurizio. Machiavelli. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998., . NiccoldS Smile: A Biography of Machiavelli. New York: Farrar, Straus and, Giroux, 2000., Wallace, Henry A. The Price of Vision: The Diary of Henry A. Wallace, 1942-1946., Edited by John Blum. Boston: Houghton Mif?lin, 1973., Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1977., Whitfield, J. H. Machiavelli. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishers, 1947., Zinn, Howard. A People S History of the United States. New York: Harper Collins, 1980., , Articles, Austin, John. "A Plea for Excuses." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57 ( 1 9 5 6, 1957): 1-5., Belliotti, Raymond Angelo. "Machiavelli and Machiavellianism." Journal of Thought 13, (1 978): 293-300., Belliotti, Raymond Angelo, and William S. Jacobs. "Two Paradoxes for Machiavelli." In, Terrorism, Justice, and Social Values, edited by Creighton Pedan and Yeager Hudson, Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990: 1-14., Bertelli, Sergio. "Machiavelli and Soderini." Renaissance Quarterly 28 (1975), 1-16., Bonadanella, Peter E. "Castruccio Castracani: Machiavelli's Archetypal Prince." Italica, 49 (1972): 302-14.

Page 213 :
190, , Bibliography, , Brudney, Kent M. "Machiavelli on Social Class and Class Conflict." Political Theory 12, (1984): 507-19., Coady, C. A. J. "Politics and the Problem of Dirty Hands." In A Companion to Ethics,, edited by Peter Singer. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1993,373-83., Cochrane, Eric W. "Machiavelli: 1940-1960." The Journal of Modern History 33 (1961):, 113-36., Colish, Marcia L. "Machiavelli's Art of War: A Reconsideration." Renaissance Quarterly, 51 (1998): 1151-68., D'Amico, Jack. "Three Forms of Character: Virtli, Ordini and Materia in Machiavelli's, Discorsi." Italian Quarterly 22 (1981): 5-13., Dietz, Mary. "Trapping the Prince: Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception." The, American Political Science Review 80 (1986): 777-99., Digeser, Peter. "Forgiveness and Politics: Dirty Hands and Imperfect Procedures." Political Theory 26 (1998): 700-24., DiMaria, Salvatore. "Machiavelli's Ironic View of History." Renaissance Quarterly 45, (1992): 248-70., Douglass, Bruce. "The Common Good and The Public Interest." Political Theory 8, (1980): 103-1 7., Fallon, Stephen M. "Hunting the Fox: Equivocation and Authorial Duplicity in The, Prince.'' PMLA 107 (1992): 1181-95., Ferrero, Guglielmo. "Machiavelli and Machiavellism." Foreign Aflairs 17 (1939): 569577., Fontana, Benedetto. "Love of Country and Love of God: The Political Uses of Religion, in Machiavelli." Journal of the History of Ideas 60 (1999): 639-58., Gaus, Gerald. F. "Dirty Hands." In A Companion to Applied Ethics, edited by R. G. Frey, and Christopher Wellman. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2003, 167-79., Geerken, John H. "Machiavelli's Moses and Renaissance Politics." Journal of the History, ofIdeas 60 (1999): 579-95., . "Machiavelli Studies since 1969." Journal of the History of Ideas 37 (1976):, 35 1-68., Germino, Dante. "Second Thoughts on Leo Strauss's Machiavelli." Journal of Politics 28, (1966): 794-8 17., Gilbert, Felix. "On Machiavelli's Idea of Virtli." Renaissance News 4 (195 1): 53-5., Hollis, Martin. "Dirty Hands." British Journal of Political Science 12 (1982): 385-98., Howard, W. Kenneth. "Must Public Hands Be Dirty?" Journal of Value Inquiry 11, (1977): 29-40., Ingersoll, David E. "The Constant Prince: Private Interests and Public Goals in Machiavelli." The Western Political Quarterly 21 (1968): 588-96., Kahn, Victoria. "Virtli and the Example of Agathocles in Machiavelli's Prince." Representations 13 (1986): 63-83., Kiefer, Peter. "Cave May Hold Secrets to Legend of Ancient Rome." New York Times,, November 2 1,2007., Krafl, Joseph. "Truth and Poetry in Machiavelli." The Journal of Modern History 23, (1951): 109-21., Langton, John, and Mary Dietz. "Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or Teaching The, Prince?" American Political Science Review 8 1 (1987): 1277-88., Lodge, Sir Richard. "Machiavelli's I1 Principe." Transactions of the Royal Historical, Society 13 (1930): 1-16., Lukes, Timothy J. "Lionizing Machiavelli." American Political Science Review 95, (2001): 561-75.

Page 214 :
Bibliography, , 191, , Mansfield, Harvey C. "Strauss's Machiavelli." Political Theory 3 (1975): 372-84., Maritain, Jacques. "The End of Machiavellianism." Review of Politics 4 (1942): S 3 2 ., Mattingly, Garrett. "Machiavelli's Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?" American Scholar 27 (1958): 482-91., Moravia, Alberto. "Portrait of Machiavelli." Partisan Review 22 (1955): 357-71., Murphy, Arthur E. "The Common Good." Proceedings and Addresses of the American, Philosophical Association 24 (1950): 3-1 8., Najemy, John M. ''Machiavelli and the Medici: The Lessons of Florentine History." Renaissance Quarterly 35 (1982): 551-76., Nicholls, Rod. "Ghosts, God and the Problem of Dirty Hands." Ars Disputandi 4 (2004):, 1-21., Oberdiek, H. "Clean and Dirty Hands in Politics." International Journal of Moral and, Social Studies 1 (1986): 4 1-61., Parkinson, G. H. R. "Ethics and Politics in Machiavelli." Philosophical Quarterly 5, (1955): 3 7 4 4 ., Preus, J. Samuel. "Machiavelli's Functional Analysis of Religion: Context and Object.", Journal of the History of Ideas 40 (1979): 171-90., Prezzolini, Giuseppe. "The Christian Roots of Machiavelli's Moral Pessimism." Review, of National Literatures 1 (1970): 26-37., Price, Russell. "The Senses of Virth in Machiavelli." European Studies Review 3 (1973):, 3 15-45., . "The Theme of Gloria in Machiavelli." Renaissance Quarterly 30 (1977): 588631., Scott, John T., and Vickie B. Sullivan. "Patricide and the Plot of The Prince." American, Political Science Review 88 (1994): 887-900., Sutherland, S.L. "The Problem of Dirty Hands in Politics." Canadian Journal of Political, Science 28 (1995): 479-507., Thompson, Dennis F. "Moral Responsibility of Public Oficials: The Problem of Many, Hands." American Political Science Review 74 (1980): 905-16., Voegelin, Eric. "Machiavelli's Prince: Background and Formation." The Review of Politics 13 (1951): 142-68., Walzer, Michael. "Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands." Philosophy and Public, Affairs 2 (1973): 160-80., Wilde, Norman. "Machiavelli." International Journal of Ethics 38 (1928): 2 12-25., Wilford, John Noble. "More Clues in the Legend (or Is It Fact?) of Romulus." New York, Times, June 12,2007., Wood, Neal. "Machiavelli's Concept of Virth Reconsidered." Political Studies 15 (1967):, 15S72.

Page 216 :
Index, accusation, public, 52-54, act consequentialism, 15 1-52, Aesop's fable, 19, Agathocles of Syracuse, 4-5, 1 2 6 2 7, ambizione, defined, 46-47, amor fati, 6 1, animo, 46, animo effeminato, 7, 12, 15,47, armies, xix, 13-14,34,94-95, artistic virtli, 3, The Art of War, 95, atomic bomb, 158-59, auxiliary armies, 13-14, Baglioni, Giovampagolo, 36, Bartlett, Kenneth, xviii-xix, behavior, control of, 13, Berlin, Isaiah, 77-79, bonfires of the vanities, xvii, 130, Borgia, Cesare, xviii-xix, 21-22, 84,, 85-86,109-12, bottom ten of Machiavelli, 121-35, Brutus, Lucius Junius, 113-1 4, Buondelmonti, Zanobi, 32, Burd, Laurence, 66, Caesar, (Gaius) Julius, 122-24, call to arms, The Prince as, 69-75, Camillus, Marcus Furius, 116-17, 13435, Capitolinus, Marcus Manlius, Cassirer, Emst, 67-68, Castracani, Castruccio, 27-29, 86, charges, 52-54, Charles V, xxii, Charles VII, king, 54, Charles VIII, king, xvi-xvii, Christianity, 77-8 1, Church, Catholic, 49-50,72-74, Church, Christian, 121-22, Churchill, Winston, 160, Cicero, 19, Cincinnatus, Lucius Quintius, 48-49, civic virtli, 3,35, , Clement VII, pope, xxi-xxii, Commodus, 57, 1 18, common good, 4 1-43, common ground in The Prince and The, Discourses, 32-37, communal good, 147, conflict, institutionalized, 46-47, con gameslswindles, 20-21, The Conquest of Gaul, 123, consequentialism, 151-52; tribal act,, 147-48, corruption, 3-4, counsel of Machiavelli, 8-25, Croce, Benedetto, 75-76, cycle of states, 39-41, Cyrus (the Great), 102-3, decisiveness, 2 1-22, The Decline and Fall of the Roman, Empire, 118, Delphic Oracle, 54-55, De Officis, 19, De Sanctis, Francesco, 69-70, dictator, office of, 47-48, Dictator for Life, 124, Dietz, Mary, 90-96, Digeser, Peter, 163-64, Diogenes Laertius, 29, dirty hands, 148-6 1, The Discourses, 3 1-62, 70; dedication,, 32, Discourses on the First Decade of Titus, Livius, 3 1-62, divination, 54-55, the divine, 120-21, domination, 8, "Duke Valentino," 85, 109-1 2, Egypt, Jewish enslavement in, 100-101, ends and means, 137-74, "ends justify the means," 138-42, Epicharis, 57, esoteric work, The Prince as, 66-67

Page 217 :
Eumeducci, Oliverotto (da Fermo),, 125-26, evil: ill-/well-used, 4-5,36-37,70,79,, 140-41; The Prince teaches, 6365, excuses, 140, 161-68; triggers for,, 142-44, "Exhortation to Seize Italy and Free, Her from the Barbarians," 26, existential crisis, The Prince as product, of, 81-83, expansionism as goal of governments,, 7,45, 144, Fallon, Stephen M., 88, familiglia, I'ordine della, 58-59, Faustina, 118, fear better than love, 17-1 8, Ferrero, Guglielmo, 8 1, "a few ends excuse some means," 16869, final letter of Machiavelli, 17-179, First Decennale, 84, Florentine Histories, xxi, 38,96, Fogliani, Giovanni, 125-26, Forster, E. M., 1 13, fortresses, 9 1, 93, fortuna/Fortuna, 5-7, 12-13,29, 8990, Fortuna is a lady, 6, fox, qualities of, 19-2 1, "The Fox and the Lion," 19, Gentili, Alberico, 83, gentiluomi, 49, Gibbon, Edward, 118, Gloria, 7, glory, 145; quest for, 7-8, "good," 3, 59, "the good end justifies every means,", 137-38, Gracchi Brothers, 127-29, Gracchus, Gaius Sempronius, 127-29, Gracchus, Tiberius Sempronius, 12729, grandezza d'animo, 7, 12, 15,47, Grazia, Sebastian de, xx, Guicciardini, Francesco, 69, 169-73, guilt, 153, 162-63, , hatred, avoidance of, 18, Hill Street Blues, 143, history, study of, 14-15, Hobbes, Thomas, 144, Holy League of Mantua, xix, 132-33, human nature, 32-34, human temperaments, 8, Hurricane Katrina, 5, hypocrisy of church hierarchy, 122, ideal prince, 27-29, immortality, quest for, 7-8, Index of Prohibited Books, xv, 74, Italy, liberation of, 137, Julius 11, pope, 13, justifications, 139-40, 141, land reform bill, 128, last men, 59-60, law, functions of, 10-1 1, laws, 14, leadership, need for, 36, The Legations, 84-85, Leo X , pope, xx, Life of Castruccio Castracani, 27-29,, 86, lion, qualities of, 19-21, Lives of the Philosophers, 29, Livy, 3 1, Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 143, Lorenzo the Magnificent. See, de'Medici, Lorenzo, lottery analogy, 20, Louis XII, king, 68-69, 133-34, "love of fate," 61, lusts, erotic and material, 12, luxuries, 48-49, Lycurgus, 114-15, Machiavelli, Niccolb: assessment of,, 169-74; biographical information,, xv; death of, xxii; as diplomat,, xviii; epitaph, xxii; in exile, xxi;, family, xviii; letters, xv, xxi;, works, publication dates of, xv, "Machiavellian," l,63, 8 1, Machiavelli and Nietzsche, 58-62, Mandragola, 155, Mansfield, Harvey, 4,6445,168, Marcia, 57

Page 218 :
Marcus Aurelius, 117-21, Maritain, Jacques, 63, masses, 50-51; loyalty of, 10-12, Mattingly, Garrett, 84-85, 87, de'Medici, Giovanni, xx, delMedici, Giuliano, xx, de'Medici, Giulio, xxi, de'Medici, Lorenzo, xv-xvi; ancestors,, 1, de'Medici, Piero, xv-xvi, Meditations, 119, mercenaries, 13, metamorphoses, three, 60-6 1, military strength, primacy of, 34-36, military virtu, 3, 35, ministers, trustworthy, 22-24, moral choices, 152, morality, conventional, 9-10; master,, 59-60; and politics, The Prince, separates, 75-77, moral optimism~pessimism,152-67, moral pessimist, Machiavelli as, 1 5 6, 57,162, moral virtu, 3, 35, moral virtues, 9, Moravia, Alberto, 8 1-83, Moses, 100- 102, the multitude, 50-5 1, Murphy, Arthur, 41-42, neutrality, avoidance of, 21-22, Nietzsche, Friedrich, 58-62, Numa Pompilius, 104-5, Oliverotto da Fermo, 125-26, Olschki, Leonard, 68, opportunities squandered by Christian, Church, 122, oppression of the masses, 8, optimism, moral, 152-67, Oracle, Delphic, 54-55, overman, 60-62, partialism, case for, 145-47, patriotism, 44-45,71-73, Patton, 145, Pazzi, attempt to overthrow the Medici,, xv-xvi, Pazzi Conspiracy, War of the, xv-xvi, pessimism, moral, 1 5 2 4 7, , philosopher-king, 117, Pisa, war against, xix, Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, 56, "plausible denial," 178, Plutarch, 113, poker analogy, 16,20, political strategies of Christianity, 122, political virtri, 3, politics and morality, The Prince, separates, 75-77, Pontius Pilate, 148, power, securing and preserving, 24-25, Prato, battle for, xix, Prezzolini, Giuseppe, 77, Prezzolini-Berlin interpretation, 79-81, The Prince: dedication, xxi, 1-2; final, chapter of, 25-27, 86-87;, methods, 63-99; motivations, 6399; and the multitude, 50-5 1;, purposes, 63-99, principles, founding, 5 1-53, punishment, threat of, 10, Puzo, Mario, 177, reality, 15, reason, use of, 10, Rebhom, Wayne, 55-56, religion, 49-50, Remus, 99-100, republics are best, 43-45, reputation, value of, 15-16, result for Machiavelli, 144-45, Riario, Caterina Sforza, 56-57, Ricci, Luigi, 138, Ricordo ai Palleshi, xx, Roman history, influence on, Machiavelli, xviii, Romulus, 99-100, Rucellai, Cosimo, 32, rule consequentialism, 152, Sartre, Jean-Paul, 148, satire, The Prince as, 83-87, Savonarola, Girolamo, xvii, 15,54,, 129-3 1, scientific work, The Prince as, 67-69, Scipio Africanus, Publius Cornelius,, 105-9, Sherman, William T., 145, Sixtus IV, pope, xvi

Page 219 :
Soderini, Piero, xviii-xx, 110, 131-33, Sophie S Choice, 151 , 15658, 162,, 165-66, speed limit analogy, 11, state, critical ends of, 17, statecraft handbook, The Prince as, 1, states, classification of, 39-41, Stocker, Michael, 165-66, Stoicism, 117, 119-20, strappado, xx-xxi, Strauss, Leo, 137, 139, subversive work, The Prince as, 87-97, success, recipe for, 25, sycophants, avoidance of, 23-24, Theseus, 103-4, three thousand, killing of, 101-2, top ten of Machiavelli, 99-121, training of Prince, 8-25, tribal act consequentialism, 147-48, Truman,Harry S, 158-59, , iibermensch, 60-62, United States, 177-79, , Urbino, Duke of, xxi, 1, Urbino, rebellion at, 109-1 1, Utopianism, 124-25, values of Christianity, 122, value systems, clash of, in The Prince,, 77-8 1, Villari, Pasquale, 69, Vincent, E. R. P., 138, virtti, 2-5,35-39, 89, 121, 143-44,, 173-74, Walzer, Michael, 148, 152-53, 159, war, knowledge of, 14-1 5, "War is Hell," 145, War of the Pazzi Conspiracy, xv-xvi, wealth, 48-49, Wilde, Norman, 68, Williams, Bernard, 149, women, 6,55-59, Wooten, David, 138, zero-sum worldview, 37-39, 173-74

Page 220 :
About the Author, Raymond Angelo Belliotti is Distinguished Teaching Professor of Philosophy at the, State University of New York at Fredonia. He received his undergraduate degree from, Union College in 1970, after which he was conscripted into the United States Army, where he sewed three years in military intelligence units during the Vietnamese War., Upon his discharge, he enrolled at the University of Miami where he earned his master of, arts degree in 1976 and doctorate in 1977. After teaching stints at Florida International, University and Virginia Commonwealth University, he entered Harvard University as a, law student and teaching fellow. After receiving a juris doctorate from Harvard Law, School, he practiced law in New York City with the firm of Barrett Smith Schapiro, Simon & Armstrong. In 1984, he joined the faculty at Fredonia., Belliotti is the author of eight books: JustifLing Law (1992), Good Sex (1993), Seeking Identity (1995), Stalking Nietzsche (1998), What Is the Meaning of Human Life?, (2001), Happiness Is Overrated (2004), The Philosophy of Baseball (2006), and Watching Baseball Seeing Philosophy (2008). Good Sex was later translated into Korean and, published in Asia. What Is the Meaning of Human Life? was nominated for the Society, for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy's Book of the Year Award. He has also, published sixty articles and twenty-five reviews in the areas of ethics, jurisprudence,, sexual morality, medicine, politics, education, feminism, sports, Marxism, and legal ethics. These essays have appeared in scholarly journals based in Australia, Canada, Great, Britain, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, Sweden, and the United States. Belliotti has also, made numerous presentations at philosophical conferences, including the Eighteenth, World Congress of Philosophy in England, and has been honored as a featured lecturer, on the Queen Elizabeth II ocean liner., While at SUNY Fredonia he has served extensively on campus committees, as the, chairperson of the Department of Philosophy, as the chairperson of the University Senate,, and as director of General Education. For six years he was faculty advisor to the undergraduate club, the Philosophical Society, and he has sewed that function for I1 Circolo, Italiano. Belliotti has been the recipient of the SUNY Chancellor's Award for Excellence, in Teaching, the William T. Hagan Young ScholarlArtist Award, the Kasling Lecture, Award for Excellence in Research and Scholarship, and the SUNY Foundation Research, & Scholarship Recognition Award. He is also a member of the New York State Speakers, in the Humanities Program.