kleiman 2001 - machiavelli 's socratic dialogue - the prince as a seduction into virtue
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
1/25
Machiavellis Socratic Dialogue:
The Prince as a Seduction into Virtue
Mark A.R. Kleiman
Professor
Department of Policy Studies
UCLA
3250 Public Policy Building
UCLA
Los Angeles, CA 90095
Voice: 310 206 3234
Fax: 310 206 0337
January 3, 2001
Acknowlegements: This paper would not have been started without the inspiration
supplied by four gifted teachers: Sara M. Shumer, Paul J.R. Desjardins, Michael Walzer, and
Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. It could not have been completed without the exemplary research
assistance of Mary Kwak and David Osborne or the cheerful typing and formatting of
Beatrice I. Childs and Karen Friedman. An earlier version was presented to the Political
Theory Seminar of the University of Rochester, where William Riker made several
provocative and helpful comments. Frederick Schauer commented on a later draft, as did the
members of the Political Theory Workshop at the University of Chicago, especially Dante
Scala, who provided a written critique that was detailed, penetrating, and generous. Andy
Sabl provided crucially helpful advice at a late stage in the process.
Quotations from The Prince are taken from the Mansfield translation and are cited as P.,
followed by a chapter and paragraph number (e.g., P., III., 6). I have ventured to differ with
Mansfield at only one point: following Marriott and others in translatingpatrone in Chapter
5 as "master" rather than "patron." Quotations from theDiscourses on Livy are taken from
the Mansfield and Tarcov translation and are cited asD., followed by a book and discourse
number and a paragraph number where needed (e.g.,D., II., 15, par 4),. Letters are cited by
number after the Alvisi edition (Firenze, 1883) and can be found translated in Allan Gilbert,
The Letters of Machiavelli.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
2/25
ABSTRACT
On its surface, Machiavellis Prince is inconsistent both with hisDiscourses and his
republican loyalties. The resulting puzzles can be solved by reading The Prince as a Socratic
dialogue involving a Counselor and a Prince, in which only the Counselor speaks. Seeming to
teach merely the technique of acquisition, the Counsellor attempts to seduce the Prince intovirtue.
IfThe Prince is a drama rather than an essay, its meaning may not lie on its surface.
Facing dramatic irony, the reader is forced to engage the text actively to discover the author's
intention.* Such an active reading reveals a republican message: the project of achieving glory
via tyranny is incoherent, and its effectual truth can be found only in the foundation or
renovation of a republic.
Machiavelli's choice of form prevents the reader from uncritically appropriating the
authors ideas. This fits his beliefs that only the wise can be well-advised and that power, to
be secure, must be self-reliant. The teaching ofThe Prince is not given to the lazy; it must be
taken by those worthy to be princes.
* It should not be, but perhaps is, necessary to remark at this point that it is possible to speak of an
authors intention in contradistinction to his surface meaning without being a member of any cult or
the holder of any particular set of political opinions.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
3/25
3
INTRODUCTION: The Puzzles ofThe Prince
The Prince is the briefest of the classics of political thought; Harvey Mansfield likens it
to a memorandum written to a busy executive. [Mansfield 1985.] Its language is direct, even
blunt; Isaiah Berlin calls it "a model of clear Renaissance prose." [Berlin 1980, p. 26.] In a
familiar rhetorical figure, Machiavelli disclaims rhetorical artifice: "I have not ornamented
this work, nor filled it with fulsome phrases nor with pompous and magnificent words, nor
with any blandishments or superfluous ornament whatever." [P., Dedication, par. 2.]
Such a book ought to be transparent. The reader may be unpersuaded, or even repelled,
by its teachings, but he* should be in no doubt as to what those teachings are.
Why is it, then, that almost five centuries of readers have been unable to agree what
Machiavelli was up to in writing his most famous work? There has been no scarcity of
inventive interpretations. Machiavelli has been praised for his openness and denounced for
hypocrisy, condemned for both cynicism and utopian idealism. Scholars have described him
variously as a republican patriot and a "venal and treacherous toady"; an "anguished
humanist," "a peace-loving humanist," and an apologist for ruthlessness; and as a pragmatist,
an aesthete, and a "morally neutral scientist." [Berlin 1980, pp.27-36. See also Dietz 1986.]
Hannah Pitkin calls him "a republican for hard times," "a committed lifelong
republican" who was also "something like a protofascist." [Pitkin 1984, p.3.] To Judith Shklar,
he appears as an advocate of cruelty, whose project of taming fortune led to "cruel enormities."
[Shklar, 19XX. p.20.} By contrast, Sheldon Wolin understands him as trying to secure a world
with the least possible violence. [Wolin 1960, Chap. 5.] Leo Strauss calls him "a teacher of
evil." [Strauss 1958, Introduction.] Spinoza seems puzzled that a learned man, known to be
far-seeing and favorable to liberty, should have described so clearly what means a prince,
whose sole motive is lust of mastery, should use to establish and maintain his dominion, andconsequently hopes to find some good design underneath: perhaps a warning to the people
against either futile rebellion or rashly entrusting its welfare absolutely to one man. [Spinoza
1679, Chap.5, Sec. 7.] As one commentator or epoch gives way to another, Machiavelli
appears in so many disparate guises that he might be said to exist only in the eye of the
beholder.
This puzzle fits into another. Machiavelli devoted his public career to the service of
the Florentine Republic. Within a year of the Republic's fall, he was writing in code to Piero
Soderini, who had been its Gonfalonier (chief executive). [Letter 116.] He was suspected of
taking part in a conspiracy against the Medici restoration, and arrested, imprisoned, and
tortured on that charge. [Gilbert 1961, p. 30.] Machiavelli's other major political work, the
* Apology is offered for masculine pronouns; but English lacks a neuter singular personal pronoun
and Machiavelli seems to address himself to a masculine audience. On the importance of
masculinity to Machiavelli, see Pitkin 1984.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
4/25
4
Discourses on Livy, written at about the same time as The Prince,* praises republics and
condemns personal or hereditary rule. [Skinner 1981, p.50.]
Yet The Prince is dedicated to a Medici prince, and contains advice much of it sound
about how that prince can maintain his power and thus continue to deprive the Florentines of
their liberty. Why would a dedicated republican advise a tyrant on the technique of rule? It isas if John Locke had written, in addition to the Second Treatise and theLetter Concerning
Toleration, a manual on the successful management of a religious tyranny, with a florid
dedication to James II.
If these two puzzles were not enough, there is a third. The Prince is justly famous as a
source of wicked advice. In the space of a single chapter, the ruler to whom the book is
addressed is advised to exterminate the families of the princes he has dispossessed, to do only
mortal injuries, and to wage preemptive war. [P., III.] Further on, he is advised to be generous
only with the possessions of others, to keep his word only when convenient, and to seek to be
feared rather than loved. [P., XVI-XVIII.] He is urged to develop the animal side of his nature,
to know how to take up evil and learn to be able not to be good. [P., XV., 1.] Error and
blame, he is told, attach, not to aggression, but only to its failure. [P., III., 12.] This evil
teaching is often expressed with great pith and vigor: War may not be avoided but is deferred
to the advantage of others. [P., III., 8.] Men avenge themselves for slight offenses but
cannot do so for grave ones, so the offense one does to a man should be such that one does not
fear revenge for it. [P., III., 5.] He who deceives will always find someone who will let
himself be deceived. [P., XVIII., 3.]
Yet The Prince does not deny the relevance of morality to politics, or argue that justice
is merely the interest of the stronger. [Cf.Republic I, 338c.] Machiavelli's understanding of
political life includes virtues and vices as categories not subservient to the calculus of success
and failure. Why then should anyone who understands the difference between good and evil,
and acknowledges that some tactics may bring empire, but not glory, [P., VIII., 2.]deliberately offer evil counsel?
One explanation can make sense at the same time of Machiavelli's apparent
self-contradictions, his advice to tyrants, and his teaching of evil: that The Prince carries two
sets of meanings, addressed to two separate audiences, one explicitly and on the surface, one
implicitly and between the lines. The surface addressees are those who desire to rule
tyrannically for their own profit, rather than for the benefit of those they rule: the Medici and
their ilk. But Machiavelli also speaks over the heads (or behind the backs) of this audience to
his friends and disciples: to the lovers of liberty and of the common good.
* The composition ofThe Prince is generally dated to 1513, that of theDiscourses between 1513
and 1519. Felix Gilbert, however, holds that theDiscourses were conceived "not more than two or
three years" later than the former work. [Gilbert, 1977, p.130] Whatever the date, The Prince
appears to refer directly to theDiscourses as a completed work available to the reader [P., II., 1] and
vice versa [D., II., 1 and III., 42].
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
5/25
5
Even more ambitiously, he seeks to transform would-be tyrants by converting their
private ambition into his public one. He teaches evil because evil is what tyrants wish to learn,
but he turns that teaching against itself and to the common benefit [D., I., Pref.] in a devious
one might say Machiavellian manner. C.S. Lewis once remarked that it is impossible to
seduce someone into virtue, but on this reading that is exactly what Machiavelli attempts to do.
The Prince thus interpreted has the intention, albeit not the form, of a Socratic
dialogue, though only one character speaks. That character, a Counselor addressing a
Prince, is Machiavelli only as Iago is Shakespeare. What is said in the voice of the Counselor
cannot be understood outside its dramatic context or without considering its double pedagogic
intent: not only the pedagogy of Machiavelli's Counselor addressing Machiavelli's Prince, but
also the pedagogy of Machiavelli addressing those who deserve to be princes because they
combine ambition with a love of the common good. [D., Dedication.] Machiavelli needs to
teach them two things: how to be able not to be good in order to be able to rule in deeds
rather than merely in words, and how to use law and virtue to tame the potential tyrant that
lurks within them. As a bonus, they can also learn about the nature of the actual, external
tyrants they must confront.
This approach does not follow the shortest path to the discovery of Machiavelli's
meaning. More direct interpretations of the Machiavellian paradox exist. Parsimony of
hypotheses forbids entertaining a complex theory until the simple ones have been tested, and a
more ordinary parsimony forbids discarding what may prove useful. The simple theories, even
if inadequate when considered separately, may prove to be aspects of the truth.
COMPETING EXPLANATIONS
1. Selling Out
The simplest of the simple theories and the one most explicitly supported by the text,
especially the dedicatory letter represents The Prince as an out-of-office civil servant's
attempt to sell out to the Medici, who have taken his citys freedom, in order to get a job. The
Dedication virtually says as much, identifying the author as one who "desire[s] to acquire
favor." It is easy to understand Machiavelli's interest in finding some sort of public
employment in light of his poverty and boredom in exile [Letter 137.] and his utter lack of
interest in any business but politics. [Letter 120.] Machiavelli asked his friend Vettori to
ensure that his gift not go unnoticed, [Letter 137.] and for months seems to have pinned his
hopes for employment on the strategy of getting someone in the Medici camp to read his little
treatise.* Though he obtained no employment at the time, he was happy enough to serve the
Medici in various minor roles in the 1520s. [Ridlofi 1954/1963, pp. 186-241.]The mere intention to find employment under the Medici need not have been entirely
dishonorable. Machiavellis friend Guicciardini, who also combined continuing republican
* On Machiavellis job-hunting at this period, see Ridolfi 1954, pp.152-158.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
6/25
6
convictions with the service of the Medici papacy, made the case for collaboration in these
words: Whenever a country falls into the hands of a tyrant, I think it is the duty of good
citizens to try to cooperate with him and to use their influence to do good and avoid evil.
Certainly it is in the interests of the city to have good men in positions of authority at all times.
Ignorant and passionate Florentines have always thought otherwise, but they should recognize
how disastrous the rule of the Medici would be if there were no one around them but foolish
and evil men. [Guicciardini, 1530, Series C, ricordo 220.]
To whatever extent The Prince was part of an effort to gain favor with the Medici, the
overall effort brought at least partial success. The Discourse on Remodeling the Government
of Florence [C. 1520, translated in Gilbert V. 1, pp. 101-115.] is addressed to, and perhaps
was written at the request of, the Medici Pope Leo X. Soon after, Pope Leo commissioned
Machiavelli's last major work, the Florentine Histories.
At least one of Machiavelli's contemporaries thought the work suitable as a present to a
prince; he presented (as his own) a Latin paraphrase to Charles V. [Gilbert 1961, p. 34.] But if
Machiavelli indeed intended to win influence with the Medici through this offering, he
carelessly undermined his own efforts in the text. In one of the final chapters, he warns not
only against flatterers, but against all sorts of unsolicited advice. A prince, he maintains,
should take counsel only when it suits him, and for the rest, He should discourage everyone
from counseling him about anything unless he asks it of them, (though he should be a great
asker of questions). [P., XXIII., 3.] If Machiavelli merely intended to curry favor, why should
he warn his (nominal) reader against himself?
Moreover, The Prince is studded with sentences and examples sure to fall
uncomfortably on the ears of its princely recipient. The praise of Cesare Borgia seems
ill-designed to flatter a prince of the house of Medici, hereditary rivals of the Borgia. Nor is the
admiration for republican life that suffuses Chapter V a likely ticket to any prince's favor. In
particular, the warning that whoever becomes master of a free city and does not destroy itmust expect to be destroyed by it [P., V., 2.] should have been especially unwelcome to the
new master of previously free Florence. As Bernard Crick comments in his introduction to the
Discourses, there is no essential argument in The Prince which is not repeated in the
Discourses...both are incompetent if viewed as pure acts of arse-licking. [Crick, 1986, p. 18.]
Machiavellis undoubted literary genius should make us skeptical of any hypothesis
that requires us to believe that he simply failed to execute his plans due to lack of
compositional skill or care. Given, then, that The Prince is not optimized to the narrow
requirements of its authors job-seeking, Machiavelli must have had an intention, if not
nobler, at least more complex than the hypothesis of sheer opportunism allows.
2. A Theory of Executive Power
An alternative hypothesis interprets The Prince as a theory of executive power in any
system of government. [Mansfield 1989, Chap. 6.] For Machiavelli, any ruler is a prince; in
theDiscourses, he describes his republican disciples as those who deserve to be princes [D.,
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
7/25
7
Dedication.] and promises the republic he is attempting to found [Mansfield 1979, p. 45.]
infinite most virtuous princes. [D., I., 20.]
In theDiscourses, Machiavelli acknowledges that republics are well-served by kingly
power, so long as that power is regulated by public institutions, as was the case with the
consuls of Rome. More, he warns that ruin will befall a republic if it fails to create a dictatorwhen grave dangers threaten. [D., I., 34.] The Prince may therefore be read as a manual for
those entrusted with an essential political function rather than as a handbook on oppression:
read, that is, as if it were early draft of Richard Neustadt's Presidential Power.*
But what, under this interpretation, are we to make of the teaching of evil in which the
book clearly engages? Evil is not merely described, it is advocated, and without any pretense
that it is other than evil. Machiavelli's reader is reminded often of what can be accomplished
by violence, in direct contradiction to the policy of the wise in instructing the great. If you
will follow my poor advice, said Thomas More to Thomas Cromwell as Cromwell was
replacing him in the favor of Henry VIII, you shall, in your counsel-giving unto his grace,
ever tell him what he ought to do but never what he is able to do. ... For if the lion knew his
own strength, hard were it for any man to rule him. [Roper 1553, p.228.]
Moreover, while the frankly republican Machiavelli of theDiscourses claims to write
for the common good, [D., I., Pref.] the Counselor advises his Prince (explicitly) only about
how to serve the Prince's own interests. The Prince may contain the outline of a theory of
executive power in the public interest, but that is not all it contains.
3. Objective Strategic Analysis
The coexistence of good and evil advice in The Prince can be explained by considering
it as a piece of objective strategic analysis, whose insights may benefit impartially the friends
of liberty and its enemies. It is in this sense that Machiavelli has been said, by Berlin and
others, to have been the founder of modern, value-neutral political science.
Machiavelli's insistence on the importance of quickly eliminating opposition to a new
regime is an example of the sort of impartial, two-edged insight one would expect such an
objective observer to forge. In The Prince, the ruler of a newly acquired state is warned that it
is essential to eradicate the bloodline of the ruler he has displaced. [ P., IV., 3.] In the
Discourses, Machiavelli's counsel to the founders of republics is equally grim. Because a
newly free state "has partisan enemies and not partisan friends, it must proceed harshly
against those who would subvert it: there is no remedy more powerful, nor more valid, more
secure, or more necessary, than to kill the sons of Brutus." [D., I., 16, par. 4.] Clearly, the fact
that his advice can be turned to more than one end has not escaped Machiavelli, who remarks
that one discourse offers valuable lessons as well for those who wish to maintain a freerepublic as for those who plan to subject it." [D., I., 40.]
* For an argument that the Machiavellian prince becomes a republican executive only when brought
under control, see Mansfield 1989.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
8/25
8
But note that this warning about the double-edged nature of analysis is provided in the
Discourses, addressed to friends of liberty, and not in The Prince.* Machiavelli did not intend
to apprise his princely reader of his full intention, suggesting at least that his impartiality had
limits.
4. A Warning to Republicans
Many of these problems can be resolved by hypothesizing that the intended audience of
The Prince is distinct from its explicit addressee: that the book is intended to be read by the
friends of liberty. One version of this account, which dates back at least to Voltaire and
Rousseau and was most recently argued by Garrett Mattingly [Mattingly 1958], holds thatThe
Prince is an attempt to discredit princely government by publicly stating its principles in their
most offensive form: either a satire, as theReport from Iron Mountain makes (deadly serious)
fun of the military-industrial machine, or a kind of forgery-to-unmask like theProtocols of the
Elders of Zion or Robert Welch's "Principles of Leninism."
But this hypothesis must confront the evident soundness of much of the advice offered
in The Prince, and the identity of that advice with that offered to republicans in theDiscoursesand elsewhere in Machiavelli's writings. No middle courses, one's own arms and virtue,
paying close attention to military affairs, the management of appearances, using established
forms to cloak innovation, the folly of using office for private financial or sexual acquisition:
the themes ofThe Prince are Machiavelli's characteristic themes, and in particular the themes
of theDiscourses.
5. Literary Parody
Or perhaps Machiavelli intended to attack, not princes and their evil counselors, but the
windy high-mindedness of the humanist mirror-of-princes literature. (William Riker once
described the genre as positing a prince with the disposition of a genial but somewhat
befuddled abbot in charge of a house of not-too-bright monks.)
But once again it is hard to see why Machiavelli should have put so much of his best
thinking and writing into a mere spoof. The liberator of Chapter XXVI is hardly a figure of
fun. If Machiavelli intended The Prince as a parody, we can only conclude that he got carried
away. But as Machiavelli warns his republican readers, when a skillful strategist makes an
apparent blunder, one should suspect a stratagem. [D., III., 48. Cf. Strauss 1958, p. 35.]
* Compare also the discussion of fortresses in P., XX with that in D., II, 24.
The chapter-to-chapter correspondences are striking. Compare, for example, P., V., with D., I.,
26 (ruling previously free cities); P., XIX., with D., III., 6 (conspiracies); P., XII., with D., I., 43
(mercenaries); P., XX., with D., II., 24 (fortresses); P., XXIV., with D., III., 5 (why rulers lose
power); P., XXV., with D., III., 7-9 (virtu and fortune).
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
9/25
9
6. Finding a Unifier for Italy
The Exhortation to Seize Italy and to Free Her from the Barbarians that concludes
The Prince calls on its Medici addressee to rescue downtrodden long-divided Italy, more
enslaved than the Hebrews, more servile than the Persians, more dispersed than the Athenians,
without a head, without order, beaten, despoiled, torn, pillaged, and having endured ruin of
every sort. [P., XXVI., 1.] Hegel and Fichte are among those who have accordingly read
Machiavelli as a ruthless but glorious nationalist, [Crick 1986, p. 15.] giving the advice
necessary to achieve Italian unification.
But reliance on this exhortation as the interpretive key to The Prince risks reading
nineteenth-century nationalism into a sixteenth-century text. Although Machiavelli believed
that disunity was a disaster for Italy, [D., I., 12.] he was himself a product of that disunity; his
fatherland, which he loves better than his own soul, is always Florence.* Italian
unification was neither the object of Machiavelli's practical efforts in office nor the subject of
his detailed speculation out of office. (The Discourse on Remodeling the Government ofFlorence, for example, addressed, as The Prince is, to the Medici, and full of detailed, serious
advice about how to rule Florence, never so much as hints at unification as a project.) This
sharply distinguishes unification with the project of military reform, which occupied both
Machiavellis official energies as Second Secretary and his theoretical attention later.
That Italy be free of foreign domination was not a wish peculiar to Machiavelli:
Guicciardini wrote in 1512, while Florence was still a republic, Machiavelli still in office, and
The Prince not yet started: I want to see three things before I die: a well ordered republic in
our city, Italy liberated from the barbarians, and the world delivered from the tyranny of these
wicked priests. [Guicciardini 1512, Series Q2, ricordo 17.] But kicking the French, the
Spanish, and the Imperialists out of Italy is one project; unifying Italy quite another.It would thus be anachronistic to read The Prince as the outpouring of an Italian nationalist
and its advice as directed toward forming a human instrument of unification.
7. The Founder and Renovator
Perhaps, then, The Prince should be regarded as the first step in a two-stage theory of
republican government. Even in the firmly republicanDiscourses, Machiavelli acknowledges
that some cities are so corrupt as to be incapable of maintaining themselves in freedom [D., I.,
17.] and that princes are superior to peoples in creating institutions, [D, I., 58, par. 4.] and
stresses the need for violence (Romulus and Remus; Brutus and his children) and for sole
* Hulliung 1983, pp. 95-96. Or perhaps Machiavelli'spatria is the world, as opposed to the
kingdom of heaven; see Mansfield 1979, pp. 184-185. But in no case does it seem to be Italy.
On Machiavelli and the militia, see Ridolfi, pp.79-81, 86-88, 105-108. While Ridolfi is
eager to praise Machiavellis concern for Italy as a whole, he cites no single word or action
intended to bring about unification as a practical result.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
10/25
10
authority in the foundation and renovation of republics. [D., I., 9.]
The examples of drastic action that punctuate The Prince may thus be read as a
necessary pre-political prologue to the reconstitution of political life. Clearly they are not to be
read as simple glorifications of brutality. Machiavelli does not hesitate to recognize the
usefulness of violence, but only if it is well that is, sparingly used.*
One could thus conceive of The Prince as a source of advice on the reform of a
Florentine republic fallen away from virtue into corruption. [Shumer 1979.] Elsewhere
Machiavelli writes that no project will bring a prince greater renown than the renovation of a
corrupt city. [ D., I., 9.] He also acknowledges that some cities are so corrupt that only
princely government will fit them, though he names Tuscany as being by nature republican.
[D., I., 55.]
Nor would it have been utterly outrageous even for Machiavelli, dedicated republican
that he was, to think that certain features of the Florentine polity needed reforming, even at the
hands of the Medici. TheDiscourse on Remodeling and the Florentine Histories make it clear
how badly the republic Machiavelli served treated what he calls the plebs: the members ofthe lesser guilds and the unorganized wage-workers. [FH, III, 12-21.]
But if the renovation of a republic in Florence is the true intention ofThe Prince, that
intention is concealed from its addressee. The Prince does not purport to be an essay on the
foundation of a republic, but rather on the government of a principality, which the opening
sentence of the book sets up as the antithesis of a republic. [P., I.] While theDiscourses allow
for the existence of a monarchical form of republic, [D., I., 2.] there is no such discussion in
The Prince, which seems to assume that its reader's sole objective is to maintain himself in
power. The gap between renovation as an end and the means recommended to the Prince is
made explicit in theDiscourses: "Because the reordering of a city for a political way of life
presupposes a good man, and becoming prince of a republic by violence presupposes a badman, one will find that it very rarely happens that someone good wishes to become prince by
bad ways, even though his end be good, and that someone wicked, having become prince,
wishes to work well, and that it will ever occur to his mind to use well the authority he has
acquired badly." [D., I., 18.] But the reader ofThe Prince too busy or too impatient to read
theDiscourses is not told explicitly that the authority he acquires badly is to be used well.
Thus, ifThe Prince aims to inspire in its reader the ambition to win the glory proper to
the founders of republics, [D., I., 10.] that aim is not made explicit; the reader must rely on his
own power to carry himself across the gap between what is said and what is intended. [D., I.,
Pref., last par. Cf. Mansfield 1979, p. 28.]
* See, e.g., P., VIII., 4-5. On Machiavelli's "economy of violence," see Wolin 1960, Chapter 5.
Passages such as D., III., 7 seem to support Wolin's view against those who take Machiavelli as
delighting in cruelty.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
11/25
11
8. Getting Close Enough to Kill
In his account in theDiscourses of the pretended folly of Junius Brutus, Machiavelli
dissents from Livy's assertion that Brutus wanted only to "live in more security and maintain
his patrimony. Rather, he says, Brutus was looking to have more occasion for crushing the
kings and freeing his own fatherland. He adds that all friends of liberty who find their forces
insufficient for a direct confrontation with a tyrant would be well-advised to follow Brutus's
example, "seek[ing] with all industry to makes themselves friends to him," "following his
pleasures and taking delight in those things they see him delighting in," until the opportunity to
strike presents itself. [D., III., 2.]
The literary resonance between this advice to republican conspirators and Machiavelli's
own obsequious dedication ofThe Prince might suggest that Machiavelli wants to acquire the
favor of the Medici only to "crush the kings" and liberate his city. On this view, the writing of
The Prince would be the first step in a conspiracy against the Medici, intended to place a
hidden enemy in their entourage. (Mary Dietz suggests a different plot; in her account, theadvice in The Prince is so bad that it would, if followed, have led to the downfall of the
Medici. The book is thus seen as a Trojan horse, an attempt to trick the enemy into self-
destruction.) [Dietz 1986. But see Langton 1987.] In either case, the admixture of good
advice (by Machiavelli's lights) is hard to account for, and the sharp warning against taking
unsolicited counsel [P., XXIII.] would be utterly self-defeating.
Moreover, this hypothesis, though more creditable to Machiavelli's integrity as a
republican than the sellout theory, founders on the same rock. The book is even worse
designed for the purposes of conspiracy than it is for mere flattery. Who would expose his
back to the author ofThe Prince?
MORE COMPLEX THEORIES
Thus none of the simple theories seems to cover all the facts. That justifies considering
something more complex. Isaiah Berlin on the one hand and Leo Strauss and Harvey
Mansfield on the other provide complexity and to spare, arguing alike, though with two greatly
different emphases, that Machiavellis project was no less than a complete moral and religious
revolution, or counterrevolution. But none of the three has much to say about why such a
project would lead Machiavelli to betray his republican loyalties in one of his two great books
while upholding them in the other.*
* Berlin sees Machiavelli as urging a return to the pagan virtues, while not denying the validity of
the Christian ones but treating them as incompatible; this would make Machiavelli a precursor of
Berlin himself, insisting on the existence of irreconcilable choices among goods. (On this point see
also Crick 1970, pp. 63-65.) Strauss and Mansfield take Machiavellis obvious political
anticlericalism and insist that it, and the texts, conceal an anti-Christian polemic with strongly
blasphemous undertones. Still, why should either a pagan preference or an active disgust with
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
12/25
12
THE TWO DEDICATIONS
The contrasting dedications of The Prince and the Discourses hint at the author's
intention. The dedication (to Lorenzo de' Medici*) ofThe Prince begins, "It is customary
most of the time for those who desire to acquire favor with a prince to come to meet him with
things that they care most for among their own or with things that they see please him most."
Machiavelli thus makes a distinction between two conventional practices of favor-seekers:
offering what they themselves most prize, and offering what they think will most please the
recipient. He goes on to identify his knowledge of political affairs as his most prized
possession, qualifying his book as an appropriate gift under the first statement of convention.
But what of the second statement? IfThe Prince is a present to the Medici prince,
designed to win favor for its author, it should include something to delight the recipient. The
"Machiavellian" passages in The Prince are well-suited to that end. There is always a
fascination, even for those without practical evil intentions, about evil openly discussed, and
Machiavelli seems to offer his princely reader both practical advice and authorial sanction fora career of successful oppression, deception, and cruelty.
We can thus understand the sober moral and political analysis of The Prince as
representing what Machiavelli himself cherishes: his "knowledge of the actions of great men."
The more notorious passages can then be seen as attempts to delight the prince for whom
Machiavelli writes. This analysis, if correct, is not very flattering to the putative recipient of
Machiavelli's gift. Lorenzo is certainly not meant to understand the implication of
Machiavelli's twofold statement of conventional practice: that the things that delight Lorenzo
are to be distinguished from the things cherished by one who has understanding.
The dedication, then, seems to presuppose a reader who is not the nominal recipient,
and who will understand what is written in a way beyond the capacity of Lorenzo. It is in thissense that Machiavelli can say, as he does in dedicating theDiscourses on Livy to his friends
and republican co-conspirators, that he writes, not to those who are princes, but to those who
deserve to be so. Even his book on principalities, dedicated to a prince, is written for those
who do not delight in evil but who will penetrate beneath the surface of the discourse to find
Machiavelli's intention "to bring common benefit to everyone." [ D., I., par. 5.]
MACHIAVELLIS SOCRATIC DIALOGUE?
Read thus, The Prince presents at once two very different phenomena. On its face, it is
a handbook written by an out-of-work statesman, Niccolo Machiavelli, by which to
recommend himself to the newly established ruler of his native city and province, Lorenzo de'
Medici. At this level, we can evaluate the advice from the prince's standpoint and from that
Christianity be inconsistent with an honest and consistent republicanism?
* Not Lorenzo "the Magnificent," but his undistinguished grandson, Duke of Urbino (1496-1519).
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
13/25
13
of his subjects. We can analyze the book's effects, or intended effects, on its author's political
career. We can also attempt to mine the book for general truths of theoretical interest or
enduring practical value.
But, on the reading offered here, The Prince is also a drama, in which a Prince, whose
ambition is to be a tyrant, is advised and manipulated by a far-seeing Counselor whose
monologues make up the dedication and twenty-six chapters of Machiavelli's fiction. The
narrative voice ofThe Prince is only possibly that of the author, just as the Socrates of the
dialogues may or not speak for Plato in any give passage. The immediate content of what the
Counselor says to the Prince is only part of what the author communicates to the reader.
Although the Counselor alone speaks, we learn, through what he chooses to say and to
withhold, about the character of the Prince he addresses as well as about his own, and perhaps
also about counsel and rule in general. For behind the Counselor stands Machiavelli, with his
own Socratic intentions.
In the manner of a Socratic dialogue, the discourse starts with the interlocutor's own
opinions and desires and seeks to demonstrate the errors to which they can lead. The would-be
tyrant, if he reads very carefully, is led around to the understanding that his project of
tyrannical rule is fundamentally incoherent. At the same time, Machiavelli's humanist
audience, classically educated and therefore republican in sympathy, starting from a stance
outside the Prince's project of successful tyranny, will learn how tyrants and their counselors
think and act, and therefore how to resist them. [D., I., 40.] Insofar as their own impulses are
implicitly or potentially tyrannical, as so many reformist and revolutionary impulses have
proven to be, they will learn why it is necessary, if only for their own protection, to tame them
with virtue and with sound institutions. [D., I., 58., par 2.]
This analysis makes it unnecessary to apologize for or explain away the immoraladvice offered in The Prince in order to save Machiavelli's standing as a republican or a lover
of virtue. The advice is not his; it is that of a character in his play. Speeches in a play are not
to be read as essays. They must be read as speeches, coming from a given character in a given
situation, and analyzed in terms of their dramatic function. That Machiavelli has compressed
his play into a dramatic monologue, an anticipation of Browning or Beckett, should increase
our appreciation of his literary originality, but it need not blind us to the fundamentally
dramatic rather than prosaic nature of the work.
If this view is right, then Leo Strauss's suggestion that The Prince considers political
life from the viewpoint of actual princes while theDiscourses cover the same ground from the
viewpoint of potential princes [Strauss 1958, p.21] is at best incomplete. Rather The Princeconsiders, or feigns to consider, politics from a selfishly ambitious or tyrannical viewpoint,
while theDiscourses do so from a public-spirited or republican viewpoint.
Thus, where the Counselor calmly offers breathtakingly immoral advice, Machiavelli
may intend us to understand that this is the sort of advice that rulers like to hear and
job-seeking counselors are always ready to offer. Alternatively, we may be watching the
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
14/25
14
Counselor, as part of his attempt to instruct the Prince, engaging his attention with lurid stories
of successful wickedness while subtly insinuating the less racy message that a prince can find
real security only in solid popular support, based on skill, courage, and service to the desire of
the people not to be oppressed. [Cf. D., I., 5.] Evil counsel may serve a good purpose either in
Machiavelli's own dramatic strategy or in the pedagogic strategy of his character.
In either of these two ways, the surface discourse ofThe Prince may diverge from the
deeper intention of the author. This equivocation forces the reader to engage the book far
more actively than would otherwise be the case.
The deeply ironic nature of Machiavelli's dialogue makes its structure less obvious than
his Platonic and Xeonophontic models. Theperiogogue, the process by which the interlocutor
is "led around" to recognize the incoherence of his original concept or project, takes place, not
at a single dramatic moment, but subtly and throughout the text.
Surely it is not very far-fetched to credit Machiavelli, the dramatist and humanist, with
having written a dramatic monologue on politics. In the Discourses, he makes explicit
reference to theHiero of Xenophon, known at the time as On Tyranny. [D., II., 2.] In thatdialogue between Hiero, ruler of Syracuse, and the poet Simonides, it is the man of action who
uses most of the words. Rather than showing the powerful being instructed by the wise,
Xenophon portrays a tyrant arguing that despotic power is disadvantageous compared to a
quiet private life. It is left to the poet to point out that, by ruling for the common good, the
tyrant can leave behind the life he characterizes as "a perpetual state of war" and win the
admiration of his subjects and the security such affection brings.* On the reading offered here,
Machiavelli follows Xenophon in trying to teach tyrants that they should abandon tyranny for
their own good, but does so by indirection.
MACHIAVELLI ON THE VIRTUES AND THE VICES
In the film version ofThe Wizard of Oz, Dorothy, on discovering that the Wizard is a
charlatan who cannot deliver on his promise to return her to Kansas, says, "You're a very bad
man." To which the Wizard replies, "No, I'm a very good man. I'm just a very bad wizard."
Dorothy identifies incompetence in office with moral blameworthiness. The Wizard
distinguishes them, holding himself "good" morally blameless as a person though "bad"
incompetent as a wizard.
At its beginning in Chapters XV-XVII, the analysis of virtues and vices delivered by
Machiavelli's Counselor rests on the same distinction. "The qualities for which men are
praised" personal goodness, being bene rather than male are to be distinguished from the
skill, or virt, required to rule. When the two conflict, the prince must "learn to be able not tobe good." To act otherwise is to choose the mere name of a praiseworthy quality over the
*Hiero IV., 11, XI., 8-10; cp. P., 20.
P., XV., 1. Nietzsche might say that he must choose to be an evil man rather than a bad prince.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
15/25
15
quality itself. To be liberal (generous) in the obvious and personal way by being
open-handed turns out to mean, in a prince, taking from the many to give to the few. Thus a
prince who chooses the reputation il nome of stinginess can in fact be generous to the many
from whom he does not take. [P., XVI.] Similarly, if by a few well-chosen examples of cruelty
he can establish peace and order, he is, in effect, more merciful than one who, by exercising
personal mercy refraining from the punishment of malefactors effectively licenses private
bloodshed. [P., XVII.]
So far, so good: Machiavellis Counselor presents an argument certain to shock the
pre-utilitarian conscience, but a serious moral argument nonetheless. The common-sense
identification of the good ruler with the good man is shattered, not in terms of extraordinary
circumstances or reason of state, but on the grounds that the requirements of public and private
life are different. A prince can be effectively merciful only by the skillful use of cruelty,
effectively liberal only by being tight-fisted, and he must accept the resulting bad reputation as
the burden of office unless his skill at what would now be called impression management
based around his observation that many see, but few touch [P. XVIII, 6.] suffices to give
him the reputation of the surface virtues as a bonus added to the effectual ones.
One looks for this pattern to be repeated in the discussion of keeping one's word, but in
vain. Silently, the Counselor reverses the terms. The ability to deceive involves no acceptance
of the reputation for deceit. On the contrary, the deceiver must be reputed honest, or his
deception fails. While Chapter XVI attempts to show that the effectual truth of liberality in
a prince is parsimony, and Chapter XVII that effectual mercy consists in well-used cruelty,
there is no argument in Chapter XVIII that in some higher sense one keeps one's word by
breaking it. While the examples in Chapters XVI and XVII involve benefits to the subject from
the ruler's exercise of qualities for which blame is customarily assigned, the examples of
successful deceit in Chapter XVIII involve benefits only to the princes involved.
Merely choosing all the bad qualities from the conventional list is no better thanmerely choosing all the good ones, but tyrants and their flatterers are likely to take even a
partial liberation from copybook morality as a generalized license to do evil. The Counselor
may be able to persuade the Prince that a simple reversal of classically assigned moral
categories is a complete political morality, but "he who understands" [P., XV., 1.] the
member of Machiavelli's chosen audience will understand more, and will learn also the
wisdom of the maxim "put not [your] trust in princes." [Psalm 146, Verse 3.]
Thus the device of using the Counselor as his spokesman allows Machiavelli to show
at once the necessity of reappraising conventional moral categories in the context of political
life and the danger that the reappraisal will get out of hand. This recalls the way Plato uses the
characters in Book I of theRepublic to show both the inadequacy of conventional morality asconventionally understood (Cephalus and Polemarchus) and the danger of half-digested
"advanced" doctrines (Thrasymachus).
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
16/25
16
PRINCIPALITIES AND REPUBLICS
In the opening chapter ofThe Prince, the Counselor introduces his subject the rule of
princes by outlining its place in a taxonomy of "all dominions that have held and do hold
empire over men." "All states," he says, "are either republics or principalities," and he then
goes on to list characteristics by which the category of principalities (principati) may be
subdivided. [P., I.] Nothing, apparently, could be simpler than this series of dichotomous
divisions: republic or principality, new or hereditary, entirely new or mixed.
But in the same chapter, Machiavelli also introduces a further set of terms, that of
kingdoms (regni) and their kings. Initially, "kingdom" seems to be merely a synonym for
"principality." But soon the term reappears with a richer meaning. In Chapter VI, where the
Counselor turns to the discussion of "new principalities that are acquired through one's own
arms and virtue," he singles out Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus. Moses he sets aside as
an executor of divine purpose. The others, however, he praises for having "acquired or
founded kingdoms." [ P., VI., 2.]
How a "kingdom" differs from a "principality" is not further discussed in The Prince,
except glancingly in Chapter 9 where "principality" is opposed, not to "republic," but to a
regime of either "liberty" or "license." In theDiscourses, however, Machiavelli explicitly
contrasts "a republic" or "a kingdom" on the one hand with "tyranny" on the other. [P., VI., 2.]
Under a "free way of life" (vivere libero), he says, rewards are distributed through certain
honest and determinate causes rather than arbitrarily. [ D., I., 16, par. 3] Only in a republic,
he says, is it even possible for the public good to be looked to, because the interests of a prince
are usually opposed to the interests of the city. [D., II., 2, par. 1.]
If principalities are identified with arbitrary rule, and republics with the rule of law,
well-ordered kingdoms then appear as a subspecies of republic. A republic, on this reading, isnot a specific institutional arrangement, but a state governed under law rather than at princely
discretion and (potentially) for the common good rather than merely the good of the ruler. The
subtext ofThe Prince is the Counselor's indirect argument that his reader's true interest lies not
in being a prince that is, a tyrant but in founding a well-ordered kingdom.
Machiavelli implies four arguments for this teaching: that kingship is safer than
tyranny, that it is more glorious, that it creates the basis of an effective armed force, and that it
protects the ruler from his own errors.
No Secure Mode
While apparently encouraging the ambition of his princely reader, Machiavelli hints
that it is likely to come to no good end. Closely read, even the treatment of Cesare Borgia's
career leads the prince away from his project of tyranny. At first blush Cesare is described as
the perfect Machiavellian prince, who "made use of every deed and did all those things that
should be done by a prudent and virtuous man to put his roots in the states that the arms and
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
17/25
17
fortune of others had given him." [ P., VII., 2.] "I do not know what better teaching I could
give to a new prince than the example of his actions." [Ibid.]
In his initial conquests, Cesare Borgia was forced to rely on the aid of the king of
France and on one of the powerful families of Rome. Yet he soon realized the importance of
depending on his own arms, and, after routing his enemies, eliminated his former allies. [P.,VII., 2; XIII., 3.] He then proceeded to pacify the Romagna, which he had lately acquired, by
first installing a "cruel and ready" governor who reduced the province to obedience, and then
ordering the brutal execution of this servant, leaving the people "satisfied and stupefied." The
Counselor recounts this act of cruelty and duplicity with particular admiration, recommending
it as "deserving of notice and of being imitated by others." [P., VII., 3.]
And yet, despite the ferocity and virtue that the Counselor praises in the duke, in the
end all of Cesare's exertions were nullified by misfortune and a single blunder. [P., VII., last
paragraph.] (The blunder was allowing his enemy Julius II to become Pope, deceiving
himself in the belief "that among great personages new benefits will make old injuries be
forgotten.") Thus even the most skillful and, through most of his career, lucky tyrant
ultimately failed to maintain his dominion. This should be a sobering thought for those who
would emulate him.*
Nor does it appear that even those willing to be altogether wicked can achieve safety.
The authors of the most audacious crimes can in turn become their victims. In his account of
the career of Liverotto de Fermo, who ambushed and murdered not only the uncle who had
raised him but also the rest of the city's most eminent citizens, the Counselor maintains a tone
of cool objectivity bordering on admiration. But the final sentence relates almost a fairy-tale
punishment: Liverotto was himself deceived by Cesare Borgia, and "one year after the
parricide he committed, and together with Vitellozzo, who had been his master in his virtues
and crimes, he was strangled." [P., VIII., 3.]
By contrast, kingship under law is safe. The Counselor cites France as a contemporary
example of a "well-ordered and governed kingdom," in which the ruler's liberty and security
are sustained by "infinite good institutions."
Power and Glory
* If that is indeed Machiavellis intention, he anticipates his admirer Voltaire, who writes in the
prefatory Discourse on the History of Charles XII: No king, surely, can be so incorrigible as, when
he reads theHistory of Charles XII, not to be cured of the vain ambition of making conquests. Where is
the prince that can say, I have more courage, more virtues, more resolution, greater strength of body,
greater skill in war, or better troops, than Charles XII? And yet, if, with all these advantages, and afterso many victories, Charles was so unfortunate, what fate may other princes expect, who, with less
capacity and fewer resources, shall entertain the same ambitious views? History of Charles XII, p. 8.
P., XIX., 5. Cf. D., I., 16, where the laws are praised for preserving the security of the people.
P., IV, identifies the existence of hereditary nobles with strong provincial bases as a source of
weakness for France, as opposed to theparlement, seen as a source of strength.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
18/25
18
In addition to this warning about the wages of sin, the Counselor also has advice to
offer about the way to win glory. The glory-seeking prince must tread a path very different
from one who merely feels the "desire to acquire." "Nothing," says the Counselor, "brings so
much honor to a man rising newly as the new laws and the new orders found by him. When
these things have been founded well and have greatness in them, they make him revered and
admirable." [P., XXVI., 3.]
But whoever seeks only personal dominion by a "criminal and nefarious path" cheats
himself of glory. Such a prince may show great courage and daring, but, as in the case of
Agathocles the Sicilian, his crimes exclude him from a place "among the most excellent men."
[P., VIII., 1-2.] In denying glory to the authors of successful crimes, Machiavelli is more
scrupulous than, for example, Homer, who twice makes his Achaian characters describe
Pandaros's sneak attack on Menalaos, in violation of a sworn truce, as having brought "glory to
him." [IliadIV, 197 and 207.]
Writing to his republican friends rather than his Medici enemies, Machiavelli is even
more explicit about what he takes to be the true interests of rulers inDiscourses I., 10, entitled
"Those who set up a Tyranny are no less Blameworthy than are the Founders of a Republic or
a Kingdom Praiseworthy." Founders of republics or kingdoms are famous, he says, while
tyrants are infamous and detestable.
And no one will ever be so crazy or so wise, so wicked or so good, who will
not praise what is to be praised and blame what is to be blamed, when the
choice between the two qualities of men is placed before him. Nonetheless,
afterward, deceived by a false good and a false glory, almost all let themselves
go, either voluntarily or ignorantly, into the ranks of those who deserve more
blame than praise; and though to their perpetual honor, they are able to make a
republic or a kingdom, they turn to tyranny. Nor do they perceive how much
fame, how much glory, how much honor, security, quiet, with satisfaction ofmind, they flee from by this policy, and how much infamy, reproach, blame,
danger, and disquiet they run into.
...And truly, if a prince seeks the glory of the world, he ought to desire
to possess a corrupt city not to spoil it entirely as did Caesar but to reorder it
as did Romulus. And try the heavens cannot give to man a greater opportunity
for glory, nor can men desire any greater. If one who wishes to order a city
well had of necessity to lay down the principate, he would deserve some
excuse if he did not order it so as not to fall from that rank; but if he is able to
hold the principate and order it, he does not merit any excuse. In sum, those to
whom the heavens give such an opportunity may consider that two ways havebeen placed before them: one that makes them live secure and after death
renders them glorious; the other that makes them live in continual anxieties and
after death leaves them a sempiternal infamy.
Thus the "effectual truth" [P., XV.] of the prince's desire to acquire power and win
glory is, if he only understood it, the desire to found a well-ordered state: a monarchy or a
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
19/25
19
republic rather than a tyranny.
One's Own Arms and Virtue
In considering the advantages of republics and well-ordered monarchies over tyrannies,Machiavelli tacitly qualifies his advice to princes to rely entirely on their own arms and virtue.
The arms of others, whether mercenaries or auxiliaries, are to be shunned. But "one's own
arms" are necessarily the arms of one's subjects or citizens, or of "your creatures" (i.e., a
professional soldiery). [P., XIII., 7.] Creating a separate class of soldiers puts the prince at
their mercy, forcing him to "bear with their avarice and cruelty," as must the Sultan of Egypt
and the Turk, the only two contemporary rulers who rule by means of soldiers. Under those
circumstances, "good deeds are one's enemy." [P.., XIX, 6.] The only alternative is an army of
subjects or citizens. [P., XX, 1.] But an armed populace cannot safely be oppressed: "Now it
is necessary for all princes, except the Turk and the Sultan, to satisfy the people." A citizen
army requires the prince to keep his people content. (This suggests that Machiavellis attempt
to create a Florentine militia had a political purpose as well as a military one.)
Since only republics (and "republican" monarchies) can maintain the citizen armies that
provide a city's sole reliable defense, the prince who follows the Counselor's advice to have
"no other thought ... but the art of war" is led to think how he can keep his subjects his friends.
As Xenophon's Cyrus learns, the art of war is the art of making people want to fight for you.
[Xenophon, Cyropaideia (The Education of Cyrus),passim.] The more ambitious the prince is
for military glory, the less cavalier he can afford to be about the welfare of his people.
This, then, is the effectual truth of Machiavelli's dictum that "where there are good
arms, there must be good laws." [P. XII, 1.] Only in states with good institutions will the ruler
dare to arm the people.
As with arms, so with virtue. "One's own virtue will never be sufficient to adapt itself
to all the vagaries of fortune, and the consequent variability of the good." "Nor may a man
be found so prudent as to know how to accommodate himself to this ... because he cannot
deviate from what nature inclines him to." Any absolute ruler will therefore come to ruin
when the times change and he cannot change with them. [P., XXV.]
In a republic, however, institutions serve to protect not only the public, but also the
princes, from their innate tendencies to excess. Thanks to the restraint of the Roman Senate,
for example, the excess of mercy that would eventually have tarnished Scipio's career had it
been given full rein "not only was hidden, but made for his glory."[ P., XVII., 6.] Thus even
the virtuosi of politics require the laws, acting as an artificial necessity, to make them
excellent. [Cf. D., I, 1.]
The would-be tyrant reader ofThe Prince, if he reads it carefully (as one who deserves
the principate), is therefore led toward the foundation of a monarchy or republic under the rule
of law, because otherwise he will be unable to control either his army or himself.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
20/25
20
WHY A DRAMA?If this indeed is Machiavelli's point that the ambition to be a tyrant, if intelligently
pursued to its logical end, results in being instead the founder of a free regime why does he
make it in such a roundabout manner, and dramatically rather than prosaically? Good literary,
pedagogical, and philosophical reasons can be offered, some of them with internal textual
support.
On a merely stylistic level, the book's wealth of sardonic counsel provides much of its
charm, especially for those who imagine themselves as the wielders of power for personal
gain. Like the proverbial mule-tamer with his two-by-four (though using pleasure rather than
pain) Machiavelli with his wicked advice secures his readers undivided attention, in hopes of
seducing him into virtue. If Machiavelli seemed to be criticizing the project of tyranny ratherthan forwarding it, he would have fewer readers, especially among the potential tyrants whose
ambition he most desires to turn to the public good. (The brevity ofThe Prince may be
designed to appeal to the impatient young rather than, per Mansfield, the busy great.) The
dedication, with its twofold statement of conventional practice, seems to support this
interpretation.
As a pedagogical matter, Machiavelli cannot simply provide a list of maxims without
violating his own first principles. He advises his readers that power must, if it is to be secure,
be achieved with their own virtue as well as their own arms. [P., VI.] He points out that one who
is not wise himself cannot benefit from good counsel. [P., XXIII.] If Machiavelli were to
present his reader with a pre-cooked doctrine on a silver platter, he would cheat that reader of
the opportunity to make it his own by discovering it for himself as the solution to Machiavelli's
riddle.* In urging his reader not to accept counsel unasked and not to put himself into the
power of a single counselor, Machiavelli seems to tread dangerously close to the Liar's Paradox;
by burying his meaning in a tangle of indirection, Machiavelli reinforces his advice to trust no
one by forcing his reader to distrust Machiavelli himself. That this not inadvertent is indicated
in the penultimate chapter of theDiscourses, where Machiavelli warns that an enemy's apparent
blunder may conceal a stratagem and immediately makes an apparent blunder. [D., III, 48; cf.
Strauss 1958, p. 35; Mansfield 1979, p. 10.]
But there may be a deeper reason for Machiavelli's use of dialogue rather than simple
exposition to convey his thoughts. He may believe, as the (possibly spurious) Seventh Epistle
* It is said that a younger contemporary of Mozart wrote to the great man for advice on composing a
piano concerto. Mozart responded that his correspondent was too young to work in that form, and ought
to come back to it when he was older. On being reminded that he had composed his own first piano
concerto while still a boy, Mozart replied, Yes I did; but I didnt ask anyone to teach me how.
Cf. Mansfield 1979, p. 12, where Machiavelli is likened to "a wrestling teacher who demonstrates
the holds by throwing you."
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
21/25
21
suggests that Plato believed, [341 b-e.] that some truths cannot be correctly expressed in direct
propositional form. This impossibility might arise either because each true proposition is
partial, needing the support of other propositions on the same subject to be complete, or
because there is no direct statement that is not subject to trivial or vicious interpretation.*
Thus Machiavelli cannot say what he means, to the audience he seeks, directly. Insteadhe speaks through his character, the Counselor. Of what he intends to say, this essay has, I
hope, given a partially true account.
THEN WHY NOT A REAL DIALOGUE?
But all of this raises an obvious question: If Machiavelli wanted to writeThe Prince as
a dialogue, why didnt he? The dialogue was a familiar Renaissance literary form, and
Machiavelli himself produced one: The Art of War.
But the answer is really just as obvious as the question: Machiavelli wanted his little
treatise read, and not just by a few humanists. A classical dialogue shows how a particular
kind of teacher can transform the thinking of a particular kind of interlocutor. The teacher
starts with the interlocutors opinions or premises and shows them to be either internally
incoherent or inconsistent with that interlocutors practices or aims. The resulting text
illustrates both the truth about some topic and the fallacies that surround it. While, on the
interpretation offered here, Machiavelli had just that intention, the dialogue form did not fit his
project of converting private ambition to the public good.
Whatever wisdom is embodied in The Art of Warremains safely hidden in the text,
beyond the reach of any but the patient and the scholarly. That would have been only slightly
less true in Machiavellis own time than it is today: the book is a work of formidable tedium.
(Perhaps that tedium conceals some even more Machiavellian purpose, or perhaps the
conventions of humanist dialogue writing simply didnt allow even such a literary genius as
Machiavelli to produce readable work in that format.)
By contrast, The Prince, however cunningly Machiavelli may have concealed some of
its meanings and intentions, may well be the most widely read (as opposed to assigned or
purchased) of the great works of political thought, simply because it is brief and breezy, and
seems to hold out political wisdom and permission for wrong-doing as low-hanging fruit to
the ambitious and impatient. Whether the good done by those who solve Machiavellis puzzle
and act on what they have learned is adequate to counterbalance the evil done by those who
merely take the evil advice and apparent permission and run with it is a question for another
day.
* See the definitions of justice inRepublic I: "Justice is the interest of the stronger" is, on one
reading, true, but partial; as read by Thrasymachus, it is merely an excuse for oppression.
This query was raised for me by Andy Sabl.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
22/25
22
References
Berlin, Isaiah. 1980. "The Originality of Machiavelli." In Isaiah Berlin,Against the Current.New York: Viking Press, pp. 25-79.
Crick, Bernard, 1970. "Introduction: So Many Machiavellis," inMachiavelli: The Discourses,
Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Dietz, Mary. 1986. "Trapping the Prince: Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception."
American Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 3, pp. 777-799.
Garver, Eugene. 1987. Machiavelli and the History of Prudence. University of Wisconsin
Press.
Gilbert, Allan H., ed. 1961. The Letters of Machiavelli. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Gilbert, Felix. 1977. History: Choice and Commitment. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Guicciardini, Francesco, 1512/1528/1530/1857. Ricordi Politici e Civile, in Opera Inedite
di Francesco Guicciardini, ed. Giuseppi Canestrini. Vol. 1, pp. 81-224. Firenze.
----------1512/1528/1530/1965. Maxims & Reflections of a Renaissance Statesman (Ricordi).
Translated by Mario Domandi. Harper & Row (Harper Torchbooks.)
Hulliung, Mark. 1983. Citizen Machiavelli. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Langton, John. 1987. "Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or Teaching the Prince." AmericanPolitical Science Review, Vol. 81, No. 4, pp. 1277-1288.
Lewin, Leonard C. 1967 (writing as Special Study Group).Report from Iron Mountain
on the Possiblity and Desirability of Peace., With introductory material by Leonard C.
Lewin. New York, Dial Press.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1531/1996. Discourses on Livy. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield
and Nathan Tarcov. University of Chicago Press.
----------. 1532/1964. The Prince and Other Works. Translation, introduction, and notes by
Allan H. Gilbert. New York: Hendricks House.
----------. 1532/1985. The Prince. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Mansfield, Harvey C., Jr. 1979. Machiavelli's New Modes and Orders: A Study of the
Discourses on Livy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
-----------. 1985. "Introduction," in Machiavelli, The Prince, translated by Harvey C.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
23/25
23
Mansfield, Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-----------. 1989. Taming the Prince. New York: The Free Press.
------------. 1996 Machiavellis Virtue. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Mattingly, Garrett. 1958. "Machiavelli's Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?"American Scholar, Vol. 27 pp. 482-491.
Neustadt, Richard E. 1960. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1984. Fortune is a Woman: Gender and Politics in the Thought of
Niccolo Machiavelli. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pocock, J.G.A. 1975. The Machiavellian Moment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ridolfi, Roberto,1954/1963. The Life of Machiavelli, trans. Cecil Grayson: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Roper, William. 1553/1962. The Life of Sir Thomas More in Two Early Tudor Lives, edited
Richard S. Sylvester and David P. Harding. Yale University Press.
Shumer, Sara. 1979. "Machiavelli: Republican Politics and Its Corruption." Political
Theory. Vol 7, pp. 5-34.
Skinner, Quentin. 1981.Machiavelli. New York: Hill and Wang.
Spinoza, Baruch, 1679/1883/1951. A Political Treatise, trans. A.H. Gossett, in Benedict de
Spinoza,A Theologico-Political Treatise and A Political Treatise, Dover Publications.
Strauss, Leo. 1958. Thoughts on Machiavelli. Glencoe, Il.: Free Press.
Voltaire, 1731/1901 History of Charles XII, trans.William F. Fleming, Vol. XI ofThe Works
of Voltaire, The St. Hubert Guild.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1960. Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western
Political Thought. Boston: Little, Brown.
Xenophon. 1956. Hiero, in Scripta Minora. Translated by E. C. Marchant. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press/Loeb Classical Library.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
24/25
24
.
-
8/2/2019 Kleiman 2001 - Machiavelli 's Socratic Dialogue - The Prince as a Seduction Into Virtue
25/25
25