Rome was fortunate enough to be able to channel her conflicts among different classes in a useful direction by virtue of the institutions she had evolved over a number of years. In Florence the conflicts were primarily between members of the same class. Unchecked by vigorous institutions, they usually involved private quarrels over wealth and prestige rather than general public issues. Foremost among the means by which the Romans protected themselves from the rise of such factions, according to Machiavelli, were the offices which represented the interests of the parties to the conflicts—the senate, the consuls, the tribunes of the plebeians. Their existence enabled these diverse groups to express their legitimate interests without the need to form factions. Moreover, the right to bring public charges against citizens suspected of working for private interests through such factions helped to curb this potential source of corruption (although false accusations could have an equally adverse effect). The absence of such an institution in Florence was detrimental
Because civic corruption occupied so much of Machiavelli’s attention, it was only logical that he should deal with the problem of political renewal. Again, his belief in the creative role of the heroic individual is central to his treatment of political reform: “If a prince truly seeks worldly glory, he should hope to possess a corrupt city—not in order to ruin it completely as Caesar did but to reorganize it as Romulus did. And the heavens cannot truly bestow upon men a greater opportunity for obtaining glory than this, nor can men desire a greater one” (Discourses, I, x). As we have already seen in our analysis of Machiavelli’s views on history, reform involves the return of a political, religious, or military institution to its original principles or beginnings, usually following a model supplied by classical practice. This can be accomplished either through farsighted constitutional provisions contained in the structure of the institution itself or through some event external to this structure. Self-regeneration in a political institution is, however, quite rare, and Machiavelli believes that political reform is most likely to take place as a result of some external event. The traumatic shock of the taking of the city of Rome by the Gauls in 390 B.C. is a case in point, for its ultimate effect was a revival of the original principles in the republic (Discourses, III, i). Similarly beneficial effects can arise from internal changes which, like external shocks, act as a catalyst for social reform. These result most commonly from some new law, such as the creation of the tribunes of the plebeians, or of the censors, or from the example of a virtuous man’s heroic deeds. Here Machiavelli cites a number of men, including not only political and military leaders but also St. Francis of Assisi and St. Dominic, the two principal religious reformers of the Middle Ages.
While Machiavelli is most concerned with the means of avoiding civic corruption and, consequently, of prolonging the life span of the body politic, several political phenomena also hold his attention—the institution of the dictatorship in republican Rome and the genesis and mechanism of a political conspiracy or a coup d’état. Machiavelli, the republican enthusiast, sees no necessary conflict between a republican form of government and a dictatorship (Discourses, I, xxxiv). He regards this institution as a threat to republican institutions and liberty only if the dictator has unlimited powers to modify the ordini of the state itself and is subject to no time limitation on his powers. But republican Rome employed the institution of the dictatorship only for fixed periods of time and for specified emergencies, and in no way was the dictator allowed to alter the actual structure of the state’s ordini. Instead, he was created during those situations when the slow-moving republican institutions were unsuited to dealing with rapidly developing problems (such as a foreign invasion). The dictatorship was, in reality, merely a safety valve employed to safeguard the republican institutions.
Machiavelli’s discussion of political conspiracies is equally original. Chapter vi, book III of The Discourses (the longest chapter in the work) is entirely devoted to this subject, and much of The History of Florence examines historical intrigues in some detail. It represents the most intricate and comprehensive treatment of conspiracies that had yet been attempted. The picture of the practical difficulties involved offers little comfort to those who might wish to employ his analysis as a technical guidebook. This is rather curious, for such a means to power is one which he commonly ascribes to many of the political figures he has examined, including Castruccio Castracani and a host of classical examples.
MACHIAVELLI TODAY
In the four and one-half centuries since Machiavelli’s death, no single and unanimously accepted interpretation of his ideas has succeeded in imposing itself upon the lively debate over the meaning of his works. Yet there has never been any doubt about the fundamental importance of Machiavelli’s contribution to Western political theory. Critical disagreement has always centered upon how best to evaluate his influence and to characterize his originality. The most popular and widely held opinion of Machiavelli has concerned itself with his views on politics and morality. This critical perspective, spread beyond the Alps by such diverse writers as Reginald Cardinal Pole, Innocent Gentillet, Frederick the Great, and a number of Elizabethan dramatists—including Marlowe and Shakespeare—has given the English language the derogatory terms “Machiavellian” and “Machiavellianism,” both of which connote political behavior characterized by immorality, deceit, expediency, and lack of scruples. Such an interpretation of Machiavelli’s works dominated critical debate until the eighteenth century, when a number of writers began to see him in a different light, either as a forerunner in the heroic struggle for Italian independence or as a lover of freedom who revealed to the people, under the guise of a book on tyrants, the true nature of tyranny. The focus of the polemical debate shifted from moral questions to a new concern for the author and his intentions.
In recent years Machiavelli has once again become the subject of much critical debate, and this has produced a number of novel approaches to his life and works. New archival discoveries, better editions of many of his works, and fresh critical perspectives have all contributed to this recent upsurge in interest. A number of influential thinkers in this century have pursued the traditionally accepted view of Machiavelli as a teacher of evil. He has been proclaimed as the political thinker who first established the theoretical autonomy of politics, separating it from ethics or theology. Others hailed Machiavelli as the first empirical political scientist, comparing his method to that of Galileo in the physical sciences. Some view him as the first political realist, or as the founder of elitist theory traceable in our own time to the works of Michels, Mosca, and Pareto. While he has received the praise of many unpopular political figures, including that of the Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, for his astute counsel to statesmen, he nevertheless continues to elicit the attention of thinkers with diametrically opposed ideologies. Thus, Antonio Gramsci, Italy’s most original Marxist thinker (and certainly no epigone of Mussolini), defined Machiavelli’s “new” prince as the perfect example of a political myth and maintained that the modem political party should fulfill the functions of that heroic figure in the contemporary world.
While the weight of traditional critical opinion seems to favor the view that Machiavelli is the supreme realist, there is another current in recent criticism which stresses his literary and imaginative qualities: the impact of his prose style upon his ideas; his creation of quasimythical characters from the raw materials of ancient or contemporary history; and the meaning of his particular political vocabulary. Current interest in Machiavelli’s works may be characterized by all of the following: increased attention to his early career in the Florentine Chancery; renewed study of his relationships with important historical figures (Savonarola, Borgia, Soderini, Guicciardini, Vettori); a more precise definition of his political terminology; and greater attention to questions of style and literary history. A general tendency of recent scholarship, one reflected by the variety of materials selected for inclusion in this volume, is to examine all of Machiavelli’s w
orks. No longer is Machiavelli treated as the author of a single, albeit very important, treatise on principalities. In remedying the traditional overemphasis upon The Prince, recent criticism has also shifted attention to Machiavelli’s role as a republican theorist and to his many original contributions in his analysis of the dynamics of political behavior in a self-governing body politic. Furthermore, Machiavelli’s ideas have had an unexpected impact upon new disciplines. They have, for instance, inspired a recent best-seller by Antony Jay on business management and corporate politics. They have also served as the basis for an empirical psychological test measuring “Machiavellianism” and its relationship to interpersonal relations. Subjects scoring high on a “Mach” scale (derived from a list of ideologically loaded statements, many of which are taken from Machiavelli’s works) have displayed a remarkable degree of success in manipulating their lower-scoring competitors in interpersonal situations. Contemporary management theory and psychological testing have thus provided us with additional proof (whether desirable or not) of Machiavelli’s relevance to our own times.
Like the shape of the mythical figure Proteus, Machiavelli’s critical profile seems capable of an infinite number of variations. In the debate that has raged over his works ever since their first appearance in the sixteenth century, the views that have been expressed often reveal as much about the preconceptions of an age as they do about the meaning of Machiavelli’s ideas. Benedetto Croce once remarked that Machiavelli raises a critical question which may never be resolved. But if the true test of a classic lies in its ability to serve as a mirror to successive generations rather than in providing specific answers to particular questions which invariably become obsolete with the passage of time, then Machiavelli’s works will continue to fascinate today’s readers, who, like those of the past 450 years, will discover themselves in his writings.
Peter Bondanella
Mark Musa
Center for Italian Studies
Indiana University
September 1978
MACHIAVELLI:
A Selective Bibliography of Translations, Editions, and Criticism
I. TRANSLATIONS
COLLECTED WORKS
Christian E. Detmold, ed. and trans., The Historical, Political, and Diplomatic Works of Niccolò Machiavelli, 4 vols. (Boston: James R. Osgood, 1882); Allan Gilbert, ed. and trans., Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, 3 vols. (Durham: Duke University Press, 1965).
INDIVIDUAL WORKS OR GROUPS OF WORKS
James B. Atkinson, ed. and trans., The Prince (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1976); Thomas G. Bergin, ed., The Prince (Northbrook, Ill.: AHM Publishing Corporation, 1947); Bernard Crick, ed., The Discourses (Baltimore: Penguin, 1970—Walker translation revised by Brian Richardson); Oliver Evans, ed. and trans., Clizia (Great Neck, N.Y.: Barron’s, 1962); Allan Gilbert, ed. and trans., The Letters of Machiavelli (New York: Capricorn, 1961); Felix Gilbert, ed., The History of Florence and the Affairs of Italy (New York: Harper, 1960); J. R. Hale, ed. and trans., The Literary Works of Machiavelli (London: Oxford University Press, 1961); Max Lerner, ed., The Prince and The Discourses (New York: Random House, 1950—translation of The Prince by Luigi Ricci and of The Discourses by Christian Detmold); Mark Musa, ed. and trans., Machiavelli’s The Prince: A Bilingual Edition (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1964); Anne and Henry Paolucci, eds. and trans., Mandragola (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957); Joseph Tusiani, ed. and trans., Lust and Liberty: The Poems of Machiavelli (New York: Obolensky, 1963); Leslie J. Walker, ed. and trans., The Discourses of Niccolò Machiavelli, 2 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950); Neal Wood, ed., The Art of War (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965—revised version of 1775 Farnsworth translation).
II. ITALIAN EDITIONS
Sergio Bertelli, ed., Arte della guerra e scritti politici minori (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1961), Legazioni e commissarie, 3 vols. (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1964), and Il Principe e Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1960); L. Arthur Burd, ed., Il Principe (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1891); Fredi Chiappelli, ed., Legazioni, commissarie, scritti di governo (Bari: Laterza, 1971- ); Franco Gaeta, ed., Istorie fiorentine (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1962), Lettere (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1961), and Il Teatro e tutti gli scritti letterari (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1965); Mario Martelli, ed., Tutte le opere (Florence: Sansoni, 1972); Guido Mazzoni and Mario Casella, eds., Tutte le opere storiche e letterarie (Florence: G. Barbera, 1929).
III. SECONDARY MATERIALS GROUPED BY TOPIC
THE PRIVATE LETTERS
Giorgio Bàrberi Squarotti, La forma tragica del Principe e altri saggi sul Machiavelli (Florence: Olschki, 1966); Peter E. Bondanella, Machiavelli and the Art of Renaissance History (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1974); Robert J. Clements and Lorna Levant, eds., Renaissance Letters: Revelations of a World Reborn (New York: New York University Press, 1976); Franco Fido, “Appunti sulla memoria letteraria di Machiavelli,” MLN 89 (1974), 1-13; Allan Gilbert, ed., The Letters of Machiavelli; Mario Martelli, “Ancora sui ‘Ghiribizzi’ a Giovan Battista Soderini,” Rinascimento 10 (1970), 3-27, and “I ‘Ghiribizzi’ a Giovan Battista Soderini,” Rinascimento 9 (1969), 147-180; Franco Masciandaro, “I ‘castellucci’ e i ‘ghiribizzi’ del Machiavelli epistolografo,” Italica 46 (1969), 135-148; K. R. Minogue, “Theatricality and Politics: Machiavelli’s Concept of Fantasia,” in B. Parekh and R. N. Berki, eds., The Morality of Politics (New York: Crane and Russak, 1972); Roberto Ridolfi and Paolo Ghiglieri, “I ‘Ghiribizzi’ al Soderini,” La Bibliofilia 72 (1970), 53-74; Gennaro Sasso, “Qualche osservazione sui Ghiribizzi di Machiavelli al Soderini.” in Walter Binni et al., Letteratura e critica: studi in onore di Natalino Sapegno, vol. 3 (Rome: Bulzoni, 1976); Giuseppe Velli, “Machiavelli’s Letters,” Italian Quarterly 6 (1962), 99-111.
THE PRINCE
Sydney Anglo, Machiavelli: A Dissection (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1969); Alfredo Bonadeo, Corruption, Conflict, and Power in the Works and Times of Niccolò Machiavelli (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973); Peter E. Bondanella, Machiavelli and the Art of Renaissance History, Federico Chabod, Machiavelli and the Renaissance (New York: Harper, 1965) and Scritti su Machiavelli (Turin: Einaudi, 1964); Fredi Chiappelli, Studi sul linguaggio del Machiavelli (Florence: Il Saggiatore, 1952); Martin Fleischer, ed., Machiavelli and the Nature of Political Thought (New York: Atheneum, 1972); Allan Gilbert, Machiavelli’s Prince and Its Forerunners: The Prince as a Typical Book De Regimine Principum (Durham: Duke University Press, 1938); Myron P. Gilmore, ed., Studies on Machiavelli (Florence: Sansoni, 1972); J. H. Hexter, The Vision of Politics on the Eve of the Reformation: More, Machiavelli, and Seyssel (New York: Basic Books, 1972); De Lamar Jensen, Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist? (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1960); Joseph A. Mazzeo, Renaissance and Revolution: Backgrounds to Seventeenth- Century English Literature (New York: Random House, 1967); Anthony Parel, ed., The Political Calculus: Essays on Machiavelli’s Philosophy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972); J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975); Russell Prince, “The Senses of Virtù in Machiavelli,” European Studies Review 3 (1975), 315-345; Roberto Ridolfi, The Life of Niccolb Machiavelli (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963); Gennaro Sasso, Machiavelli e Cesare Borgia: storia di un giudizio (Rome: Ateneo, 1966); Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1969); J. H. Whitfield, Discourses on Machiavelli (Cambridge, England: W. Heffer, 1969) and Machiavelli (Oxford: Blackwells, 1947); Neal Wood, “Machiavelli’s Concept of Virtù Reconsidered,” Political Studies 15 (1967), 160-172.
THE DISCOURSES
Sydney Anglo, Machiavelli: A Dissection; Hans Baron, “The Principe and the Puzzle of the Date of the Discorsi,” Bibliothèque d‘Humanisme et de Renaissance 18 (1956), 405-428; Alfredo Bonadeo, Corruption, Conflict, and Power, Peter E. Bondanella, Francesco Guicciardini (Boston: Twayne, 1976) and Machiavelli
and the Art of Renaissance History, Martin Fleischer, ed., Machiavelli and the Nature of Political Thought; Felix Gilbert, “The Composition and Structure of Machiavelli’s Discorsi,” Journal of the History of Ideas 14 (1953), 136-156; Myron P. Gilmore, ed., Studies on Machiavelli; I. Hannaford, “Machiavelli’s Concept of Virtù in The Prince and The Discourses Reconsidered,” Political Studies 20 (1972), 185-189; Anthony Parel, ed., The Political Calculus; J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment; Brian Richardson, “The Structure of Machiavelli’s Discorsi,” Italica 49 (1972), 46-71; Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli; Giuseppe Toffanin, Machiavelli e il Tacitismo (Naples: Guida, 1972; rpt. of 1921 edn.); J. H. Whitfield, Discourses on Machiavelli, Machiavelli, and “Machiavelli’s Use of Livy,” in T. A. Dorey, ed., Livy (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971).
The Portable Machiavelli Page 4
