FIVE

Machiavelli (1469–1527): Humanism and Republicanism

THE REPUBLICAN CITY-STATES OF ITALY

In our popular imagination of the European middle ages, alongside the large landed estates of the countryside, are also placed the many vibrant city-states of late medieval Italy. The city-states of the Lombardy and Tuscany regions of northern Italy—Milan, Venice, Verona, Padua, Ravenna, Modena, Genoa, Florence, Arezzo, Bologna and Pisa—to name only a few, had all emerged by the end of the first millennium. Ever vigilant of their independence not only from the Holy Roman Emperor, but also from the Roman Catholic Church, these city-states defined their liberty in terms of rule by the people of the city, rather than by a few selected notables.¹ By the end of the 12th century, in most of the Italian city-states, the government was in the hands of a podesta, who was an official, usually from another city, selected or elected by the people to run the city’s affairs for a mere six months before he was replaced by another. The podesta ruled with the help of the People’s Council. He also had to submit himself to an audit at the end of his term, before being allowed to return to his original city. According to Skinner, this distinctive system of republican government was well established in several Italian city-states. ‘The cities were generally controlled by chief magistrates known as podesta, so called because they were vested with supreme power or potestas over the citizens under their charge. A podesta normally held office for a period of six months or at most a year, and conducted his administration by means of a series of executive councils. All the members of such councils, including the podesta himself, enjoyed a status no higher than that of public servants of the commune that elected them. The system thus represented a complete repudiation of the familiar medieval principles of lordship and hereditary rule.’² Fiercely independent of any external control, whether from the papacy or the Holy Roman Emperor, these city-republics questioned the use of this independence if internally their people had to submit to the control of an absolute prince.

These city-republics of northern Italy were surrounded, in Italy itself, by the kingdoms of Naples and of the pope, and just across the borders of Italy, by the powerful monarchies of France, Spain and England. Even in the city-republics, in the spate of the next two hundred years, by the mid-14th century, the podestas had been replaced by the signori, or executive boards, whose governing powers were much more authoritarian. The transition from the podesta to the signori was repeated in city-state after city-state in Italy, and Florence, the city-state to which Machiavelli belonged, was one such city-state. In Florence, there was a slow weakening of republican institutions. In 1393, the office of the podesta was replaced by that of the signori. Although the signori were more powerful than the podesta, there still remained checks on their executive authority. When the Medici family established their regime in 1434, these checks were done away with, and the Medici princes ruled more like kings until the republic was re-established in 1494, when the Consiglio Grande (Great Council) was set up. The Great Council, which was set up by the famous law of December 1494, had the power to approve all new laws and taxes. Members of the middle class could have their say through the Great Council.³ The Great Council or the Consiglio Grande gave the regime the character of a ‘governo largo’ because more than 3,000 citizens could participate in it. Not only were many non-aristocratic elements included in the Consiglio Grande, they also had the right to election to the Signoria, the chief executive board as well as to several other administrative boards. A gonfaloniere was the third element of this constitution.⁴ From 1494 to 1498, the leadership of the Florentine republic was in the hands of a Dominican priest called Savonarola who was severely critical not only of the corruption of the Catholic Church, but also of the art and humanist culture of the wealthy Florentines. The latter plotted to get rid of him, and in 1498, he was replaced by a secular leader, Piero Soderini, who later became gonfaloniere for life, in 1502.

Born in 1469, Machiavelli had already come of age when the Medicis were overthrown and his first job, at the age of 29, was to work as a bureaucrat for the newly established republic. Machiavelli came from an ordinary Florentine family, ‘neither rich, nor highly aristocratic’. His father was a lawyer, who took great care of his son’s education and sent him off to the University of Florence to complete his studies in the humanities. Machiavelli’s teacher at the University was Marcello Adriani, who became the head of the first chancery of the republic. Perhaps, it was at his insistence that Machiavelli was appointed as secretary to the second chancery. The first chancery was supposed to be responsible for foreign affairs and matters of war, while the second chancery looked after internal affairs and the domestic bureaucracy. By the time of Machiavelli’s appointment in June 1498, however, the functions of the two chanceries had begun to overlap.⁵ In fact, it was Machiavelli who was sent on many diplomatic missions for the republic to several places, like France, Spain and the Vatican. When the republic fell, in 1512, and the Medicis came back, Machiavelli was imprisoned and nearly executed. Fortunately, an amnesty was granted to him, and he was exiled to the outskirts of Florence, to his farm. It is there that he wrote the many books for which he is so famous—The Prince, Discourses, Art of War, History of Florence, and Discourse on the Reform of the Government of Florence. Machiavelli became the most famous of the philosophical historians of Florence, including Guicciardini and Francesco Vettori. Unlike Guicciardini, who was allied to the Medicis, Machiavelli and Vettori were republicans.

THE INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT

The history of republican institutions in the Italian city-states has generated a heated debate among Machiavelli scholars. According to Hans Baron, these republican institutions existed in some kind of theoretical vacuum. Although the city-states enjoyed republican political practices, a political theory of republicanism had not yet developed. That had to wait till the Renaissance civic humanists as well as the publication of Machiavelli’s Discourses. For Baron, Machiavelli’s originality and contribution lies in developing a political theory of republicanism.

Skinner’s position, on the other hand, is that, right from the middle of the 12th century, many tracts celebrating the fine points of ‘free government’ existed in the Italian city-states. Skinner cites the work of Brunetto Latini (1266) as an example of tracts on city government, using references to the Roman thinkers Sallust and Cicero, to make the point that only a free government could ensure justice, which was necessary for the common good, which, in turn, brought about concord in the city, which, then, allowed the city to achieve greatness. It is such 12th and 13th century arguments about the advantages of elected government versus a monarchy that form the backdrop for Machiavelli’s Discourses. The Discourses, then, according to Skinner, shows a continuity between these pre-humanist writers of city government, Renaissance humanism and Machiavelli.

It was also in the 13th century that several advice books, ‘intended for the guidance of the podesta and city magistrates’ were written. Skinner refers to The Pastoral Eye (1222) and to The Government of Cities (1240), and states that these ‘early advice-books’ helped to set a pattern for the later mirror-for-princes literature by emphasizing the virtues a good ruler should possess’.⁶ The trend of writing of advice books for princes reached its peak in the latter part of the 15th century, by which time almost all republican institutions had been overtaken by princely governments. During these years, many writers, including Patrizi, Bartolomeo Saachi and Giovanni Pontano wrote advice books for rulers. The Prince, by Machiavelli, belongs to this mirror-for-princes genre.

The 15th century advice books belonged to writers of the Italian Renaissance. Therefore, apart from the influence of the pre-humanist Republican writings, Machiavelli’s work also shows the stamp of the Renaissance. The Italian Renaissance celebrated the values of human power and human creativity, the ability of human beings to shape their own destiny, or to make things better for themselves by their own effort. That is why the dominant idea of the Renaissance is said to be humanism. The humanists rejected the ‘entire Augustinian picture of human nature’ by insisting on man’s creative powers. The so-called ‘Manifesto of the Renaissance’, An Oration on the Dignity of Man, written by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and published in 1486, expresses this beautifully. In his oration, Pico writes:

He [God] therefore took man as a creature of indeterminate nature and, assigning him a place in the middle of the world, addressed him thus: ‘a fixed abode nor a form that is thine alone nor any function peculiar to thyself have we given thee, Adam, to the end that according to thy longing and according to thy judgement thou mayest have and possess what abode, what form and what functions thou thyself shalt desire. The nature of all other beings is limited and constrained within the bounds of laws prescribed by Us. Thou, constrained by no limits, in accordance with thine own free will, in whose hand We have placed thee, shall ordain for thyself the limits of thy nature.’⁷

If Pico was saying that it is in this indeterminacy that man’s greatness lies, then we can already glimpse the road that Machiavelli will take in his writings. Which nature was man to choose, according to the humanists? These creative powers were to be spent in activities useful to the community. There was a growing belief in Renaissance humanism that ‘a life devoted to pure leisure and contemplation (otium) is far less likely to be of value—or even to foster wisdom—than a life in which the pursuit of useful activity (negotium) is most highly prized’.⁸ It is at the intersection of these different strains—Republican political practice mediated by Republican tracts, Renaissance humanism and its mirror-for-princes genre—that Machiavelli’s contribution to Western political thought lies.

PRINCELY VIRTU AND FORTUNA

Why do we read The Prince today, rather than the countless other advice books available in the mirror-for-princes literature? What has made The Prince a classic, whereas the rest of the genre is today, read only by specialist historians? It is because, as Skinner writes, The Prince ‘succeeded in making a contribution to the genre of advice-books for princes which at the same time revolutionized the genre itself’.⁹ All the different tracts in this genre in late 15th century Italy agreed that the goal of the prince should be honour, glory and fame, which he could gain by developing his virtu. They also agreed that the main obstacles in achieving this goal were the vagaries of fortune since fortune was governed by the whimsical and capricious goddess, Fortuna. The means the prince could use to overcome this obstacle of Fortuna to reach his goal of glory was to develop his virtu. By virtu, the writers meant both the classical Greek cardinal virtues, as well as the Christian virtues of piety and clemency. The Prince discusses the same goal of glory for the prince and his struggle with Fortuna, and virtu is also the central concept of The Prince. But it is the startling new meaning that Machiavelli gives to this term that has made his work stand out, among all the rest.

To be successful, to achieve greatness for his city, a Prince must have ‘virtu’. The world of human affairs is governed by Fortuna who is capricious and whimsical. But human beings cannot simply ignore her, because Fortuna also holds the goods that come with fortune and which human beings desire—glory and wealth—and therefore, Machiaveli says that they must develop the qualities which will persuade the goddess to be on their side. Here, we see an important difference between Machiavelli and his classical sources. The Stoics and Skeptics had scoffed at the goods of fortune and considered them irrelevant for the health of the human soul. For Machiavelli, riches and glory, the two finest gifts that fortune can bring, are certainly important for human happiness. Virtu, for Machiavelli, is the ability to deal with any contingency that Fortuna places before one. If we are well prepared for the contingencies of Fortuna, then she will smile at us and will let us have our way (see Box 5.1).

Machiavelli explains, that in order to be well prepared for any contingency, the prince must be a changeling. He must be able to change himself to act differently according to circumstances (see Box 5.2). How far have we travelled from Aristotle, and even from Cicero! For Aristotle, through habit, human beings acquired a second nature which ensured for them a virtuous disposition and the ability to act morally. Machiavelli, on the contrary, is arguing that being virtuous is not, say, to be able to tell the truth if the circumstances require it, but also to be able to be devious if that is necessary. To have virtu is not to be virtuous in the Christian or classical sense—it is to be a changeling.

A prince needs to have this kind of flexibility in successfully governing a city, because he has not only to deal with Fortuna, but also with corruption. Faced with a corrupt population, and wanting to set his city on the road to greatness, a prince cannot let his goals be defeated by moral qualms. Machiavelli did not have any idealistic notions about human nature. He believed that human beings were prone to wickedness, and that they only acted righteously under compulsion.

According to Machiavelli, since human beings were essentially wicked, their cities and communities invariably fell into corruption. Here, we can see the hold of the Christian doctrine of original sin on Machiavelli, despite his antipathy to the Catholic Church. In order to overcome Fortuna and corruption, a prince needs virtu of the Machiavellian sort. Fortuna and corruption make it necessary for the prince to use certain means for the preservation of the state. A prince of virtu would study the necessity involved between means and ends and then act for reasons of state.

Machiavelli’s opinion is that political efficacy requires the cruelty and violence of the lion and the cunning of the fox. ‘There are two methods of fighting, the one by law, the other by force: the first method is that of men, the second of beasts; but as the first method is often insufficient, one must have recourse to the second. It is therefore necessary for a prince to know well how to use both the beast and the man…a prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as a beast must imitate the fox and the lion.’¹⁰ Machiavelli is different from the other mirror-for-princes writers, especially because of the amount of emphasis he places on the requirement of force, in all its manifestations, in running a state. Not only must the prince be well versed in the art of warfare, not only must there be a citizen militia, but the prince must also be a master at using violence economically and effectively. Unlike the earlier 13th century writers giving advice to the podestas, Machiavelli is quite clear that apart from the rhetorical skills of persuasion, the prince must learn the more important skill of using force (see Box 5.3).

This position has led to the accusation that Machiavelli wanted to separate politics from morality. Isaiah Berlin, in ‘The Originality of Machiavelli’, defends Machiavelli against this charge by arguing that Machiavelli was not contrasting an immoral political realm with a moral personal realm; rather, he was showing us the conflict between two moralities: public and private. The desire to achieve public goals sometimes clashes with personal moral concerns. According to Machiavelli, even if one decides not to act in such a situation, one is still accountable for the consequences that result because of one’s inaction. Moreover, Machiavelli clearly shows, that unless the public sphere is well looked after, the private sphere cannot be protected. A well functioning private sphere requires a healthy public sphere. Thus, according to Berlin, Machiavelli shows us that we cannot excuse ourselves from public action on the grounds of being concerned with our moral selves.

There are two worlds, that of personal morality and that of public organization. There are two ethical codes, both ultimate; not two ‘autonomous’ regions, one of ‘ethics’, another of ‘politics’, but two (for him) exhaustive alternatives between two conflicting systems of value. If a man chooses the ‘first good way’, he must, presumably, give up all hope of Athens and Rome, of a noble and glorious society in which human beings can thrive and grow strong, proud, wise and productive; indeed, they must abandon all hope of a tolerable life on earth: for men cannot live outside society; they will not survive collectively if they are led by men who (like Soderini) are influenced by the first, ‘private’ morality; they will not be able to realize their minimal goals as men; they will end in a state of moral, not merely political, degradation.¹¹

Soderini was not able to defend the republic, which fell into the hands of the Medicis, again, in 1512. From the Machiavellian point of view, it was Soderini’s ineffectiveness caused by his moral dilemmas, which was ultimately responsible for this road to perdition for Florence.

According to Berlin, Machiavelli retains the classical link between public good and private interests. Virtu is required for a vibrant and stable political community, which, in turn, is essential for individuals to lead a happy life. Machiavellian virtu, however, has entirely altered the classical meaning of the term. Machiavelli, moreover, defines individual happiness as the enjoyment of property and family life, rather than as something that can be obtained solely in the practice of virtu.

It would also be interesting to examine the significance of Fortuna. What does Fortuna actually represent? If Fortuna, the goddess of luck, represents contingency, then does she not stand for the efficacy of the acts of different individuals? Is Machiavelli trying to grope at the democratic idea, that it is not just the actions of kings and emperors that govern human history, but equally, one has to be attentive to the unforeseen consequences of the acts of myriad individuals? Further, even though Machiavelli is influenced by humanism in emphasizing the ability of human beings to shape their own futures, his use of the concept of Fortuna shows that he was contesting the position which, in the words of another philosopher, ‘makes us think of the core of ourselves as self-sufficient, not in need of the gifts of fortune’. This also fits in with Machiavelli’s emphasis on the public sphere—a point that we just saw being underlined by Berlin. Unless we focus on the social and political conditions which structure the actions of other individuals, there will be no guarantee for happiness in our own personal lives.

CIVIC VIRTU AND LIBERTY

If Prince is about princely virtu, Discourses is about civic virtu, that is, about the qualities that the citizens of a republican city must have. We know that Machiavelli was in favour of a republican form of government. He believed that liberty was best [reserved in such a government, in which power was shared between the nobles and the people (see Box 5.4).

As we have mentioned earlier, the advocates of republicanism in the Italian city-states had laid out, much earlier, the benefits of this form of government. In Discourses, Machiavelli further builds up his argument that it is in a republican form of government that individual liberty can best be preserved and the city can achieve greatness. In a republic all the citizens would contribute their talents for the glory of their city. With no fear of the arbitrary actions of a prince, and neither the fear that a jealous king might suddenly strike an outstanding citizen down, citizens would not hesitate to make themselves and their city better. In Machiavelli’s own words, ‘And it is easy to understand whence that affection for liberty arose in the people, for they had seen that cities never increased in dominion or wealth unless they were free.’ ‘Only those cities and countries that are free can achieve greatness. Population is greater there because marriages are more free and offer more advantages to the citizen; for people will gladly have children when they know that they can support them, and that they will not be deprived of their patrimony, and where they know that their children not only are born free and not slaves, but, if they possess talents and virtue, can arrive at the highest dignities of the state. In free countries we also see wealth increase more rapidly, both that which results from the culture of the soil and that which is produced by industry and art; for everybody gladly multiplies those things, and seeks to acquire those goods the possession of which he can tranquilly enjoy.’¹²

For Machiavelli, individual liberty can best be preserved in a republic, and not in a principality. Machiavelli defines individual liberty as the liberty of one’s possessions and of one’s family life. There is less threat to liberty in a republic, but a republic can only be maintained if its citizens display civic virtu. According to Machiavelli, the mark of virtu is not nobility or wealth, but a contribution to the common good. A republic can only be sustained if the common good is furthered. Let us consider Machiavelli’s take on the defence of the city-state and the citizen army. Instead of relying on auxiliaries or mercenaries, cities should always depend on a civic militia. The citizens should not shirk their military duty, and should always put their country before their life. Machiavelli also advises these citizens not to let their moral qualms hinder them from acting in ways necessary for the benefit of their city. ‘For where the very safety of the country depends upon the resolution to be taken, no considerations of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, nor of glory or of shame, should be allowed to prevail. But putting all other considerations aside the only question should be, what course will save the life and liberty of the country?’¹³

Skinner has argued that by relating civic virtu to individual liberty, Machiavelli provided political theory with a third conception of liberty. The meaning of individual liberty was given by each individual citizen–liberty meant being able to do whatever it was that one wanted to do. For such a liberty to be achievable, however, it was necessary that the law constrain the citizens towards civic virtu. Without a display of such virtu by the citizens, they would be threatened internally by a despot or externally by a conqueror, which would result in a suppression of individual liberties. Thus, civic virtu was essential for individual liberty. Machiavelli also pointed out that this civic virtu could only flourish in city-states in which there was some equality between the citizens. He categorically denounced the idle-rich of the large landed estates as detrimental to a republic (see Box 5.5). Here is Machiavelli’s own advice on this issue: ‘If anyone should wish to establish a republic in a country where there are many gentlemen, he will not succeed until he has destroyed them all; and whoever desires to establish a kingdom or principality where liberty and equality prevail, will equally fail.’

What is puzzling about Skinner’s position on the relationship between liberty and virtu in Machiavelli, is the dynamic between individual liberty and corruption. Liberty is defined as being able to do what one wants to, and Machiavelli says that what the majority of citizens want, is to lead their private lives peacefully. But corruption is also defined as being focused too strongly on one’s private affairs. If corruption is antithetical to civic virtu, which is a requirement of individual liberty, then surely Skinner can see that the conceptual space between corruption and individual liberty needs to be wider? It is not hard to find, in Discourses, passages in which Machiavelli writes about the ‘private’ in unfavourable terms. In Box 5.6, for example, we see Machiavelli warning us against addressing any form of injustice privately. If instead of through the law, any wrong committed is punished privately, this will elicit resentment, leading to factionalism and the eventual ruin of the state. If the same wrongs are addressed through the law, which as a public institution, is less infected by arbitrariness, the sanctions imposed are found more tolerable. We need, therefore, to keep Machiavelli’s contrasting of the ‘private’ and the ‘public’ in mind as we consider Skinner’s interpretation of Machiavelli’s conception of individual liberty.

A less difficult puzzle that needs to be solved with respect to Discourses, is how to read it consistently with The Prince. While Discourses sings the praise of a republic, the Prince is full of praise for a completely opposed form of government, the monarchy. What unites the two books is Machiavelli’s humanism. Whether it is with reference to one man, the prince, or the entire community in a republic, Machiavelli is convinced of the human ability and power to create conditions which are conducive to their well being. Both the books express faith in human ingenuity and prowess. It seems quite clear that Machiavelli is a republican. The princely form of government seems to be, for him, a transitional form. It is necessary when the people of a city have become very corrupt, but once the prince has established new laws, Machiavelli advises him to relinquish his power and transfer it to republican institutions. Only a republic can best maintain the liberty of its citizens; only a republic is a stable form of government; only as a republic can a city achieve greatness; and only as a republic can one solve easily the problem of succession.

CIVIC VIRTU AND RELIGION

Machiavelli writes, ‘Religion is the most necessary and assured support of any civil society.’¹⁴ How does one explain these words of Machiavelli, given his virulent criticism of Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church? Machiavelli’s scathing criticism, that the nearer we get to the Vatican city, the more corruption we find among the population, since the people just follow the example set by the church, seems at odds with this statement. The Roman Catholic Church was notorious in the 16th century for the lavish and decadent lifestyle of its higher officers. But Machiavelli also makes the argument that even if the church could return to its pristine days—of the time of Jesus Christ—Christianity would still remain a force antithetical to the prosperity of a city. Christianity teaches its followers otherworldliness, humility and docility in the face of troubles, all of which are against Machiavelli’s concept of virtu. So why, then, does Machiavelli present religion as important to a city? This is because, religion, according to Machiavelli, can be used by the state to serve its purposes. Religion should be subordinated to the state and made to serve political ends. For instance, religious sanctions always kept the Romans in check. A fear of the wrath of God if they did not do their patriotic duty, kept the Romans loyal to their city. Thus, religion could serve as an effective tool in statecraft. Once we realize that this is Machiavelli’s message, then there is no contradiction between this subordination of religion and his idea that the prince must not let his moral and religious qualms prevent him from doing what is necessary for the good of the city.

Machiavelli explicitly writes that religious sentiments will better fulfil political goals in places where the population of a city is illiterate, because then, the political leaders will be able to easily instil in them the fear of the wrath of God and manipulate this fear to make them obey laws. He cites the example of a Roman general who lied about the result of a religious ritual (the examination of the entrails of a slaughtered goat) to convince his soldiers about an impending victory. Machiavelli shows no concern for religion as a system of truth; he is only interested in its function for the state.

What makes religion valuable for Machiavelli is that it compels people to obey civil laws. If the laws of the state are followed, the state will be strong and stable. This is the purpose of Machiavelli’s political theory: how to establish a stable, prosperous state which is able, not only to defend itself against external aggression, but also to conquer other states, if necessary. This is what the science of politics, which is a historical science, teaches us. That is the goal of politics: how to ensure a collective, stable, prosperous and glorious life for the state.

PROBLEMS WITH MACHIAVELLI’S POLITICAL THEORY

Machiavelli was severely criticized after the publication of The Prince. Shakespeare used the name ‘Machiavel’ to signify devious characters, which was just one among several negative contemporary reactions. Machiavelli was roundly denounced for propagating a doctrine of evil. There was some attempt to defend Machiavelli by the argument that he deliberately advised rulers in The Prince to act immorally, in the hope that the current Medici prince would be gullible enough to follow his advice, leading to the rebellion of the people and the reestablishment of the republic. This argument, however, did not have many takers. Critics point out that Machiavelli’s political theory leads to the concentration of political power in the hands of evil individuals who are cruel and devoid of moral qualms and demand to know how, this can be a strategy for the welfare of the community. Even though Machiavelli states that his ‘Prince’ is not like the tyrant Agathocles of Syracuse who used his political power for personal aggrandizement, critics continue to believe that his advice of being willing to use violence and deception for higher ends will only produce corrupt rulers and is certainly not a recipe for pulling a state out of its corrupt condition. Given Machiavelli’s jaundiced view of human nature, it was difficult to understand how he could argue that a prince would use his access to concentrations of political power only for the public good, and not for his personal munificence.

To make being forceful so integral a component of virtu, has also put Machiavelli in trouble with feminists. Machiavelli’s depiction of the contest between the female Fortuna and the man of virtu, and his suggestion that Fortuna only smiles at those young men who use force against her, sounds like a typically chauvinistic, anti-woman stance. Details from Machiavelli’s personal life have hardly helped in this case. Among his contemporaries, Machiavelli was known as a libertine in his dealings with women. It has been suggested in one of his biographies, that one of the reasons for his inability to get some political office after the Medici came back, had to do with his reputation for his licentious behaviour. For Machiavelli then, as with many other thinkers in the history of political thought, women’s good or women’s freedom was not seen as part of the public good or the human freedom that was being argued for.

Nevertheless, Machiavelli remains a thinker for whom the public good is an important concept. If individuals completely ignore the public good for the sake of their private interests, the state will become corrupt, and that will endanger the fulfilment of private interests as well. This attempt at striking a balance between private and public interests will become a significant part of subsequent political thought. A change in the meaning of public and private, as well as in their relative significance, will also be a feature of this thought.

NOTES

1. Quentin Skinner, Chapter 1 in The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
2. Quentin Skinner, ‘Machiavelli’s Discorsi and the Pre-Humanist Origins of Republican Ideas’, in Gisela Bock, Quentin Skinner and Maurizio Viroli (eds), Machiavelli and Republicanism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 121.
3. See F. Gilbert, Chapter 1 in Machiavelli and Guicciardini: Politics and History in Sixteenth Century Florence, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1965.
4. For some of these details, see John G.A. Pocock, Chapter 4 in The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975.
5. M.J. White, Political Philosophy: A Historical Introduction, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003, pp. 44–45.
6. Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, p. 34.
7. Giovani Pice della Mirandola, An Oration on the Dignity of Man.
8. Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, p. 109.
9. Ibid., p. 118.
10. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince in Max Lerner (ed.), The Prince and the Discourses, (The Prince translated by Luigi Ricci and The Discourses translated by Christian E. Detmold), New York: Random House, 1950, p. 64.
11. Isaiah Berlin, ‘The Originality of Machiavelli’, in H. Hardy (ed.), Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 50.
12. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourses in The Prince and the Discourses edited by Max Lerner, translated by Luigi Ricci, p. 287.
13. Ibid., p. 528.
14. Ibid., p. 146.

READING LIST

Bock, Gisela, Quentin Skinner and Maurizio Viroli (eds), Machiavelli and Republicanism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Hardy, H. (ed.), Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Lerner, Max (ed.), The Prince and the Discourses, New York: Random House, 1950.

Pocock, John G.A., The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975.

Skinner, Quentin, Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Skinner, Quentin, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

CENTRAL THEMES

1. Renaissance humanism: Machiavelli’s political thought shows the influence of the tradition of Renaissance humanism which rejected the Augustinian denigration of man and of other things human. What is meant by Renaissance humanism and how does Machiavelli exemplify some of its tenets it his writings?
2. Virtu and Fortuna: For Machiavelli, the context of political action is provided by Fortuna and in this context, to successfully act in politics, one must have virtu. How does Machiavelli develop his concept of virtu? How does his concept of virtu differ from the detailing of a leader’s qualities that was part of the mirror-of-princes literature of the 15th century?
3. Republicanism: Machiavelli’s political theory lies at the cusp of Renaissance humanism and the earlier republicanism of the Italian city states. What is Machiavelli’s theory of the benefits of republican government, as developed in the Discourses? How can one reconcile the advocacy of princely government in the Prince with the advocacy of the republican form of government in the Discourses?
4. The ill of corruption: Virtu is a bulwark not only against Fortuna, it is also a safeguard against corruption. The bane of corruption was a significant motif in the thought of this period—take for instance, the growing critique of the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. How does Machiavelli define corruption? How is corruption related to his ideas of the private and public?