Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)

"A prince must have no other object or thought in mind than war, and how to make it" [for it is by war that the fortunes of the city are attained, maintained, or lost].
Machiavelli is often misapprehended as advocating amorality. In fact he's the first to have recognized and written that to secure a greater good certain evils are inevitable, and that these evils rather than obstacles can be turned to the advantage of a cunning leader. Many will read Machiavelli and conclude he is nothing but show more force and fraud, which is not at all the case. He sought to provide the arms and ideas needed for pacifying Italy and ending it of constant internecine strife. He failed but is still worth reading. Much of his thinking is entirely correct, notably his understanding of war.
"Is it better to be loved or feared?" "Men love as they please but fear as the prince wills". But the best is to be loved by one's allies, and feared by one's enemies. A great leader must know whom to inspire and whom to terrify, and when to do of those theatrical acts.
Definitely worth reading and rereading since so many misunderstand his work. show less

Could the man famous for championing, cunning and deceit as a means to an end in political tracts like The Prince also write frothy comedies that would make playhouse audiencies roll about in the aisles? Well the short answer to this is yes, but of course all is not what it seems.

Machiavelli wrote his plays during the last ten years of his life when he was largely on forced retirement from politics, but was still eager to return in some way to public life and his celebrated affair with the show more actress Barbara may well have been an added incentive.
He was quite aware of what was needed t produce a successful play as he said in his “Discourse or Dialogue Concerning Our Language”:

“In this category are comedies, for though the aim of comedy is to hold up a mirror to domestic life, the way it does this , all the same, is with a certain urbanity and with expressions which excite laughter, so that men who come eagerly to enjoy themselves, taste afterwards the useful lessons that lay beneath”

“Those useful lessons that lay beneath” were probably what interested Machiavelli most as he still felt he had something to say, however those useful lessons had nothing to do with Christian morality, quite the opposite in fact.

There are three plays ably translated by David Sices and James B Atkinson, however the first of these: The Woman from Andros is pretty much a straight translation by Machiavelli from Terence (classical Greek playwright) and so while well done, did not interest me that much. The second play Mandragola (The Mandrake) has been claimed as evidence that Machiavelli was “greatest dramatist of his age” and a seminal influence upon important traditions of European drama, it was certainly a big hit in its day, with the Pope insisting that the original scenery be transported from Florence to Rome for a command performance. It is set in Florence and tells a story that could have come straight from the pen of Boccaccio. Callimaco has returned from Paris to Florence following reports of Nicia’s wife Lucrezia being a woman of outstanding beauty. When he sees her his only thought is to get into bed with her, but she is a virtuous woman and will have nothing to do with him. Callimaco has cultivated a parasite in Ligurio who has wormed his way into Nicia’s household and it is Ligurio who comes up with all the ideas as to how Callimaco can be successful. The conspiracy is all based around Lucrezia’s desire to have children, which she cannot do with Nicia. Callimaco disguised as a doctor persuades Nicia that he can provide a potion that will guarantee success, but the only drawback is that it must be taken by the male and he will die one week after he drinks the potion. The conspirators involve Friar Timoteo and Lucrezia’s mother in law in persuading Lucrezia, that she should sleep with the potion taker to become pregnant. The plan is to capture a likely looking young man to do the deed and it is here that the real farce starts as it is Calimaco in disguise as a youth who is captured.. In fact everybody is in disguise as Calimaco is led to Lucrezias bed and Nicia is spying on them to ensure business is done. Lucrezia enjoys her night with Calimaco and after he declares his love for her she ensures that he will be a frequent guest to her house.

The final play is Clizia, which is again set in Florence and the plot centres on the house-hold of Nicomaco where he and his son both want to bed Clizia who is a 15 year old ward. They both do not reckon on Sofronia; wife of Nicomaco who has other ideas. There are in effect three conspiracies going on here; Nicomaco wants his servant the worthless Pirro to wed Clizia so that he can have access to her, Sofronia suggests Eustachio their estates manager who would at least provide some security while the poor love sick son Cleandro is clueless how he is going to be successful and relies on his friend Palamede for suggestions. Nicomaco is finally outsmarted by the more resourceful Sofronia who has a male servant Spiro, dressing up as Clizia and so when Nicomaco gets into what he believes is Clizia’s bed he has a rude shock and Spiro extracts the ultimate revenge. Everybody in the household hears the outrage perpetrated on Nicomaco and the only choice that Nicomaco has to avoid the scandal is to give in to his wife who has carte blanche to marry off Clizia.

Mandragola has been revived as a stage play successfully in the 1970’s and 1990’s in England, but Clizia to my knowledge has not, but out of the two I found Clizia to be the more entertaining to read. Both plays are witty, and Mandragola has the most laugh out loud moments, but I prefer Clizia because it is the more adventurous and well rounded play and it is also the most Machiavellian.

Machiavelli clearly wanted his comedies to have a lasting impression, he was keen that his message should get across and so it is interesting to think about just what this message might be and how successful he was in delivering it. In Clizia the author’s role is clearly delineated in the long prologue where the actors are introduced, their characters revealed and the author takes time to apologise for any indecencies that might offend. Machiavelli takes charge and although he might apologise one suspects ironically, he does not apologise for the immorality in his play. In both Mandragola and Clizia his characters have no respect for morals, they go hell for leather unashamedly after what they want and in both cases it is sex, not love. The conspirators that are the cleverest and take the most risks are the ones that are successful in the end. Christian morality, the church and even the master-servant relationship are the subject of some stinging satire. All this is pure Machiavelli, however what is perhaps more surprising is the role of women who come out on top in both plays, not because of any turn of the wheel of fortune, but because they have managed things better. The theme running through these plays is that those people of whatever rank, who show the most ingenuity and who are not afraid to go for the main chance are the most likely to succeed.

It is tempting to compare the affairs of the households in the plays with the affairs of the state in Machiavelli’s The Prince and of course many similarities will be found, however we have an advantage over Machiavelli’s audience as most of them would not have been able to see a copy of The Prince to make a comparison. The message of the plays must then stand alone and we can only guess what the audience thought of them, although we know they enjoyed the performances and there is much to be enjoyed. Machiavelli’s comedies pick easy targets and fools, impotent old men, grasping friars, too lusty lovers are all the subject of ridicule. Machiavelli’s razor sharp mind has produced some razor sharp wit and I was entertained.

. show less

Given Machiavelli's seemingly genuine Republican beliefs, The Prince is a highly ambiguous read. I tend to side with those who proffer that this is irony or a parody. To pepper a text about holding power with suggestions said in the very same tone, designed to provide openings for an authoritarian to be haplessly overthrown, makes the book richer. Especially, as it was written in the vernacular. As I stated earlier, it's fascinating and ambiguous. Glad I finally got to it.

Does Machiavelli deserve his sinister reputation? Is he advocating evil in this book? Or only describing it? His focus is not on defending, but on acquiring and governing; that is, on imperial conquest and dominance over others. This book is about aggression. He claims that human conditions do not permit princes to be good, and he is right about that. They never will. But do human conditions compel people to become princes? In seizing a state, he says, cruelty is necessary. No doubt this is show more true, but is seizing a state necessary? Is it moral?

Machiavelli's model prince was Cesare Borgia, a ruthless imperialist, mass murderer, and rapist. Machiavelli admired him for his power, then criticized him when he lost his power. He praises King Ferdinand of Spain for his "pious cruelty," calling it an "admirable example."

Yes, Machiavelli deserves his sinister reputation. He worshipped power, believing it to be beyond good and evil. This book is a portrayal of statecraft as it is practiced in the real world, but it is also a how-to book on gaining and maintaining dominance over others. It raises interesting issues, without necessarily resolving them. It can be useful as food for thought, but don't try this at home! show less