Machiavelli

3 May 1469 - June 21 1527. Political philosopher of the Renaissance period.

Life

Niccoló Machiavelli was born on May 3, 1469, as the son of Bernado Machiavelli and Bartolomea de’ Nelli in Florence (Buck 1). His political career began when he was elected Secretary to the second Chancery on June 19, 1498 (ibid.). In his main political works, Il Principe and the Discorsi sulla prima deca di Tito Livio, he distances himself from the tradition of political thought (ibid. 5). He wanted to differentiate his literature from the existing literature on politics and not create an ideal regent, but instead describe him based on political reality (ibid.).

Today, the term Machiavellism is understood as a practice of how someone gains or retains power. In popular (mis)reception, the Machiavellian way of doing this has no ethical or moral limits; everything seems to be allowed, as long as someone achieves his or her aims.

The Tudors and Political Thought

When looking at the Tudors and their political thinking, it is important to keep in mind that the average Tudor people thought about their society in broader terms, in a wider context than it is common in our time (Raab 8). Therefore, we have to look beyond what we consider to be political, “and reckon with much that we would now call ‘religious’ thought” (ibid.). During that time, politics was not considered to be an autonomous activity (ibid. 9).

In general, people considered their society to essentially be an expression of Divine Will (ibid.). However, they always argued about the manifestation of that Divine Will (ibid.). What motivated the people during that time was the conviction that they were acting in accordance with the will of God (ibid.). This principle was taught from a very early age, in works such as Erasmus’s Education of a Christian Prince and Sir Thomas Elyot’s Boke named the Governour (ibid.), which can be seen in the following quote:

First, and above all thing, let them consider that from god only procedeth all honour, and that neither noble progenie, succession or election be of suche force, that by them any astate or digntie may be so stablished that god beinge stired to vengenance shall not shortly resume it, and perchance translate it were it shall like hym (Elyot qtd. in ibid. 12).

The “orthodox Tudor justification for all rule on earth” (ibid. 14) is the following: “the ‘ruler’, be he king, queen,parliament or magistrate, is God’s representative on earth; thus any opposition must be opposition to God’s will, unless it can be manifestly demonstrated that the government prevailing is not the proper manifestation of Providence (ibid.)

Machiavelli’s Reception in Tudor England before Elizabeth I

Reginald Pole, an English cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and the last Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury supported the above-mention principle. It is not surprising that Pole saw Machiavelli as an enemy of mankind and associated him with Satan (ibid. 31), because to Pole, “the end of political power was not human, as it was to Machiavelli, but divine” (ibid. 32). Another Englishman that found Machiavelli’s doctrine unacceptable was Roger Ascham, an English writer and scholar (ibid. 33.). He associated Machiavelli with paganism, opportunism and immorality and raged against those who “with consciences confirmed with Machiavelles doctrine…thinke say and do what soever may serve best for profit and pleasure” (ibid. 33). Asham was unable to think of politics separately from religion, and thereby his reaction to Machiavelli was the same as Pole’s (ibid.).

However, there were other Englishmen, such as the self-made Tudor man Richard Morison, who thought differently about Machiavelli: “This Machiavelli wryteth, as a thynge wonderful, howe be it, if people were as obedient as they ought to be, and bishops in suche reverence as they have ben in tymes past, for their good lyfe and lernynge, this wolde be no wonder” (ibid. 34). While Morison’s thinking was influenced by Machiavelli, however, and “Machiavellian realism there may be” (ibid.), Morrison’s view was still firmly fixed “within an Augustinian universe” (ibid.) [what is this? or rather: does one need this concept in the article? maybe make a few cuts?]. Morison, and along with him William Thomas, were exceptions to the public opinion about Machiavelli. "Most Tudor Englishmen in the first half of the sixteenth century stood, consciously and firmly, in the camp of Heaven, regarding the ‘politic’ element in human affairs as an unfortunate lapse, and certainly not something to be dignified by systematic theorization” (ibid. 51).

Machiavelli’s Reception in Tudor England during the Elizabethan Times

First of all, it is important to mention that the Elizabethans were reading Machiavelli’s works (ibid. 52). From the eighties onwards, Machiavelli was no longer “the sole preserve of ‘Italianate’ Englishmen and their personal contacts, as had been the case earlier” (ibid.). Therefore, it can be said on a very basic level, that what Machiavelli wrote about Italian affairs was relevant to England – otherwise people would have stopped reading his works (ibid. 54). In many cases, the Tudor view of Machiavelli could be considered a “grudging recognition, by people who whished that the truth were otherwise but were too clear-sighted not to see it” (ibid. 55).

It is hard to judge whether Machiavelli had an influence on certain regents or not – if Edward VI had not died at sixteen, would Machiavelli’s doctrines have had affected his view and actions (ibid.) [speculation. Maybe cut?]? However, there was a widespread reaction to Machiavelli’s view that can be judged, and that is horror [but: horror expressed in fiction] – “the loudest, and the one which most impressed contemporaries and later generations, the horror which was in the late Elizabethan and early Jacobean drama” (ibid. 56). “The Machiavellian villain strutted the stage in innumerable guises, committing every conceivable crime revelling in villainous stratagem to the horrified enjoyment of audiences and the profit of theatrical entrepreneurs” (ibid.). The Machiavellian villain was constantly accused of two crimes, of a love of complicated, underhand stratagem, and secondly, of atheism, “the stigma of being irreligious or anti-religious” (ibid. 57). Machiavelli was used as the villain because people were to be warned of “the hazard of turning one of the most principal and Auncient Monarchies of Christendome, from a most Christian Government unto a Machiavellian State…And that is it, that I call a Machiavellian State and Regiment: where Religion is put behind in the second and last place” (ibid. 60). However, there were also a lot of Elizabethans who – like Morison and Thomas – “simply accepted practical details of analysis from him, and bothered about him no further” (ibid. 61) – such as Sir Thomas Smith, Bishop Jewel, Gabriel Harvey and many others. There were only difficulties in the passages where Machiavelli dealt with religion – here, even the most understanding readers could not follow (ibid. 62).

Bibliography

Buck, August. Machiavelli. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985.

Raab, Felix. The English Face of Machiavelli. A Changing Interpretation 1500-1700. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.