Impact of Machiavelli's "The Prince"

[shaxper]

How important was this work?  We often treat it as the single most revolutionary work to have come out of the Renaissance, and yet, as Machiavelli admits, his ideas came directly from a wide variety of living examples.  Machiavelli only wrote what he saw.  He didn't create a way of ruling; he simply noticed the one that seemed to work best.  

Therefore, does Machiavelli's importance come from the strength of his work, itself, or from being the first guy with the gall to point out what was already being widely practiced?  Did Machiavelli actually have ANY affect on the Renaissance, other than by shocking  the English?  In fact, was the "Machiavel" character actually created in response to (a flawed interpretation of) Machiavelli, or did it become a convenient label for the already present universal evil antagonist?

[nolablue]

You have a knack for coming up with huge, honkin', multi-threaded questions, shaxper.... Do you ever wonder about anything that has a one-sentence answer?

I don't think the fact that Machiavelli pointed out a practice rather than inventing a theory out of whole cloth makes his work any less revolutionary. Just about every political theory of any importance since "The Prince" has evolved out of observation of existing practices (such as "The Communist Manifesto", which evolved from observing the communal lifestyles of small peasant villages). It takes someone with a keen eye for observation and a halfway-clear writing style to take the practice of a few isolated areas and outline it so that those in other areas can attempt to follow it.

As for whether the Machiavel existed before Machiavelli, I suppose we'd have to read pre-Machiavelli stories and plays and look for it. Sounds like a fun project. However, I doubt one would find much that one could clearly label a "Machiavel" and not just an ordinary villain. Keep in mind that the city-states of the Italian peninsula that Machiavelli observed operated under a different political system than the monarchies of the rest of Europe, which tended to rely on myth-making and the cult of personality to support the position of the rulers against the incursions of the nobility. Machiavelli's chief example was Caesare Borgia, the son of a pope (!) who only came to power through military might, scheming, and manipulations--quite different from any of the divine-right kings ruling by inheritance across the rest of Europe.

[shaxper]

nolablue said:

You have a knack for coming up with huge, honkin', multi-threaded questions, shaxper.... Do you ever wonder about anything that has a one-sentence answer?

If I did, we wouldn't have these fun discussions, now would we?

nolablue said:

I doubt one would find much that one could clearly label a "Machiavel" and not just an ordinary villain. Keep in mind that the city-states of the Italian peninsula that Machiavelli observed operated under a different political system than the monarchies of the rest of Europe, which tended to rely on myth-making and the cult of personality to support the position of the rulers against the incursions of the nobility. Machiavelli's chief example was Caesare Borgia, the son of a pope (!) who only came to power through military might, scheming, and manipulations--quite different from any of the divine-right kings ruling by inheritance across the rest of Europe.

Actually, having researched the history of England pretty closely, I've come to realize that divine-right, inheritance, and rule by myth making is surprisingly a very small factor in England's history.  When William The Conqueror first took England, he didn't set up a standard way of transfering the throne.  In fact, he left it to William II, his second-born son (his first was given Normandy).   As early as Henry II, the fourth Norman King, the thrown was already being won through hostile takeover, rather than succession.  The Yorks, Lancastrians and Tudors all came to power through conquest, without a direct line of inheritance.  

In fact, it wasn't until The Tudors came in that myth making really began to take on any importance, in terms of rule.  The Great Chain of Being, the belief that the King or Queen was a direct agent of God, as was the hierarchy beneath them, had been somewhat used since the Middle-Ages, but didn't really get rammed down people's throats until Henry VIII turned his back on The Church and started his own Church of England.  Elizabeth was probably the English ruler who made the most of ruling by myth, particularly because both her family's right to the throne AND her right to rule as a Queen were in serious jeopardy.  Ironically, it could be said that ruling by myth came into vogue around the same time that Machiavelli was writing The Prince.  Perhaps the alarming response to Machiavelli came because he was trying a new approach to kingship at the same time that The Tudors were trying something that ran in the completely opposite direction.  In a sense, they were both new on the scene and competing for the peoples' beliefs.

[nolablue]

You speak of England alone, I speak of the larger stage of Europe. England has always been something of a black sheep in terms of monarchies, always getting thrown into mini-revolutions....

Your timing is off, by the way. Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" centuries prior to the Tudor dynasty. The ideas were there, but I suspect the Machiavel only became demonized in the Tudor era because of Tudor myth-making. As for the rest of monarchical Europe, I've seen evidence of myth-making and the cult of personality going back at least as far as Charlemagne. Similarly in Byzantium the emperors carried on the Roman traditions of the godlike ruler, softening it somewhat into sainthood rather than divinity. Emperer Justinian and his wife were depicted in mosaics as having halos, even though they were still living (and even though his dear wife was known to be a bit of a strumpet....)

BTW, shaxper, having been in all the same classes about English history and literature as you, having studied the Tudor dynasty about as much as you, I'm rather suprised you would mention your 'close study' as if I would be amazed.

[shaxper]

Actually, I spent a summer in Cambridge studying England after that class  

Really, I wasn't trying to have an ego about the whole thing.  Yes, Machiavelli wrote the Prince earlier, but I think we both agree now that it wasn't viewed as an ever-present threat on the English scene until the Tudor myth-makers came along.  I'm not that familiar with the other nations during the Renaissance (though you seem to be) nor of how Machiavelli did or did not affect them.  

[Juliet]

I rather like Machiavelli, although I haven't the slightest idea why. I suppose it's because he's clever, even if he lacks almost any sort of morals. (Of course, I generalize)

Going back to something you said earlier, Shaxpere, I think Machiavelli deserves a LOT of credit. Yes, he was just observing trends going on aroud him, and perhaps he stole quite a bit from antiquity, but that doesn't take away a whit from his great achievement. Remember, Shakespeare stole all the time, and he was merely observing human nature, and yet we give him great credit. The same goes for Machiavelli. The fact is, whatever was going on at the time he wrote The Prince, summed everything up--and no one else, or at least no one I've heard of from his time, did that.

And as for his influence in general, I think it can hardly be underestimated. Machiavelli shows clearly throughout history, right through until today. Whether or not that's because his advice prompted such politics, or whether he merely recognized and named them, you can find his mark in many countries.

As for drama--an intriguing idea, and one I hope someone looks into.

Complete digression: I've always wondered about Machiavelli's wife. Does anyone know anything about her?

~Juliet~