Machiavelli Caleb

7/28/2019 Machiavelli Caleb

1/23

Castaneda 1

Caleb Castaneda

Professor Nichols

Discourses On Livy

17 May 2012

The French Monarchy in Machiavelli

Machiavelli's Discourses On Livy, unsurprisingly, focuses most of its attention on

events in Rome. I say this is 'unsurprising' because Machiavelli styled the Discourses as a

commentary on Titus Livy's historical works on the history of the Roman republic

(Machiavelli 6). Still, Machiavelli did not intend his work to be nothing more than a

historical commentary. Rather, Machiavelli's stated intention was to turn men from this

error of reading historical events without thinking of imitating them (Machiavelli 6).

Given his attempt to present a historical account that was relevant to his contemporary

audience, it should not be surprising that he also includes a fair amount of commentary

on events of the late 15th and early 16th centuries, which were contemporaneous with

his writing. One of the states that he gave special emphasis to was the French monarchy.

The purpose of this essay is to analyze Machiavelli's portrayal of the French monarchy

in light of three of Machiavelli's central themes: that of virtue, that of ordering, and that

of religion. It will attempt to show that, while Machiavelli certainly preferred a

republican form of government, he saw strengths to other forms of government and


2/23

Castaneda 2

that, in Machiavelli's view, the French monarchy exemplified the strengths of monarchy

while downplaying its weaknesses.

Machiavelli was certainly familiar with the French government. His appointment

to the second chancery of the Florentine republic gave Machiavelli unique access to

foreign officials (Teuber). Additionally, several of Machiavelli's anecdotes about the

French are presumably first person accounts. For instance, Machiavelli records the

reaction of a French diplomat, Monsieur de Lant, who was sent by the King of France to

have all of those lost towns restored to the Florentines (Machiavelli 275). Machiavelli

records de Lant as expressing disdain at villagers' open identification with the

government. According to Machiavelli, de Lant claimed that if in France one of the

subjects of the king should say he was of the party of the king, he would be punished,

because such a word would signify nothing other than that in that town there were

people unfriendly to the king (275). The translator's footnote on this anecdote is

illuminating: NM would have heard this remark himself while accompanying

Monsieur de Lant (Antoine de Langres); it is not otherwise recorded (276).

Machiavelli's impressions of the French, therefore, were not entirely second-hand.

Rather, he had first-hand experience in dealing with representatives of the French

monarchy.


3/23

Castaneda 3

It might initially seem odd that a hereditary monarchy like that of France should

play such a prominent role in an ostensibly republican work like Discourses on Livy, a

book which Mansfield characterizes as a long, forbidding, apparently nostalgic,

obviously difficult, but decent and useful book that advises citizens, leaders, reformers,

and founders of republics on how to order them to preserve their liberty and avoid

corruption (Machiavelli xx). But appearances can be deceiving. Although Mansfield

does characterize the Discoursesbeing a pro-republican work, things are not entirely that

simple: Just as The Prince is more republican than it first appears and is reputed to be

according to the common opinion that the two books are opposed, so the Discourses is

more princely or even tyrannical than it first appears and is reputed to be (Machiavelli

xxii).

Machiavelli is only two chapters into his first book when he begins explaining

that there can be good in tyrannical forms of government. Some others, he tells us,

have the opinion that there are six types of government, of which three are the worst;

that three others are good in themselves but are so easily corrupted that they too come

to be pernicious (Machiavelli 11). These three good forms of government, principality,

aristocratic, and popular, each have a bad form into which they easily devolve;

principalities can easily become tyrannical, aristocrats easily become a state of the

few, and the popular is without difficulty converted into the licentious (Machiavelli


4/23

Castaneda 4

11).1 It is not, then, theform that the government takes that determines whether the

government is for good or ill, rather, it is the way that it is ordered; moreover, no

government can be ordered well for very long, because it will naturally start to devolve

into its opposing form (Machiavelli 11).

From Machiavelli's perspective, there is a very good reason why governments so

naturally become corrupted and take such effort to maintain in a beneficial state. The

simple fact is that, from Machiavellis perspective, there is very good reason to suppose

that men are not good, but rather bad (Machiavelli 15). It is not, of course, that people

are incapable of good. Rather, it is that people require the laws to make them good. The

laws, properly enforced, will even be able to turn a corrupt people to incorruption, for

well-ordered laws do not help unless indeed they have been put in motion by one

individual who with an extreme force ensures their observance so that the matter becomes

1 Although Machiavelli presents this as if it is simply the opinion of some others, it

would seem that this is actually Machiavelli's opinion. First, he refers to individuals

who hold this viewpoint as wiser according to the opinion of many; but an even

more powerful reason for attributing this opinion to Machiavelli is that he makes no

attempt to correct it. Indeed, his next paragraph simply assumes that it is a fact, as he

goes on to make commentary about how these types of governments came into

being (Machiavelli 11).


5/23

Castaneda 5

good (Machiavelli Discourses 48, emphasis mine). So, while the people are naturally not

disposed to good, they can become so, but only as long as the laws are salutary and

strictly enforced.

We come back, then to France. France, of course, was a hereditary monarchy.

And, as Machiavelli was quite aware and explained to us previously, governments of

this sort are prone to become tyrannical. Machiavelli even explains to us the mechanism

by which such governments become tyrannical:

But then as the prince began to be made by succession, and not by choice,

at once the heirs began to degenerate from their ancestors; and leaving

aside virtuous works, they thought that princes have nothing else to do

but surpass others in sumptuousness and lasciviousness and every other

kind of license. So as the prince began to be hated and, because of such

hatred, began to fear, and as he soon passed from fear to offenses, from it

a tyranny quickly arose. (Machiavelli 12)

The problem, as Machiavelli explains it, is that princes soon develop a sense of

entitlement. Their government, then, ultimately becomes completely self-serving. As it

no longer meets the needs of the people, it becomes a burden to the people, who in turn

begin to resent it. The prince thus begins to fear his own people, and so begins to

oppress them in order to maintain his power.


6/23

Castaneda 6

According to Machiavelli, this process did not befall France. In many passages in

the Discourses he explains why it is that France was spared this ignominious transition

from monarchy to tyranny. One of the most interesting passages is contained on page

46, where Machiavelli claims this about France:

[France] lives secure because of nothing other than that the kings are

obligated by infinite laws in which the security of all its peoples is

included. And he who ordered that state wished those kings to act in their

own mode as to arms and money, but in every other thing they should not

be able to dispose except as the laws order. (Machiavelli 46)

Here, we are reminded of Machiavelli's claim that the Roman dictatorship was actually

a good thing for Rome. Machiavelli would have us know, that while the dictator was

appointed according to public orders and not by his own authority, he always did good

to the city (Machiavelli 74). True, the dictator was limited to a specific period of time;

Machiavelli even suggests that any period longer than a year is dangerous for freedom

(75). But, while France's king had a lifetime appointment, according to Machiavelli, his

behavior was so constrained that he was able to ensure the people's security without

threatening them otherwise. In this sense, then, the King of France could be viewed as

serving the same purpose as a strongly constrained dictator.


7/23

Castaneda 7

Since we have seen that the Kingdom of France was viewed by Machiavelli as

being the type of kingdom that worked what was good for her people, I want to analyze

the specific way in which she was able to do so in terms of a few predominate, recurring

Machiavellian themes. The themes that I want to consider, somewhat arbitrarily I admit,

are the themes of virtue, ordering (primarily through the military in the case of France,)

and religion. For we will see that in each of these three cases France was able to take

positions which, from a Machiavellian perspective, tended to protect the monarchical

form of government from devolving into a tyrannical one.

Virtue

Perhaps no Machiavellian theme is as omnipresent as the theme of virtue. Of

course, even a casual reading of the text might cause the reader to suppose that

Machiavelli entertains a somewhat different concept of virtue than is customary to

modern minds. Thus, we often find Machiavelli equating virtue with something that, to

moderns, seems strongly anti-virtuous: Agis, King of Sparta, seems to equate virtue

with strength and empire (Machiavelli 30). Virtue is mentioned in context with riches,

honor, and nobility its contrary is the elimination of ambition (33). But perhaps

nowhere is Machiavelli's contrarian view of virtue better explained than in his

description of the virtue of Camillus:


8/23

Castaneda 8

Hence Titus Livy, speaking of him, says that the soldiers both hated and

marveled at his virtue. What made him held marvelous was the

solicitude, the prudence, the greatness of his spirit, the good order that he

observed in employing himself and in commanding the armies; what

made him hated was being more severe in punishing them than liberal in

rewarding them. Titus Livy brings up these causes of the hatred: first, that

he applied to the public the money that was drawn from the goods of the

Veientes that were sold and did not divide it as booty; another, that in the

triumph, he had his triumphal chariot pulled by four white horses, from

which they said that because of his pride he wished to be equal to the sun;

third, that he made a vow to give Apollo the tenth part of the booty of the

Veientes, which, since he wished to satisfy the vow, he had to take out of

the hands of the soldiers who had already seized it. (Machiavelli 269)

Here, it is noteworthy that both the reasons for respect and the reasons for hatred are

both called virtuous! Virtue, then, is not something that is always appealing to other

people. It includes wisdom, strength, organization, leadership, willingness to do

unpopular things if it benefits the whole people, and even pride bordering on

arrogance. Many of these things we moderns would hesitate to call virtuous. What,

then, is Machiavelli's concept of virtue?


9/23

Castaneda 9

I do not want to oversimplify the concept of virtue, but I want to make it

approachable. It is clear from the foregoing that there are several overarching themes in

respect to virtue. First, virtue benefits the whole rather than individuals. It is thus, in

modern ethical terms, somewhat utilitarian. Second, it involves a strength of character

whereby an individual has a) the courage to know what needs to be done, b) the resolve

to do it, c) the ability to do the necessary thing without flinching at any unfortunate

consequences. Most importantly, it involves the ability to order things so that they can

be done the best possible way.

How does the French government stack up measured by this standard of virtue?

I contend that it does quite well.

First of all, we might note, as before, that Machiavelli does not see the person of

the King of France as being an absolute ruler. In fact, this is, from Machiavelli's

perspective, a great strength. It allows the diffuse virtue of its citizens to play a greater

role in the well-being of France than would the virtue (or lack thereof,) of a single ruler.

Machiavelli makes this point quite clearly:

Kingdoms also have need of renewing themselves and of bringing back

their laws toward their beginnings. How much good effect this part

produces is seen in the kingdom of France, which lives under laws and

under orders more than any other kingdom. Parlements are those who


10/23

Castaneda 10

maintain these laws and orders, especially that of Paris. They are renewed

by it whenever it makes an execution against a prince of that kingdom and

when it condemns the king in its verdicts. Up until now, it has maintained

itself by having been an obstinate executor against the nobility; but

whenever it should leave any of them unpunished and they should come

to multiply, without doubt it would arise either that they would have to be

corrected with great disorder or that that kingdom would be dissolved.

(Machiavelli 212)

As in the case of Camillus, virtue is not some commitment to fairness or empathy;

rather, it is a commitment a firm resolve to maintain the order of the realm even at

the expense of some few. It is a strong resolve to do whatever is needed to preserve the

good of all. In France, it manifested, in Machiavelli's view, in a strong commitment to

the laws a commitment from which not even the king himself was absolved. The king

was as much a subject of the realm as anyone else, and this strength of law was a virtue

which ensured the security of the realm.

To be sure, Machiavelli does not have kind, soft words about the French. They

are, Machiavelli assures us, peoples full of avarice, pride, ferocity, and faithlessness, . . .

As to lack of faith, everyone knows how often money was given to King Charles VIII,

and he would promise to give over the fortress of Pisa, and never gave it over


11/23

Castaneda 11

(Machiavelli 302, 303). At first glance, then, we might assume that the French are not

virtuous.

But it must be remembered that Machiavelli's virtue is not our virtue. Avarice,

pride, and ferocity, it is to be remembered, just as well described Camillus as the French.

And Camillus, we are told, was an exemplary case of virtue. Not even faithlessness can

really be described as a lack of virtue. It was only a few short chapters previous to this

negative comment about the French that Machiavelli claims that, in the case of warfare,

it is a praiseworthy and glorious thing to overcome the enemy with fraud

(Machiavelli 299). The sorts of character traits which we, admittedly, often find

detestable are the very sorts of character traits which allow a prince to order his realm

and secure it. So, just as Camillus was hated by his men, the virtues of the French might

lead us to despise them, but we can not infer that they are not virtuous.

Ordering

Of course, the role that the laws play in making a people good, from

Machiavelli's perspective, has already been noted. What bears on the goodness of the

laws, however, is the military. This point is made several times, but most forcefully in a

passage in which Machiavelli insists that he must reiterate this point so that we do not

forget it: Although it was said another time that the foundation of all states is a good

military, and that where this does not exist there can be neither good laws nor any other


12/23

Castaneda 12

good thing, it does not appear to me superfluous to repeat it (Machiavelli 283). It does

not seem to me to be a coincidence that many of the passages in the Discourses that

pertain to the French monarchy also refer to it in a military context. France, we are told,

is a kingdom full of captains and good armies that had been continually under arms in

the wars in Italy (Machiavelli 55). France also lives secure because it is so great a

kingdom that it has few enemies superior to it (Machiavelli 201).

Then, there is a very curious quote from Machiavelli respecting the French. He

notes that the French have a saying, that they prefer to keep their wars, short and

massive (Machiavelli 140). I find this quote very curious because it is a rare thing for

military strategy to make its way into common parlance. For something to become a

common phrase, it must work its way through the consciousness of the everyday

people. This strongly suggests that military training and strategy was a feature of the

French people as a whole, and not just their leaders.

I find this intriguing because of the reason that Machiavelli claims that a strong

military leads to a good people:

[O]ne sees that the military cannot be good unless it is trained, and that it

cannot be trained unless it is composed of your subjects. For one does not

always remain at war, nor can one remain at it; so one must be able to

train in time of peace, and with others than subjects one cannot do this


13/23

Castaneda 13

training out of regard for the expense....For a captain cannot trust in those

soldiers who have not learned to do anything, nor believe that they may

do anything that is good; Thus, if a city is armed and ordered as was

Rome . . . it will always happen that they are of the same spirit in every

condition of time and will maintain their same dignity. (Machiavelli 283,

284)

From a Machiavellian perspective, the French military was able to secure for itself much

more than just victory in warfare. It was, in fact, the training that the subjects received

in times of peace that led to the order which was so conducive to goodness. Thus, the

French saying, that they want their wars short and massive, makes a lot of sense. If

the people fighting are virtuous citizens, they want to win the war as quickly as

possible: quickly because they are citizens who want to return to their home, massive

because they are virtuous people who have great resolve to secure their realm.

One final quote bears upon the French military's success in building an ordered

French government. For we do not want to overemphasize the point here. France's

military, while good from Machiavelli's standpoint, was far from perfect. At times, he

seems to imply that France was not a very powerful ally of Florence (150). Sometimes,

they would lose battles because they sent two or more commanders; (Machiavelli

thought that one mediocre commander was better than two great commanders who


14/23

Castaneda 14

held equal rank because their division would weaken their troops,) (Machiavelli 254).

At times in their history, the king would disarm the people so that he could plunder

them, and that would result in France becoming a tribute to the Swiss or the English

(Machiavelli 200). So, France was far from perfect. But, in the main, when they did take

up the fighting cause they did so with great passion. Machiavelli's views, racist and

misogynist by our standards, nonetheless demonstrate the reputation of the French

people:

Titus Livy says several times: that the French are more than men at the

beginning of the fight, and in the succeeding combat they come out less

than women. Thinking over whence this arises, it is believed by many that

their nature is made so, which I believe is true; but because of this it is not

that their nature, which makes them ferocious at the beginning, cannot be

ordered with art so that it maintains them ferocious to the last.

(Machiavelli 292).2

2 Other translations often distinguish between Gaul and France so as to

distinguish between ancient and early modern inhabitants of France. Mansfield does

not do this, which can lead to ambiguity. But that this passage refers to both ancient

and modern France is indicated by the title of the chapter: The Causes Why the

French Have Been andAre Still Judged in Fights at the Beginning As More than Men


15/23

Castaneda 15

In other words, the French start out with passion in battle, but they often find it hard to

maintain this passion. But Machiavelli also notes that, because they have such passion,

their fighting can be ordered with art such that they stay focused until the end. This is

a characteristic that the Florentine army does not have, as Machiavelli notes that they

have neither fury nor order (Machiavelli 36). So, while the French military is not perfect,

it nonetheless has much to recommend it, and is better than most, (although not quite as

good as Rome).

Religion

This last feature has the least amount of textual evidence to recommend it.

Nonetheless, I believe it was an important part of the French way of life, and I believe

that Machiavelli recognized it tacitly, though not explicitly. I would, thus, like to draw

out several inferences to make this point on his behalf, because I think it is thoroughly

Machiavellian. This point is that the French religion, contrasted with the Italian, actually

served to strengthen its realm.

First of all, it is important to understand how beneficial religion is for a society

from a Machiavellian perspective. Whoever considers well the Roman histories,

Machiavelli tells us, sees how much religion served to command armies, to animate

the plebs, to keep men good, to bring shame to the wicked (Machiavelli 33, 34). And

and Later as Less Than Women (Machiavelli 292, emphasis mine)


16/23

Castaneda 16

again: As the observance of the divine cult is the cause of the greatness of republics, so

disdain for it is the cause of their ruin. For where the fear of God fails, it must be either

that the kingdom comes to ruin or that it is sustained by the fear of a prince, which

supplies the defects of religion (Machiavelli 35).

Religion is a powerful motivating factor, because it imposes a fear by which men

regulate themselves. I have already shown how, for Machiavelli, laws are truly what

make men good, but they do so only in the context of strong enforcement. Now, it

seems pretty clear that humans can only enforce the law so well. After all, the misdeeds

of some men may never be noticed, and even the harshest ruler can only punish those

who he catches breaking the laws. So, it seems that enforcement of laws can only do so

much good. But where enforcement of laws is only partially good, religion can do much

more, so long as it is truly believed. For men and women will regulate their own behavior

if they presume that an all-powerful deity is watching everything they do. This,

therefore, from a Machiavellian perspective, can make men good.

Now, France, of course, at the time was a largely Catholic country. So, too, was

Italy. But while France and Italy shared a religion, it does not follow that the religion

affected the French and Italian people equally. Machiavelli claims that religion had

failed the Italian people. He gives two reasons for this: first, because of the wicked


17/23


18/23

Castaneda 18

Church's power was a result of the fact that, in spite of the Church's corruption, many

people still believed in God at the time.

If the fact that the Church used its power to divide Italy, as Machiavelli claims,

and if, as my analysis leads us to suspect, that was the more salient feature, then we

have no reason to suppose that this situation also prevailed in France. In fact, we have

textual evidence that this situation did not obtain in France. As Machiavelli goes on to

say respecting the Church's policy of dividing Italy:

And truly no province has ever been united or happy unless it has all

come under obedience to one republic or to one prince, as happened to

France and to Spain. The cause that Italy is not in the same condition and

does not also have one republic or one prince to govern it is solely the

church. (Machiavelli 38, emphasis mine)

It must be remembered where the Vatican is: it is located in the heart of Italy, in Rome

itself. As Machiavelli notes, historically the Vatican has been in a position of precarious

power: not so much as to control its fate completely, but enough power to call forth

allies when it is in trouble (Machiavelli 38). Because the Vatican was always in such a

precarious position, it had no interest in laying the foundation for a united Italy in its

own back yard. However, it did need allies, strong governments who were not so close

that they would take an interest in controlling the Vatican but close enough that they


19/23

Castaneda 19

could come to provide aid when needed. So the Church had opposite interests in

France. In France, it did have a compelling interest in keeping the country united. So, in

France, it seems to me, the Church could play the sort of role that Machiavelli envisions.

Moreover, there is textual evidence that the Church did see a powerful France as

its important ally. Machiavelli tells the story of Pope Julius, who ordered France to

come to his aid and Venice to remain neutral in one of the Pope's military endeavors

(Machiavelli 304). Now, to be sure, Machiavelli attributes the French compliance as a

result that the Pope acted so quickly as to catch France off guard, such that it complied

because it could not think of anything else to do (Machiavelli 304). I have no doubt that

this is true. Obviously, realms resist being told what to do, as such a command is a

serious threat to sovereignty. Still, Machiavelli's explanation presumes that there would

be a prima facie reason for French compliance. After all, if what the Pope was

demanding was so far outside the ordinary, he should expect that forcing a decision on

France quickly would work rather against him than for him. It would only be if France

was already modestly disposed to do what he demanded and simply needed a little

persuasion that such a maneuver would be likely to succeed. So, the Pope's behavior,

and France's subsequent compliance, speaks volumes as to the relationship that actually

existed between the Vatican and France: France seems to have played the role of the

powerful ally that ensured the Vatican's success in its endeavors. While France certainly


20/23

Castaneda 20

had its own national objectives, and these certainly did not always coincide with those

of the Church, it also seems to be the case that France got something from the Vatican,

otherwise it would not have been inclined to send aid. I contend that that something

was the fact that religion in France was a powerful unifying factor which helped solidify

the French government's control over the realm.

Conclusion

Against the simplistic view that, in the Discourses, Machiavelli promoted

republicanism while disparaging monarchy, we have seen that Machiavelli actually

believed that any form of government could be ordered for either good or ill. Indeed, it

would seem there are elements of principalities in every republic, and elements of

republics in every principality. After all, Machiavelli notes that [e]ven though [Rome's]

kings lost their empire by the causes and modes discoursed of, nonetheless those who

expelled them expelled from Rome the name and not the kingly power, (Machiavelli

14). It seems that, even in a republic, there are men who wield most of the power. On

the other hand, Machiavelli also notes that every prince is always in danger of being

overthrown by the people because, when the kings displeased the people, the people

rose up against it (Machiavelli 14). So even the most despotic king must rely on the

people's permission to rule. The difference between kingdoms and principalities, of

course, is more than superficial. I do not intend to imply otherwise. I merely want to


21/23

Castaneda 21

note that each possesses some elements of the other. And these elements, for

Machiavelli, as we have already seen can be ordered either for good or for ill.

Rome, of course, was Machiavelli's generic template for a well-ordered republic.

Perhaps it is the case that France was his best example of a well-ordered monarchy. We

have seen that France had the advantage of having a king who was strongly constrained

by laws. This gave France a distinct advantage: the king could act with all the authority

of a Roman dictator when it came to providing for security. On the other hand, his

authority to seize enough power to become a tyrant was strongly curtailed, (at least in

Machiavelli's view. I have worries that this is an idealized portrait of French monarchy).

This led to a beneficial situation in which the domestic life of France was ordered by

laws, but the ability of the king to secure the realm was unhindered.

We have seen that, in three of the crucial Machiavellian tests of stability, France

measures up quite well. In the matter of virtue, we have seen that France possessed a

resolve to do what needed to be done in order to secure the best benefits for everyone,

without respect to individual welfare. In the matter of military might, we have seen that

France maintained itself quite well, adapting a policy of warfare that promoted quick,

overwhelming victories. Moreover, we have seen that in order to achieve that, it would

seem that the military would have to provide for training even during times of peace;

this would result in the ideal, salutary benefits of education and training which provide


22/23

Castaneda 22

order for the realm. Finally, we have seen that France benefited from religion; even if

that religion was imperfect, it nonetheless carried out the important functions that

Machiavelli thought made religion useful. It provided for a fear of God and tried to

unify the realm. While no pretense is made that the Church did this for completely

altruistic reasons, altruism is no test of beneficial religion for Machiavelli.

Given these considerations, it would seem that the thesis is sustained:

Machiavelli clearly saw the French monarchy as a beneficial form of hereditary

monarchy, one which was capable of instilling virtue, delaying corruption, and ordering

the realm to produce laws which made men good. While monarchy may not have been

Machiavelli's preferred government, it seems to me that Machiavelli would have

preferred such a well-ordered monarchy to a corrupt republic. For this reason, we can

speak of France as being a good form of government from Machiavelli's perspective.


23/23

Castaneda 23

Works Cited

Machiavelli, NiccolDiscourses on Livy.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Print

Teuber, Andres. Niccolo (di Bernardo) Machiavelli, Brandeis University Department

of Philosophy. Last updated, nd. Accessed 17 May 2013. Web.

Machiavelli Caleb

Documents

Transcript of Machiavelli Caleb