I. MACHIAVELLI AND THE BEGINNINGS
OF MACHIAVELLISM
Machiavellism has historically come to mean that
effectiveness alone counts in politics; political actions
should not be restricted by considerations of morality,
of good or evil.
In this sense Machiavellism existed before Machia-
velli, and is as old as politics itself. The view that the
struggle for political power should be excepted from
the usual norms of ethical behavior was widely recog-
nized in the ancient world. It was stated in the dialogue
between the Athenians and the Melians in the fifth
book of Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War
and was given a simple poetic formulation in Euripides'
Phoenician Maidens (lines 524-25): “If wrong may e'er
be right, for a throne's sake were wrong most right:—
Be God in all else feared.” In these quotations the drive
for power appears as almost instinctive, something that
cannot be kept in check. Roman writers were more
conscious of the problems involved in the transgression
of moral laws. Cicero (De officiis, Book III, Ch. II),
and Tacitus (Annals, Book XIV, Ch. XLIV), said that
they believed violation of moral law was permissible
only if the Utilitas rei publicae (“public welfare”) re-
quired it. With this they introduced an idea that would
become of great importance in the history of Machia-
vellism.
Despite recognition of the problem in the ancient
world there are good reasons why discussions on the
general validity of moral norms in politics are con-
nected with the name of Niccolò Machiavelli. The
ancient world and the Renaissance were separated by
the Christian Middle Ages in which justice and peace
were regarded as the only legitimate purposes of gov-
ernment. Admittedly, even in the Middle Ages rulers
had not always acted according to the prescriptions
of the Christian religion. Canonists and legalists, aware
of this fact, had tried to determine the situations and
conditions under which the ratio publicae utilitatis or
the ratio status (“reason of state”)—to use some of their
terms—allowed violations of the common law or the
moral code. It has been argued therefore that the
doctrine of “reason of state” which exerted great in-
fluence in the political thought and life of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries was actually a medieval
doctrine. Such a thesis disregards the medieval legal
doctrine that violation of law and ethical rules was
permitted only in order to protect the community
instituted by God and the law of nature as necessary
for achieving the social and political ends of man on
earth. A lower law could be disregarded for a higher,
divine law. In contrast to the doctrine of “reason of
state” which was developed in the centuries after
Machiavelli, in medieval legal doctrine the government
or the ruler remained subordinated to a higher—divine
or natural—law.
With the Renaissance the gap between underlying
assumptions and the practical conduct of politics
widened. Doubts about the general validity of the
accepted moral code became a powerful ferment in
modern political thought and in this development
Machiavelli's writings have been crucial.
However, many of the notions which are connected
with the term Machiavellism were not explicitly stated
by Machiavelli but only implied in his political writ-
ings. Of these Machiavelli's Istorie Fiorentine was sig-
nificant because it contained an attack against the
worldly power of the Papacy which weakened the hold
of the preachings of the Church. However, the doc-
trines of Machiavellism were chiefly developed from
Il Principe and the Discorsi. Machiavelli's treatment
of virtues and vices in Chs. XV-XIX of the Principe
was meant to shock and it had this effect. One can
see this from the frequency and passion with which
its theses were discussed and rejected. There are many
vehement refutations of Machiavelli's suggestion that
a prince ought not to scorn murder if this serves his
purposes, or that in order to be popular and secure
in power a prince need not be virtuous, only appear
so. It is evident from the frequency with which writers
debated the issue that they were puzzled and bothered
by Machiavelli's view that princes could be expected
to keep promises, commitments, and alliances only as
long as these agreements corresponded to their inter-
ests.
Of course, the most novel and startling feature in
the Principe and the Discorsi was the open recognition
of the role of force in politics. “You must know, then,
that 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” (Il
Principe, Ch. XVIII). The Discorsi possessed other fea-
tures of a startling and upsetting character; they pre-
sented a defense of freedom and republicanism. Since
republican government was a rarity in these centuries
of the rise of monarchical absolutism, Machiavelli's
defense of republicanism reinforced the impression that
he advocated doctrines which undermined the funda-
mental tenets of the existing political, social, and moral
order.
In 1559 Machiavelli's writings were placed on the
Index. Insofar as this measure had any meaning it was
limited to Italy and Spain. Manuscripts of Machiavelli's
writings, particularly of the Principe, circulated widely
in France and England, and Machiavelli's works con-
tinued to be printed and translated. However, Catholic
writers shied away from open acknowledgment of their
acquaintance with Machiavelli. Allusions to his theories
and writings were made in a somewhat cryptic manner.
This secretiveness had its bearing upon the image of
Machiavelli and Machiavellism. It was easy to assign
to him views and ideas which were only loosely con-
nected with the theories of the great Florentine.
