When anyone reads Machiavelli, it’s inevitably The Prince that’s read, and reading
Machiavelli usually stops there. Short, pungent, and provocative, The Prince is an easy choice that facilitates endless consideration.
But in some sense, while it’s The Prince
that puts Machiavelli on the map—beginning immediately upon its publication and
continuing to today—this does some disservice to Machiavelli and his underlying
project. The Prince is a manual for
those wanting to establish a regime in the world of the Italian city-state
during the Renaissance. It also serves as a job application, prompted by the
hope that the Medici family that had ousted Machiavelli from his position as a
Florentine diplomat would bring him back from exile to serve them. (It didn’t
work—but what a great audition!) But despite its later acclaim, The Prince addressed only the short game
for Machiavelli. Machiavelli most wanted to see the re-establishment of a republic
in Florence that could follow in the glory of Roman Republic, the ultimate
template for a political regime according to Machiavelli.
One the values of Quentin Skinner’s Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction (part of the Very Short
Introduction books published by Oxford University Press) is that Skinner
explores all of Machiavelli’s work. Skinner is a preeminent historian of
political thought, especially that of the early modern period. His aim is to
relate Machiavelli’s thought, not to comment upon it. Thus, we receive a
direct, concise, and thorough introduction to Machiavelli’s life and work.
Because Machiavelli’s The Prince
elicited such strong opinions—most often in the form of opprobrium—from the
time of its first readers and continuing to today—it’s an extremely valuable
service to learn exactly what Machiavelli thought in total (short of reading it
all ourselves). I don’t think that I’ve encountered a more comprehensive and
useful guide to the whole of Machiavelli’s thought.
The comprehensiveness that Skinner provides the reader in
his chronological account of Machiavelli’s writings and life provides an
opportunity to see Machiavelli’s writings address the whole of his concerns,
and his primary concern was not with would-be princes, but with republics. Machiavelli
was first and foremost a republican. Not a democrat, mind you, but a disciple
of liberty and mixed government. Neither monarchy or aristocracy nor democracy
alone works as a form of government (ordini)
that promotes liberty; only a careful mixture of all three allows liberty to flower.
Machiavelli’s concept of liberty requires that a city-state (his preferred
political entity, exemplified by classical Rome and (sometimes) Renaissance Florence)
must remain independent of outside powers and remain internally balanced
between the rich, who will seek for forward their private agendas, and the
people, who will seek to counter-balance rich. Machiavelli believes that a
republic can only survive through the existence of virtu within the individuals that form the polity as whole. But virtu in individuals and the states that
they create is subject corruption and decay, and this worm in the rose becomes
a central preoccupation for Machiavelli the republican.
One of the pleasures of reading Skinner’s work on Machiavelli
was the careful consideration of the issues that Machiavelli addressed. After
reviewing this book, you will understand why Machiavelli remains topical. Even
if you don’t agree with all of Machiavelli’s prescriptions and analyses (that
are often harsh), you will appreciate that Machiavelli raises and frames a
great number issues that we must still address today. For instance, the
practice of the super-rich to dominate political decision-making through buying
the favor of political candidates via (often anonymous) “campaign contributions”
injures our Republic. Machiavelli identified this tendency, although he
suggests that the mass of people would see through this ploy and rebel. That
has not happened in the U.S., where only a small, vocal, and (mostly
ineffectual) minority raises a cry against this corruption. Machiavelli also
struggles with the problem of decay that corruption entails, and he attributes
decay to the loss of virtu among the
people and their leaders. Machiavelli’s perspective on this problem is similar
to that of Ibn Khaldun, the medieval
North African thinker considered by contemporary authors such as Earnest
Gellner and Peter Turchin. And on the corruption of our republic, Machiavelli
seems as if he’d be right at home discussing these concerns with our contemporaries
such as Lawrence Lessig or Francis Fukuyama, who’ve penned valuable works on
the corruption of our political system. Lessig, for instance, has been a leader
in trying to stem the influence of very
big money—think Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson—on our political process.
Almost any introductory course about political philosophy or
political theory will address Machiavelli, but probably only as the author of The Prince, but this is a disservice. In
an ideal world, student would, at a minimum, read the Discourses as well. (I admit I haven’t—yet.) But having read this
book by Quentin Skinner, I can now claim a much greater appreciation of this
thinker-actor who brought political thought deeper into the world of political
reality.
