Machiavelli: A Dissection

by Sydney Anglo

Genres: History, Biography

357 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 1969

Reviews

[LuisJ · Rating 2 out of 5]

It’s quite hard to pin down quite what the motivation is for this book but starting from the illustration on the cover which is rather unflattering compared with the various ones that come up in an online image search; then the title includes the term “A Dissection” which indicates the regard and attitude the author has towards his subject.
I read this because I have not read Machiavelli yet and thought that a critical introduction would be helpful. However, I found that much of the book was highly opinionated while typically failing to back up the ‘claims’. The author is, for example, fond of liberally applying terms of judgement such as “inconsistent” and “limitations”; but, with perilously little support given for the judgements, it comes across as intellectually-lacking or, at the other extreme, a case of sneering.

The last two chapters on ‘Fortuna and virtù’ and ‘Method’ are vastly superior in content and style to the rest and it’s hard not to feel like the rest of the book was written as a bridge to them. They contain salient criticisms of Machiavelli accompanied by examples.
The conclusion that Machiavelli was more guided by intuition than by logical theorizing, on the basis of evidence in this book, is probably correct. It also probably explains his keen insight both into the politics and nature of power in his day but also into the method to write a book that would appeal to the masses.

The question that I pondered before reading this book as well as now is whether Machiavelli has credibility given the failure of his political career. This is muddied by the fact that by the time Machiavelli had started to learn the ropes of politics he had already aligned himself with a group in a highly factionalised and fickle political landscape. Thus much of his failed career can be seen as his being excluded because of his previous allegiances (and he does try to explain and ameliorate that in his works). Would anyone have been able to manipulate and politic his way out of that? Supposedly Plato, the author of The Republic, failed to sway the politicians/leaders of his day too.

Below I’ve got some quotes which range from disagreeable to interesting, to agreeable (separated by a double-dash '--':

“It is, in some ways, a classic exemplification of the trite Renaissance debate concerning Res and Litterae — matter versus manner: and posterity, as so often, has given a sharp thumbs down to the laborious scholar, while lauding the achievements of the stylist.” pp 135

Here’s a great example where a debate that apparently was known during the Renaissance becomes “trite” according to the author. From reading this book it’s apparent that the use of that term is intended to de-value the debate and its values because the author clearly perceives that he belongs to the ‘losing’ side of that debate.

“Nevertheless, there has rarely been a thinker so naive as to fail to realise that not everything on this miserable globe is perfect. Of course there were evil princes and wicked governments; and the problem inevitably arose as to whether even the best prince might be forced by circumstances into behaviour never condoned in private individuals.” pp 193

This quote following on from claiming that medieval writers tended to write from an idealised point of view, this comment is really jarring because it seems to hang off nothing; it does not seem to be something that Machiavelli can be accused of (quite the opposite) and it’s not clear whom it it addressing. In fact, it feels like a gripe that was shoe-horned into the text so as to find a home for its expression.

“Political realities were not always the same as political ideals, and Savonarola recognised that the single ruler, seizing power illegitimately, must necessarily adopt extra-ordinary means to maintain himself. It was reprehensible, and was to be avoided by all right-thinking people: but it could, and did, happen.

Machiavelli really took only one more step albeit a rather long one. The special morality which even conventional thinkers had been forced to accord to their good prince, in order that he might preserve the common weal in times of emergency, pointed the way. Machiavelli simply recognised that the kind of prince and the kind of polity, described by writers like Savonarola as an immoral abomination, was no mere perversion but rather the norm. Thus the ruses of the Aristotelian tyrant, striving to main-tain himself in an hostile world, became the basis of a moral code for the Machiavellian new prince, seeking the same end amidst similar difficulties.” pp 200

This is a great example of minimizing the ‘revolution’ of Machiavellian thought. The jump from being guided by moral principles that may need to be broken or curtailed in extreme circumstances to the idea that all circumstances are effectively amoral is a huge even from an intellectual point of view; however, from a moral/ethical and practical point of view the difference is immense. It is exactly why people are understanding of the former and dismayed by the latter.
For context, I don’t necessarily agree machiavelli that this is what we should be aiming for in good governance; I agree that it’s often an apt description of politics but that it’s also probably a view of the world sharpened by the circumstances of his life and the regional politics of the day.
--

Interestingly, speaking about a state that has fallen completely into corruption he says:

“When the material is absolutely corrupt only the single man of outstanding virtù can possibly renovate it: but this requires a brutality that presupposes a bad man, while a good end presupposes a good man. To find a good man prepared to employ evil means to achieve a good end is extremely difficult.” pp 206

--

“Nor will any wise intellect ever reprehend any extraordinary action he uses to order a kingdom, or constitute a republic. It is requisite that, though the deed accuses him, the result will excuse him; and when it is good, like that of Romulus, it will always excuse him: because he who is violent in order to spoil things is to be reprehended, not he who is violent to repair them.” pp 207

Naturally, Machiavelli never met the Nazi’s or the countless dictatorships that has led to millions of deaths in the 20th Century.
--

Quoting Machiavelli:

“There are two reasons why we cannot change our ways: one is that we cannot oppose that to which Nature inclines us; the other is that, having prospered greatly with one method of procedure, a man cannot possibly be persuaded that he could do well by acting otherwise: whence it comes about that in one man Fortune varies, because she changes the times, and he does not change his ways. The ruin of cities likewise comes about through not altering the institutions of republics with the times. but they are slower [than individual men] because they have more trouble in changing, since it is necessary that the times should be such as move the whole republic; for this a single man, altering his own way of proceeding, is in-sufficient.” pp 221

--

“Another aspect of Machiavelli's writing which, though important, admits of little comment, is the fondness for aphorisms which he shared with many of his contemporaries. Aphoristic style has always been common among political theorists and philosophers: but it was particularly cherished in the Renaissance -an age which delighted in epigrams and witty conceits; in the bringing to light of ancient wisdom compressed within classical inscriptions; and in solving the allusive mysteries of visual imagery and hieroglyphics. There is a peculiar attraction in the pithy sentence which conveys an idea in the minimum space with maximum effect: and Machiavelli was very good at writing them. However, such facility has its drawbacks. The "truths" may not follow from the evidence on which they are based; they may be more "effective" than accurate; and because they are striking, they may give undue prominence to an idea felicitously expressed, but ill-conceived. The aphorism, by its nature, tends to favour the more extraordinary notion, especially one which depends on unlikely juxtaposition. It works best when extreme.
And this quality is particularly marked in Machiavelli.” pp 241

This is a really good point and could very easily be applied to many other writers, especially some of the more popular European Philosophers.
--

“It is possible to see what Machiavelli means, but the implications of his argument are unhappy. He seems to suggest that to wage war only when necessary is a bad thing. Is it then a good thing to wage war when there is no necessity to do so? As a matter of fact, this would seem to be the general purport of the Discourses as a whole, where continuous Roman expansion is depicted as a necessary condition of the republic's survival. But this, like the condemnation of Christianity in the Art of War, is badly thought out-or rather, it has not been thought out at all.” pp 262

A really interesting discussion could be had here because Machiavelli does think that Rome’s success and longevity was down to their relentless expansion but the author doesn’t take the point anywhere. It is entirely unhelpful to point out a “consequence” which seems entirely the point of Machiavelli’s views on ancient Rome.

[Vincent Hernot · Rating 3 out of 5]

A critical study of Machiavelli's works: very thorough, obviously well informed, and opinionated.
So much so that time and again, it's hard not to feel the author has a grudge against his subject, or is trying his best to knock him down his pedestal.
Pedestal? Fame, at least.
So the author points out the contradictions in Machiavelli's texts, his obfuscations, his blindness to change (Machiavelli believed firearms would never have much of a role in war), his borrowing (=straight out copying without checking) of very old sources to comment on contemporary events etc.
Sounds like a hatchet job, but I don't think so: the author is trying to review and assess, and while his tone is at times too damning (too personal?), he does give Machiavelli his due, too, as a thinker, a politician and historian (well, sometimes).
Incidentally, Machiavelli was imprisoned for a while, and thoroughly tortured. He always tried to get back on his feet (that is, in favour) but it never really worked. And our current clichéd vision of him as a Bond-like Master Villain is obviously far-off the truth of the man.
One thing I wonder: had he read Sun Tzu?! He sounds like him at times:
'It is wisdom on the part of men to know how to give that which they can neither sell nor keep.'