“I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions. This duke entered the Romagna with auxiliaries, taking there only French soldiers, and with them he captured Imola and Forli; but afterwards, such forces not appearing to him reliable, he turned to mercenaries, discerning less danger in them, and enlisted the Orsini and Vitelli; whom presently, on handling and finding them doubtful, unfaithful, and dangerous, he destroyed and turned to his own men.
And the difference between one and the other of these forces can easily be seen when one considers the difference there was in the reputation of the duke, when he had the French, when he had the Orsini and Vitelli, and when he relied on his own soldiers, on whose fidelity he could always count and found it ever increasing; he was never esteemed more highly than when every one saw that he was complete master of his own forces.”
– Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” (1532), Chapter XIII
Niccolò Machiavelli
Rousseau argued that Machiavelli's choice of Borgia as his hero revealed a “hidden aim” …
More than 200 years after Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in 1532, Jean-Jacques Rousseau would comment on this work in 1762. In his work “The Social Contract,” Rousseau opined that “Macchiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Cæsar Borgia, clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays.” (Source: Footnote to Book III, Chapter VI) Even Rousseau admitted that Machiavelli's hero “Cæsar Borgia” was “detestable” (calling him his “detestable hero,” after all), but he argued that this strange choice “clearly enough shows [Machiavelli's] hidden aim” right after this. In this passage, a “love of liberty” is thus implied to be a part of this “hidden aim.” Was it really so? I shall examine this question below.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Machiavelli said that “I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions” …
Machiavelli actually met Cesare Borgia on a diplomatic mission, in his function as the Secretary of the Florentine Chancellery. Machiavelli served at Borgia's court for some three months, from 7 October 1502 through 18 January 1503. Machiavelli must have been impressed with the young Cesare Borgia, because he later said: “I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions.” (See the earlier quotation, for the full citation and context of this quote.) Thus, it seems quite clear that Cesare Borgia was indeed Machiavelli's “hero,” whom he held up as an example of a good ruler. But the actual reign of Cesare Borgia was less romantic, and makes him seem a bit more cruel. Even Machiavelli would later say in “The Prince” that “Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed.(*) Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty” (see the footnote to this blog post for the full citation). Machiavelli would thus argue that this cruelty was justified, and that it was more merciful in the long run. (But I'm getting ahead of myself here.)
Niccolò Machiavelli
… and that Borgia did “all that ought to be done by a wise and able man”
Machiavelli also wrote in “The Prince” that “Concerning these two methods of rising to be a prince by ability or fortune, I wish to adduce two examples within our own recollection, and these are Francesco Sforza(*) and Cesare Borgia. Francesco, by proper means and with great ability, from being a private person rose to be Duke of Milan, and that which he had acquired with a thousand anxieties he kept with little trouble. On the other hand, Cesare Borgia, called by the people Duke Valentino, acquired his state during the ascendancy of his father, and on its decline he lost it, notwithstanding that he had taken every measure and done all that ought to be done by a wise and able man to fix firmly his roots in the states which the arms and fortunes of others had bestowed on him.” (Source: Chapter VII) Thus, for Machiavelli, Cesare Borgia had “done all that ought to be done by a wise and able man.” This seems to provide further evidence that Cesare Borgia was indeed Machiavelli's “hero,” in the words of Rousseau.
Niccolò Machiavelli
Several of Borgia's contemporaries suggested that he might have murdered his own brother …
In his early years, Borgia had actually been groomed for a career in the church. Borgia's father was none other than the future Pope Alexander VI. To quote Wikipedia, when his father was later made Pope, “Cesare was made Cardinal at the age of 18.[footnote]” (Source: Their page on Borgia) They continue by saying that Cesare's father “staked the hopes of the Borgia family on Cesare's brother Giovanni, who was made captain general of the military forces of the papacy. Giovanni was assassinated in 1497 under mysterious circumstances. Several contemporaries suggested that Cesare might have been his killer,[footnote] as Giovanni's disappearance could finally open to him a long-awaited military career and also solve the jealousy over Sancha of Aragon, wife of Cesare's younger brother, Gioffre, and mistress of both Cesare and Giovanni.[footnote] Cesare's role in the act has never been clear. However, he had no definitive motive, as he was likely to be given a powerful secular position, whether or not his brother lived. It is possible that Giovanni was killed as a result of a sexual liaison.[footnote]” (Source: Their page on Borgia) They also say that “On 17 August 1498, Cesare became the first person in history to resign the cardinalate.[footnote] Louis XII of France named Cesare Duke of Valentinois, and this title, along with his former position as Cardinal of Valencia, explains the nickname ‘Valentino’.” (Source: Their page on Borgia) It is not clear whether Cesare did indeed assassinate his brother Giovanni, but there is reason to suspect this from what we do know about it. As they noted earlier, “Giovanni's disappearance could finally open to [Cesare] a long-awaited military career,” and this seems like a clear motive for murder. Nonetheless, I should acknowledge that this is not certain, and that a number of historians have disagreed with this verdict. I will next move to things that can be proven with greater clarity and certainty.
Cesare Borgia
… and Borgia did not hesitate to execute those who plotted against him
Wikipedia also notes that “In June 1502 [Borgia] set out for Marche, where he was able to capture Urbino and Camerino by treason. He planned to conquer Bologna next. However, his condottieri, most notably Vitellozzo Vitelli and the Orsini brothers (Giulio, Paolo and Francesco), feared Cesare's cruelty and set up a plot against him. Guidobaldo da Montefeltro and Giovanni Maria da Varano returned to Urbino and Camerino, and Fossombrone revolted. The fact that his subjects had enjoyed his rule thus far meant that his opponents had to work much harder than they would have liked. He eventually recalled his loyal generals to Imola, where he waited for his opponents' loose alliance to collapse. Cesare called for a reconciliation, but imprisoned his condottieri in Senigallia, then called Sinigaglia, a feat described as a ‘wonderful deceiving’ by Paolo Giovio,[footnote] and had them executed.” (Source: Page on Cesare Borgia) A ruler with a true “love of liberty” would not have executed these people, without first proving his allegations of treason and conspiracy. Rousseau had argued that Machiavelli's choice of Cesare Borgia showed a true “love of liberty,” but Borgia's actions show nothing of the kind.
Portrait of a man traditionally said to be Cesare Borgia
Conclusion: Borgia's actions are not worthy of emulation, and Machiavelli was wrong about him
As noted earlier, Rousseau would later argue that Machiavelli's choice of Cesare Borgia as his hero “clearly enough shows [Machiavelli's] hidden aim.” (Source: “The Social Contract,” Footnote to Book III, Chapter VI) But no “hidden aim” of the kind that Rousseau implied here would seem to have actually been present in Machiavelli's “The Prince.” Even Rousseau admitted that “Cæsar Borgia” was “detestable” (as noted earlier), and even Machiavelli admitted that Borgia was considered “cruel.” (See the footnote to this blog post for the full citation on this.) Cesare Borgia was indeed “detestable” and “cruel,” and had no “love of liberty” for his subjects. Thus, I cannot see how Machiavelli would say: “I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions.” His actions are hardly worthy of emulation, and Machiavelli and Rousseau were wrong to imply that they were such.
Niccolò Machiavelli
“Coming now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed.(*) Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only.
And of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers.”
– Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” (1532), Chapter XVII
If you liked this post, you might also like:
A review of “The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance” (PBS Empires)
Machiavelli and Rousseau both praised the Spartans
Actually, Machiavelli WAS pro-dictatorship (and Rousseau was wrong about him)
A review of Machiavelli's “The Prince” (audiobook)
Rousseau's “Discourse on Inequality” is long on detail, but short on evidence …
A few problems with Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”
A review of “Friedrich Nietzsche” (audiobook)
A review of “The Nazis: A Warning from History” (BBC)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment