Sparks Commentary: Actually, Machiavelli WAS pro-dictatorship (and Rousseau was wrong about him)

“I admit that, provided the subjects remained always in submission, the prince's interest would indeed be that it should be powerful, in order that its power, being his own, might make him formidable to his neighbours; but, this interest being merely secondary and subordinate, and strength being incompatible with submission, princes naturally give the preference always to the principle that is more to their immediate advantage. This is what Samuel put strongly before the Hebrews, and what Macchiavelli has clearly shown. He professed to teach kings; but it was the people he really taught. His Prince is the book of Republicans.[footnote]”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” (1762), Book III, Chapter VI

Rousseau said that Machiavelli's “The Prince” is “the book of Republicans” …

More than 200 years after Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in 1532, Jean-Jacques Rousseau commented on this work in 1762. Rousseau argued that it was “the book of Republicans.[footnote]” (Source: “The Social Contract,” Book III, Chapter VI). In this context, “Republicans” seems to mean “those who support a republic.” Was this meant as positive praise or negative criticism? It appears that this was indeed meant as praise, as we can see by examining Rousseau's definition of a “republic” (as I shall do below).

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

… and said that “every legitimate government is republican”

Elsewhere in “The Social Contract,” Rousseau had written: “I therefore give the name 'Republic' to every State that is governed by laws, no matter what the form of its administration may be: for only in such a case does the public interest govern, and the res publica rank as a reality. Every legitimate government is republican;[footnote] what government is I will explain later on.” (Source: Book II, Chapter VI) In the footnote to this paragraph, Rousseau actually said that “I understand by this word republic, not merely an aristocracy or a democracy, but generally any government directed by the general will, which is the law. To be legitimate, the government must be, not one with the Sovereign, but its minister. In such a case even a monarchy is a Republic.” (Source: Footnote to Book II, Chapter VI) Thus, for Rousseau, “even a monarchy is a Republic,” and “every legitimate government is republican.” Thus, referring to “The Prince” as “the book of Republicans” seems to be meant as positive praise.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, later in life

Rousseau opined that Machiavelli was “a proper man and a good citizen”

In the footnote to this claim that “The Prince” is “the book of Republicans,” Rousseau opined there 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) In another of his works, Rousseau actually referred to what he called the “satires of Macchiavelli” (Source: “A Discourse on Political Economy”) – thus claiming that works like “The Prince” were just “satir[ical]” works, and not meant to be taken at face value. Is this an accurate reading of Machiavelli or “The Prince”? I shall examine these questions below.

Cæsar Borgia (a. k. a. “Cesare Borgia”), mentioned as an example of a good ruler in “The Prince”

Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici, to whom Machiavelli dedicated “The Prince”

… and asserted a “contradiction” between “The Prince” and the “Discourses on Livy”

In fairness to Rousseau and his defenders, I should acknowledge that there are some passages in the “Discourses on Livy” which may seem to be consistent with freedom. But there are a number of passages within Machiavelli's “Discourses on Livy” that are unapologetically pro-dictatorship. For example, the first book of the “Discourses on Livy” contains a chapter called “That the authority of the Dictator did good and not harm to the Roman Republic: and that it is not those Powers which are given by the free suffrages of the People, but those which ambitious Citizens usurp for themselves, that are pernicious to a State.” (Source: Book I, Chapter XXXIV)

Niccolò Machiavelli

But in the “Discourses on Livy,” Machiavelli openly defended dictatorship …

In this same chapter of the “Discourses on Livy,” Machiavelli wrote that “in Rome, through the whole period of her history, we never find a dictator who acted otherwise than well for the republic. For which there were the plainest reasons. In the first place,” Machiavelli claimed, “to enable a citizen to work harm and to acquire undue authority, many circumstances must be present which never can be present in a State which is not corrupted. For such a citizen must be exceedingly rich, and must have many retainers and partisans, whom he cannot have where the laws are strictly observed, and who, if he had them, would occasion so much alarm, that the free suffrage of the people would seldom be in his favour.” (Source: Book I, Chapter XXXIV)

Niccolò Machiavelli

… as a temporary expedient …

“In the second place,” Machiavelli continued, “the dictator was not created for life, but for a fixed term, and only to meet the emergency for which he was appointed. Power was indeed given him to determine by himself what measures the exigency demanded; to do what he had to do without consultation; and to punish without appeal,” Machiavelli admitted. But Machiavelli said that such a dictator “had no authority to do anything to the prejudice of the State, as it would have been to deprive the senate or the people of their privileges, to subvert the ancient institutions of the city, or introduce new. So that taking into account the brief time for which his office lasted, its limited authority, and the circumstance that the Roman people were still uncorrupted, it was impossible for him to overstep the just limits of his power so as to injure the city; and in fact we find that he was always useful to it.” (Source: “Discourses on Livy,” Book I, Chapter XXXIV)

Niccolò Machiavelli

… and said that the dictatorship “deserves our special admiration”

“And, in truth,” Machiavelli continued, “among the institutions of Rome, this of the dictatorship deserves our special admiration, and to be linked with the chief causes of her greatness; for without some such safeguard a city can hardly pass unharmed through extraordinary dangers.” (Source: Book I, Chapter XXXIV) He concluded this same paragraph by saying that “those republics which cannot in sudden emergencies resort either to a dictator or to some similar authority, will, when the danger is serious, always be undone.” (Source: “Discourses on Livy,” Book I, Chapter XXXIV) Thus, this attitude toward dictatorship that Machiavelli expressed in the “Discourses on Livy” would seem to be fully consistent with that expressed in “The Prince.” In this regard, it would seem that there is no “contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy” – at least, not of the kind that Rousseau seems to have implied here. In this latter work (namely, “The Prince”), Machiavelli actually argued that “a prince wishing to keep his state is very often forced to do evil” (see the footnote to this blog post for the citation). Machiavelli also argued in that same paragraph that in at least some situations, “good works will do you harm.” (Again, see the footnote to this blog post for the citation.)

Niccolò Machiavelli

Thus, it seems that Machiavelli was pro-dictatorship, and that Rousseau was wrong about him

I thus cannot see how Rousseau would call such a work “the book of Republicans” (at least, not under his presumably positive definition of this word). I cannot see the kind of “contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy” that Rousseau seems to have implied to be there. And unlike Rousseau, I cannot find a true “love of liberty” in any of Machiavelli's works. Rousseau's definition of a “republic” is so broad that any government with actual laws – including a monarchy – would meet the criteria for his definition of a “republic” (as noted earlier). But under James Madison's more conventional definition of a republic, no dictatorship (or any other kind of powerful monarchy) would qualify for this kind of praise – or any kind of praise, for that matter. As noted earlier, Machiavelli actually said that rulers are “very often forced to do evil,” and that “good works will do you harm.” In my book, such a philosopher cannot truly qualify as “a proper man and a good citizen.” These are the words that Rousseau had tried to apply to Machiavelli, but they are in gross contradiction with the unfortunate truth about Machiavelli, which is somewhat more disturbing.