Machiavelli's Errors

From Wikinfo

Search for "Machiavelli%27s_Errors" on Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Mediawiki Wikia, Wikitravel, Google Advanced Search, Yahoo Advanced Search, WorldCat Advanced Search, Amazon, Recent NY Times, Older NY Times.

Machiavelli's Errors by W. Lindsay Wheeler

This is a signed article by User:Wheeler. It may be edited for spelling errors or typos, but not for substantive content except by its author. If you have created a user name and verified your identity, provided you have set forth your credentials on your user page, you can add comments to the bottom of this article as peer review.

Niccolò Machiavelli made many errors, or one may say innovations, in defining and classifying the form of government called a republic. He was a revolutionary innovator that sought to find new orders and new modes for a new way of life, freer and unrestricted by tradition, authority or religion. ^[1] He was not a classical republican. ^[2]. Engaging in revolutionizing the form of the term republic, Machiavelli gave this complex form of government new definitions and meanings that it never had in Classical Antiquity. In a sense, he redefined classical republics in his terms. From then on, most moderns, academics, thinkers, intelligentsia, viewed classical republics through his bowlderized, revolutionary notions.

His errors/innovations include defining a republic as "any government without a king", that democracy is the good form of government and its opposite is license, that republics are divided by a numerical quantity and not by their social caste, liberty is the central issue of classical republics, that republics are divided into "aristocratic republics" and "democratic republics", and that bodies within classical republics are to be "guardians of liberty".

Contents 1 Any government without a king 1.1 Background 1.2 General 1.3 Survivability of manuscripts 1.4 Cicero 1.4.1 Definition of politeia/republic 1.5 Cicero vs Livy 2 Good form and the bad form of government 3 Numerical quantity or caste titles 4 Liberty or Order 4.1 Nomenclature of republics; aristocratical/democratic 4.2 The Roman Republic 5 Guardians of liberty or Guardians of the law 6 The Consequences of Machiavelli's Error 7 See also 8 References 9 Bibliography 10 Note

Any government without a king

Machiavelli relied upon the Roman historian Livy, the only Roman work on Roman constitutional history extant at that time, when he developed the definition of a republic as "any government without a king". ^[3] Machiavelli is famous for originating this definition of a republic. ^[4] In political science, it became the standard definition of the republican form of government since the 1600's and is considered by many to be right, true and irrefutable.

Background

The historians of Classical Antiquity were not politically astute or students of political science. Herodotus and Thucydides, the Greek historians, described Sparta as an oligarchy whereas the ones that studied politics Plato, Aristotle, Polybius and others all labelled Sparta a politeia, mixed government. The science in the regards to politics was not general knowledge and was not widely available. Political science in Classical antiquity was a narrow field that had very few members. The Roman Livy is in the former category. He was "deficient in some of the most essential qualifications for producing a history of Rome as would satisfy the standards of our own day". Neither was he "well informed nor specially interested in politics, or the art of war, and lacking even such practical knowledge of constitutional matters as scores of his contemporaries must have gained from participating in the actual business of the state...". ^[5] Furthermore, Livy ignored the antiquarians, Romans who did research on early Rome and Roman culture.^[6] Most Romans recieved their political training by engaging in the actual politics of the day. Livy was not only divorced from political studies, he was also absent from Roman political activities.

General

Machiavelli wrote Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, (Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy) somewhere between1513-1517. Machiavelli wrote the Discourses as a commentary on Livy's work on Roman history but it also delved into the structure and benefits of a republic, which he saw as a form of government based on popular consent and control. It is seen as the most important work on the system of republicanism in the early modern period.

Livy is the source for Machiavelli. Livy was very much a Roman patriot who along with Cicero, was very devoted to the salvation of the republic. ^[7] He began writing his history c. 27 and 25 B.C. when civil war was tearing apart the social and political fabric of his beloved country. In order to remind his fellow countrymen of their old virtues that gave birth to their state, he sat down and began to relate the grand history of their commonwealth; it was titled Ab Urbe condito or "From the Founding of the City" which eventually comprised of 142 books. Prof. Michael Crawford, in his book The Roman Republic points to book II, i, 7-8, that Livy marks the beginning of the foundation of the Roman republic with the removal of the Tarquin kings.

"One can regard the cause of freedom as lying rather in the fact that consular imperium was made annual than in any diminution in the regal power (inherited by the counsuls); the first consuls retained all the rights and insignia (of the king); the only precaution taken was that they should not both hold the fasces simultaneously and thereby create a double impression of fearfulness. Brutus was the first to hold the fasces (for the first month), with the agreement of his colleague." ^[8]

(Another rendering:)

"But it was favored by the mild restraint of the government, which nursed it up to the point where its ripened powers enabled it to bear good fruit of liberty. Moreover you may reckon the beginning of liberty proceeding rather from the limitation of the consuls' authority to a year than from any diminution of their power compared with that which the kings had excercised. All their rights of the kings and all their insignia were possessed by the earliest counsuls; only one thing was guarded against— that the terror they inspired should not be doubled by permitting both to have rods. Brutus was the first to have them, with his colleague's consent, and he proeved as determined in guarding liberty as he had been in asserting it." ^[9]

The sole Roman source of Machiavelli's information on the Roman Republic was Livy and this is the basis of Machiavelli's error. Prof. Michael Crawford writes that Livy is "following the common opinion of his day; the truth, if different, is irrecoverable."^[10]

Survivability of manuscripts

Due to wars, invasions of barbarians, civil wars, the famous burning of Rome under Nero, and the general collapse of civilization at c 450 A.D. many manuscripts have become lost. Such is the case of Dicaearchus of Messana’s Tripoliticus. The only thing remaining of this work is two sentences quoted by other authors whose works have survived.

Cicero's De re publica almost suffered the same fate. It was lost c. 600 A.D. but miraclously, a majority of it was rediscovered in 1820. Machiavelli and many other political writers of the Enlightenment had no knowledge of Cicero's work on political science and therefore their political opinions on what constitutes a republican form of government are severly handicapped. The truth is different and it is recoverable.

Cicero

Though Livy admired Cicero and his stand against the emperors, Livy's idea of the start of the Roman Republic does not match what Cicero wrote in his political treatise De re publica.

Cicero was not only active in Roman politics but also was a student and writer of politics. He was very astute and was learned not only with Roman politics but with Greek political science as well. He was very well acquainted with the political school of Plato. Cicero studied rhetoric primarily in Greek because most prominent teachers of oratory at that time were Greeks. He later used his Greek education to translate the theoretical concepts of Greek philosophy into Latin. With his work De re publica he transferred Greek political science into Latin as well. Cicero was heavily influenced by Dicaearchus of Messana’s Tripoliticus and he may have plagiarized him for his work De re publica. ^[11] Furthermore, Cicero was a lawyer which furthered his knowledge of Roman constitutional history that Livy was deficient on.

In the De re publica, Cicero does a quick sketch of Roman history and the formation of the Roman republic. Cicero starts the Roman republic under Romulus when he gave complete obedience to the auspisces and the creation of the senate:

Book II, ix; "It was after he had adopted this policy that Romulus first discovered and approved the principle which Lycurgus had discovered at Sparta a short time before—that a State can be better governed and guided by the authority of one man, that is by the power of a king, if the influence of the State's most eminent men is joined to the ruler's absolute power. Accordingly supported and guarded by such a body of advisers, to which we may give the Senate, ...

"He also gave complete obedience to the auspices, a custom which we still observe to the great security of the State.

Book II, x; "And after Romulus had reigned thirty-seven years, and established those two excellent foundations of our commonwealth, the auspices and the senate..." ^[12]

"et haec egregia duo firmamenta rei publicae, auspicia et senatum..."

Cicero, a trained lawyer, schooled in Greek and Latin, a Roman magistrate at times, starts the foundation of the Roman Republic with the foundation of the Senate, and under King Romulus. The foundation of the senate is the beginning of mixed government which the Greeks called politeia. Prof. Leonhard Schmitz writes, "In all the republics of antiquity the government was divided between a senate and a popular assembly; and in cases where a king stood at the head of affairs, as at Sparta, the king had little more than the executive." ^[13]. This is an encapsulation of what the Greeks thought as well, that the establishment of the Senate, an upper body, mixed with other forms of government was what a republic/commonwealth is.

Definition of politeia/republic

Ancient Greek political science didn't define politiea (commonwealths/republics) by the absence or presence of a king; it just had to be mixed. Commonwealths are defined as having no dominant factor; i.e. no class has a monopoly on state power or functions. In his book Politics, Aristotle has a section of "politeia's" that starts off with the Doric city-states of Crete, then Sparta, Carthage and then Solonic Athens. All these city-states had a mixed form of government which the Greeks called a politeia. A politeia, in its most simplest form, is just a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. The Doric city states of Crete started off with kings. Circa 600 B.C., they removed their kings so by the time of Aristotle these city states of Crete did not have kings involved in their government. Aristotle makes no distinction between the city states of Crete or Sparta that kept their kings throughout their history; both were politeia's. The only distinction Aristotle makes is "more mixed" or more mixtures. ^[14] The presence or absence of kings makes no difference in the definition of a politeia. If kings are present, it just means that it is more mixed; more complexity. Instead of just the aristocracy (oligarchy) and democracy, it is a mixture of royalty, aristocracy, and democracy.

The Romans, whose institutions, religion, thinking were influenced by or directly borrowed from the Greeks, translated the Greek word politeia into Latin as res publica. Cicero's De re publica is a treatise on mixed government. Furthermore, he mentions kings and their position in a commonwealth frequently.

The old and traditional meaning of a republic is mixed government. Since Machiavelli's definition is paramount, a minority of scholars and academics who uphold the old definition have prefaced the term 'republic' with the word 'classical' to seperate the old meaning from Machiavelli's definition. Mixed governments, such as at Rome and Sparta, are called classical republics.

Cicero vs Livy

The formation of the modern definition of the form of republic came from Machiavelli who got it from Livy. Livy was deficient in general political studies and in Roman constitutional knowledge. He was no political scientist of any measure.

Cicero on the other hand was fluent in Greek and Latin. Familiar with all the Greek political writers especially Dicaearchus, Cicero was intimately involved in Roman Law and provided a sketch of Roman history and constitution. Cicero is more eminently qualified to be an authority on the Roman republic and constitutional law than Livy. A Roman Statesman, Cicero is a political scientist who had a mastery of both Greek and Roman political ideas and terms.

Machiavelli's error is not so much, in this regard, a conscious fault but is a fault of circumstances beyond his control. He did not have accurate or sound information. Livy is just not proficient in politics to be taken as an authority. Machiavelli's source was not professional, thorough, or astute. Machiavelli's political doctrine that a republic is "any government without a king" is heavily flawed because his source is heavily flawed. Cicero's De re publica refutes the assumptions of Livy and Machiavelli's doctrine.

Good form and the bad form of government

Niccolo Machiavelli copied Aristotle's/Polybius's diagram of dividing the forms of government into six distinct types with three being the good forms and their counterparts being the bad forms. ^[15] Machiavelli begins with monarchy, the good form, and its bad counterpart tyranny, and aristocracy and its bad counterpart oligarchy, following Aristotle. But for the last pair, he doesn't follow Aristotle but innovates; i.e. he has the last pair as democracy, the good form and its inferior form license.

This is quite different from Aristotle's schema of governmental forms. For the last pair, Aristotle has for the good form politeia and the perverted form as democracy. Democracy is the corruption of a politeia which is a mixed government.

Aristotle defines a politiea as: "the form intermediate between a democracy and an oligarcy, which is termed a republic, (mesi de touton in kalousi politeian)" ^[16] and again Aristotle reiterates the definition in a slightly different way as: "a mixture of oligarchy and democracy". ^[17] A politeia is not a democracy.

Aristotle's writes his schema thus:

"deviations from the constitutions mentioned are tyranny corresponding to kingship, oligarchy to aristocracy, and democracy to constitutional government (politeia); for tyranny is monarchy ruling in the interest of the monarch, oligarchy government in the interest of the rich, democracy government in the interest of the poor, and none of these forms governs with regard to the profit of the community." ^[18]

He counterposes mixed government (politeia) with democracy; its second-rate cousin. Polybius and Cicero both follow Aristotle. On this all the ancient political scientists agreed. Machiavelli subverted Greek political science and substituted his own concoction. True that democracy foments license (anarchy or extreme individualism) but license is not a form of government. None of the ancient thinkers, except the Athenians themselves and the poor, thought democracy was a good form.

Numerical quantity or caste titles

Machiavelli classifies the simple forms of government by a mark of numerical quantity. He uses the terms "The One, the Few, and the Many". (Olive) Many political scientists use Machiavelli's nomenclature in constructing a diagram/schema of Aristotle's bad/good form of governments. Ancient society was very conscious of the grades of men. In the organic natural order, men grew up in tribes where there was hierarchy; the races of men, especially in the Indo-European family were divided between a royal family, aristocratical families, the common class and their servants. The upper castes were marked by special abilities and divine favor. The terms "royal" and "aristocracy" mark out hereditary gifts that nature and divine providence embued upon them.

Furthermore, there is slight confusion inherent in the word "many" in regards to the last form of the makeup of the combination. On of the aspects of the principles of definition which Socrates points out is the 'love of accuracy". The scientific spirit rests on the notion of accuracy and political science can not be veritable without accuracy. The word 'many' to describe the last grouping is a terrible injustice and totally inaccurate. A politeia is a 'many' of castes involved in governing. A democracy is a 'many' of individuals'. There is no comparison between the many of the politeia and the many of the democracy. The word "many" confuses the distinctions to which it refers to and this leads to an erroneous understanding of the last category. The correct diagram of Aristotle's schema must be presented like so:

in whose interest:	Public interest	Self interest
Rule by which caste
many castes	politeia	→↓
many individuals		Democracy
	True form	Perverted form

When Machiavelli defines a mixed government which is a mirror of a mixed society by numerical adjectives, he is deconstructing the social order of Classical Antiquity and Indo-European trifunctionality. He is minimalizing the character of these upper classes. Again, he is subverting the natural European social order. Mixed government or classical republics are not made up of impersonal groupings of numbers based on quantity but tied to the gifts inherent in a specific caste.

Cicero remarks that one of the comcomitmants of a classical republic is the distinction of rank. The proper caste titles are those distinctions of rank.

Liberty or Order

Machiavelli is constantly talking about "liberty". His thought is summarized as "Liberty is the single most important aspect of a republic, and it mandates the rest of the republic’s aspects." (Olive) Liberty is the all-encompassing idea and highest virtue of a society.

Machiavelli's emphasis on liberty as the basis of a republic may be said to originate from Livy as well as the definition of a republic. Not only was Livy incompetent in political science, he was also an idealist; a romantic. ^[19] Livy plays up the concept of liberty constantly. This Roman historian and big patriot is in every spot talking about liberty. (The idea of liberty seems to have overshadowed all else.^[20])

The Doric Greeks created this form of government and they modeled it around the cosmos; i.e. the order found in the cosmos. Order and Harmony was the all-encompassing principle of the Doric Greek republics. (Wheeler) The pattern and the modality of the family tripartite structure was copied into their state. The ancients did not mould their form of government around the idea of liberty but around the concept of order. Whereas liberty is license, the ancient Greeks followed the dictates of Wisdom. What did wisdom teach, that is what they did. Liberty is a result of acting upon wisdom. Wisdom is the guiding light that built and maintained the classical republics. The single most important aspect of the Doric idea of mixed government was wisdom; and that wisdom teaches that the Good has order, a pattern, that works. To the Greeks liberty is a by-product, a result, of one minding the dictates of wisdom. It is Wisdom that produces liberty. The Doric Greek classical republics were not structured around the idea of liberty but around the dictates of wisdom, ordering society toward the Good.

Nomenclature of republics; aristocratical/democratic

"Machiavelli's definition of democracy is that if the people are entrusted as liberty keepers, the regime is considered a democratic mixed regime, and if the nobles control liberty, it is considered an aristocratic mixed regime, thus Machiavelli's definition of democracy is a form of government where the people are the guardians of liberty, ensuring it for all people, and limiting the government." (Olive)

Machiavelli created distinctions of republics based on this idea of who is in control of the maintenance of liberty. He created the terms 'democratic republic' and 'aristocratic republic'.

This is nowhere in classical thought. The ancients kept it simple, which class controls the government that is its designation. Ancient republics were not formed around the basis of liberty and who maintained liberty. Republics are mixed government which has no dominant factor. On the other hand, democracy has a dominant factor, it can not be mixed government. It is named after the dominant factor, "the people", i.e. the demos.

These supposed phrases "democratic republics" and "aristocratic republics" are oxymorons. A democracy is where the demos is dominant can not be coupled with "republic" where the term republic means mixed government. The same goes for the term 'aristocratic republic'. An aristocracy is where a few nobles are the dominant factor. It can not be mixed with the term republic.

The Roman Republic

"Rome was an example a democratic mixed regime, Sparta and Venice were both an aristocratic mixed regime, and Athens was a simple democratic regime. Rome was democratic because the people were the guardians of liberty." (Olive)

"Rome wasn’t built in a day; in fact it was foraged in the cycle of accidents accompanied by many rulers, beginning with Romulus. According to Machiavelli, it traveled the right way to reach a state of a mixed democratic regime. The creation of the tribunes, which were the people’s electorates, was an accident that made it into a mixed regime." (Olive)

Cicero does not make this distinction. Cicero starts the Roman Republic under Romulus with the establishment of the Senate. Under the Tarquin kings, the Roman system of mixed government fell apart and after the expulsion of the Tarquins, the substitution of the counsuls restored the system but did not change the definition. Republics are defined by having a true caste society and the participation of two or more in the governing of the that society. The addition of the tribunes, like the addition of the ephors at Sparta, does not change the character of the Roman republic either; it just means it is more mixed.

Prof. Crawford in his book The Roman Republic writes that the Roman political system was the interplay of three elements and "nothing altered the central fact of republican government, that it was the collective rule of an aristocracy, in principle and to variying extent in practise dependent on the will of a popular assembly." ^[21] The addition of the tribunes and other magistrates did not affect the status of the Roman state as a republic.

Guardians of liberty or Guardians of the law

Since Machiavelli designed that republics are centered around liberty, republics are labelled either democratic republics or aristocratic republics by which class is the 'guardian of liberty'.

"Rome was democratic because the people were the guardians of liberty."

"From his decision of Rome, Machiavelli shows a clear preference of the democratic mixed regime variety, although he is undecided, or at least ambiguous about the issue of the guardians of liberty."

This is a cruel or even a malacious twist of what was stated in classical Greek literature. Machiavelli inverted a concept that was central to the establishment of the Doric Greek republics and that was law. The ancient Greek republics were structured around the law embeded in the natural order. (Wheeler) Aristotle stated that the purpose of the state was to produce the Good; to produce good men and that these men might live the Good life, a life of intellectual pursuit and participation in the polis. To the Greeks, the Good was what was important and what stipulated the good was laws. The laws is what made a man good. Therefore it was important that the bodies within republics be 'guardians of the laws', not guardians of liberty. Machiavelli, being a follower of Lucretius, an Epicurean ensconces liberty as the highest ideal for the state. It can be said that the effect of Epicurean philosophy is the basis of the atomistic conception of human society and the idea of liberty would play a significant part in that. Liberty in and of itself is an amorphous concept. Liberty can be analogous to disorder, to individuality, that would frighten any Greek.

The Good in and of itself is tyrannical in some aspects; it restricts and commands restriction of bad behavior from all corners; royalty, citizens, foreigners, etc. It would, like in Sparta and in Hebrew laws command laws against miscegenation or certain behaviors. In this sense, the Good is obviously conflicted with liberty. Liberty in its connotation has no formal telos; i.e. no specific object to what it is directed to, amorphous. The idea of liberty can subvert the Good, Wisdom and any religious teaching. The Good and liberty are mutually opposed. Liberty has the connotation of license. (Can there be liberty from the Good?)

Ancient Greek literature stressed continuously the concept that there has to be 'guardians of the law'. A major section of Plato's The Republic deals with 'guardians of the law'. These were philosophers whose job was to know the Good and then implement the Good thru laws thus creating good men and a good society. In The Laws, Plato stresses this concept again. The word "νομοϕύλακες" (guardians of the law) appears frequently in the thought of Plato. Aristotle writes that ""The Council of the Aeropagus was the guardian of the laws, and kept watch on the magistrates to make them govern in accordance with the laws." ^[22] Republics are about the Rule of Law and the law needs guardians to keep it and maintain it. Machiavelli turns the philosophy and construction and purpose of the ancient republics on its head when he emphasizes liberty and that republics are defined by who are the guardians of liberty.

The Consequences of Machiavelli's Error

The error/innovations of Machiavelli has become the political doctrine of the modern era. It has been so magnified that this definition that a republic is "any government without a king" has a stranglehold on political thinking and is ubiquitous. Machiavelli's and hence Livy's uneducated guess is a fact of 18th through the 21st centuries political science of Western culture. More sadly, this faulty definition has been the inspiration of countless political and civil revolutions that have been the cause of much bloodshed and destruction within Europe. Many kings and aristocracy have lost their lives and their stations due to his erroneous inferences and alterations. Prof. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn writes that the expulsion of the German monarchy after WW I led to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. ^[23]

Moreover, this faulty definition is not going to be easily dethroned. The opinion that "republics are any government without a king" holds mastery over many men's minds and will be very difficult to change. It is one of the follies of mankind that what is first promoted or disseminated is accepted as fact by the general population and rebuttals or corrections has a greater difficulty to overcome.

See also

• List of the multiple definitions of republic
• Plato's Cave

References

Bibliography

• Anton, Michael, "Machiavelli’s Virtue" Commentary, Jan (1997): v103 n1, 68.
• Barton, Paul K., "Machiavelli, Leonardo, and the Science of Power", Prospective on Political Science, wntr (1997): v26 n1, 35.
• Bondanella, Peter & Must, Mark eds., The Portable Machiavelli, Kingsport: Viking Press, 1979.
• Brown, Irene C., "The Historian as Philosopher: Machiavelly and the New Philosopher Prince" History Today, 31 (June 1981): 15-20.
• Coby, Patrick J., Machiavelly’s Romans, New York: Lexington books, 1999.
• Danoff, Brain F. "Lincoln, Machiavelli, and American Political Thought." Presidential Studies Quarterly, June (2000) v30 i2, 290.
• Machiavelli, Niccolo, Discourses of the First Decade of Titus Livius, London: Kegan Paul Trench and Co., 1883.
• Machiavelli, Niccolo, The Prince, New Jersey: Humanities press, 1996.
• Mansfield, Harvey C. JR., Machiavelli’s New Modes and Orders, London: Cornell UP, 1979.
• Olive, "Niccolo Machiavelli's Definition of Democracy Nov 13, 2006, published @ Socyberty.com.
• Parel, Anthony J., "Machiavelli’s Romans: Liberty and Greatness in The Discourses on Livy." American Political Science Review March (2000): v94 i1, 165.
• Parel, Anthony J., The Machiavellian Cosmos, New Haven: Yale UP, 1992.
• Rahe, Paul A., "In the Shadow of Lucretius: The Epicurean Foundations of Machiavelli's Political Thought", History of Political Thought, Vol. XXVIII, #1, Spring, 2007.
• Rahe, Paul A., Republics, Ancient and Modern, 3 vol., The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1994.
• Viroli, Maurizio, Machiavelli. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998.
• Wheeler, W. Lindsay, "The Spartan Republic", Sparta, Journal of Ancient Sparta and Greek History, 5 May 2007.

Note

The URL address of this article with an apostrophe (') does not work. To link to this page with an URL address, use the redirect URL address Machiavellis Errors: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Machiavellis_Errors . The redirect does not have the apostrophe in the title.