The Chimerical Application of Machiavelli's Principles

The Chimerical Application of Machiavelli's Principles Yale Sheffield Monthly, pp 461-465, May 1915 Louis S. Hardin, '17

In this period of a great international struggle it seems of more than usual interest to study the principles of the man who has been called the first modern political philosopher. That man was Machiavelli. Very few men have been more universally condemned than he. To show the general attitude toward him it is only necessary to mention that at one time in England the name Machiavelli became synonymous with Devil. Yet in spite of the abhorrence with which his doctrines are generally viewed, no flaw can be found either in the facts which he chose to use as his premises or in the method he employed in reasoning out his conclusions, He was the first man to rescue political science from scholasticism and to employ inductive reasoning to the solution of political problems. We must view his principles with more than sardonic curiosity.

One of Machiavelli's principles is known as "The Depravity of Man." Man is more prone to evil than to good. It is natural for him to be greedy, to lie. cheat, steal, and murder. The fear of punishment is all that restrains him from revealing these latent instincts. "A man will more readily endure the death of his father than the loss of his patrimony," is one of Machiavelli's most renowned statements.

With this conception of humanity in his mind Machiavelli proceeds to portray for us an ideal man from whom we draw back in awe. In the consideration of political science the ideal man is essentially the practical man. According to Machiavelli failure is a disgrace: success, "the Divine Seal of Approval." The man set forth in Machiavelli's "Prince" is primarily a practical man. He combines a marvelous diversity of qualities. He is first of all master of himself. He can at all times rise above the dictates of his own conscience, can reject all sense of morality, and will not flinch if cruelty, dishonesty, or irreligion are necessary for his success. In brief he is murderer, soldier, villain, and diplomat combined in one; he has the qualities both of the lion and of the fox. If Machiavelli could have read Shakespeare's "Othello," he would have selected as his ideal man not Othello but Iago. In dealing with deceitful and avaricious men only such a man as Iago can keep himself at the front.

But not only is mankind depraved and degenerate; in addition there can also be no hope of general improvement. This theory may be aptly termed "The conservation of Evil." and closely resembles the physical law of "The Conservation of Matter." The amount of good and evil is always constant. Reactions are constantly occurring which change the form of that evil, but the total amount of evil relative to the total amount of good remains unchanged. The nature of these reactions is varied. Imitation is natural to man. Being lazy, he is more willing to conform to old customs than to form new ones. Like a river he follows the course of least resistance. But since nothing can be imitated to perfection, the nations are gradually changing; some are advancing in civilization, others are declining. Thus the state goes through a cycle of evolution. It improves until it has reached its highest point and then begins to decay. First comes a period of conquest known as Virtue. During this period the power is necessarily firmly concentrated, and is generally a monarchy. Primitive men always elect the strongest among them as their chief, and he can maintain himself in power as long as his state is threatened by external dangers. After the period of Virtue comes a period of Peace, during which the government develops into a republic, which Machiavelli considered the highest type of government. After the period of Peace comes a period of Idleness, which in turn is followed by a period of Disorder. In the course of these two periods the government slowly decays and its complete fall occurs in the last period—the period of Ruin.

Now that we have considered Machiavelli's doctrine concerning the evolution of the state, it is interesting to investigate his opinion of the position of the individual in the state. Does the state exist for the sake of the individual, or is the individual a mere cog in the vast machine of government? Is the state a means or an end in itself? Today the common conception is that the state exists for the good of the individual and not the individual for the good of the state. We consider that a man's first concern should be his own moral character. The Biblical phrase, "First cast the mote out of thine own eye," expresses the common conception of today. But Machiavelli believed that a state should be an end in itself. He believed that citizenship should dominate all the other relations. Where the safety of one's country is at stake no consideration of just or unjust, merciful or cruel, glorious or shameful should be taken into account. If necessary, kill those who can not be cheated, for "he who is dead can not think of revenging himself." Any course of action is justified if only it succeeds in obtaining a result propitious to the interests of the state. A man's first concern should not be the salvation of his soul; his duty as a citizen should dominate his whole life.

To one of a fantastical turn of mind the present European war offers an excellent opportunity of giving free rein to his imagination, Be fore the outbreak of hostilities few people dreamed that the world was on the verge of such a horrible struggle. Many people believed that knowledge and commerce had bound the world together "by gold filaments" too strong to be torn asunder. The theories of these men have been shattered. What is to be the result? Is man no more than a beast who at the slightest provocation flies at his brother's throat ? Was Machiavelli right when he said, "Man is more prone to evil than to good? We read of the awful atrocities with which each side charges its foe. Are these men merely overcome by the passions of the hour or is this the "latent instinct of the beast" which will be ready to rise to the surface at the first opportunity ? Are we virtuous merely because we are restrained by the fetters of the law? We hear men prophesy that this war means the death of Christianity and an era of Pandeism or perhaps even the destruction of all which we call modern civilization and culture. We hear men predict that the ultimate result of the war will be a great blessing to humanity. They recall to our memory the many benevolent acts of neutral nations and it seems that even if Machiavelli's theory of "The Depravity of Man" be true, there are moments when a great power for good is revealed in his character. Will coming events prove that this power is his predominant characteristic?

But Machiavelli's doctrine of the evolution of the state is even more interesting in this connection. At what stage of development have these nations arrived? Surely no one will maintain that they are in the period of Idleness, or Peace, or yet of complete Ruin. According to Machiavelli's classification they must be either in the period of Virtue or in the period of Disorder. If in the period of Disorder we may hope for only Ruin to follow. Here again we must remember that Machiavelli drew his inferences from a careful study of history and reached his conclusions by a method of reasoning as perfect as that of Aristotle. The Greek civilization in many ways was superior to that of today. The average Greek was a better man both physically and mentally than his twentieth century brother. Yet the Greek culture fell in disorder and ruin. The Roman Republic in many respects was considered by Machiavelli an ideal government. Yet where is the Roman Republic now? What right have the modern European nations to suppose that their civilization will endure forever? Perhaps in a few centuries. in accordance with Machiavelli's theory of "The Conservation of Evil," the relative positions of China and Europe in the civilization of the world will be interchanged. However there is the possibility that Machiavelli might have considered the modern European nations in the period of Conquest, from which they would emerge into a long period of Peace. This would necessarily imply the destruction of monarchical forms of government and the gradual development of the ideal form of government—the Republic. The Bishop of London, although influenced by reasoning radically different from that of Machiavelli, believes that at the close of the European war the world will enjoy a peace which will last for a thousand years.

But what effect will the war have upon the relation of the man to the state? Machiavelli believed that citizenship should dominate all other relations. In theory it seems that the modern conception is fundamentally opposed to this idea, but a slight discrepancy is apparent between the theory and the execution of the theory. Is it to the best interests of the people of the belligerent nations to go to war? At the call of his country, Englishman, Frenchman, German, Russian, each gives up wife, children, everything that is dear to him, and goes to face pain, hunger and threatened death. Why does he suffer all of these hardships in order to fight men against whom he has no personal grudge? We say that he is carried away by a noble patriotism. Yet what is patriotism but a fervent passion for his country which makes a man forget his own interests to serve his country—which makes him place his duties as a citizen above all other relations. It is true that to-day we would not advise a man to serve his country if, in so doing, he must commit acts of murder, or treachery. We would not tell a man to kill his brother even if that brother threatened to overthrow the state. We require first of all that a man live an honest life. But is there not something noble in Machiavelli's theory that a man should sacrifice not only his life but also his very soul in the service of his country? It seems that in some respects Machiavelli holds a broader view than our own, and if we condemn one we must condemn the other also.

But is there not a doctrine broader and nobler than either of these two—the doctrine of the universal brotherhood of mankind? This is the doctrine so aptly expressed in the words of the French Encyclopedist, D'Alembert, "I prefer my family to myself, my country to my family, and humanity to my country." This is the doctrine which is the keynote of Christianity itself, and which can make possible the era of peace-of which Tennyson dreamed.

"O ye, the wise who think, the wise who reign,

From growing Commerce loose her latest chain

And let the fair white-winged peacemaker fly

To happy havens under all the sky

And mix the seasons and the golden hours,

Till each man find his own in all men's good.

And all men work in noble brotherhood."

This would be an ideal era but is its existence possible? We must remember that it is not within human power to determine which theory is the most practical. Even the wisest men can only see "some hairbreadths deeper than we see into the Deep that is infinite, without bottom as without shore." The problems with which Machiavelli dealt are primitive, arising from conditions of all human societies. They form part of larger questions and can disappear only when the relations between God and man have been solved.