Was Machiavelli Really Machiavellian?

Introduction

Niccolò Machiavelli, the Italian Renaissance political theorist, has long been regarded as a master of political pragmatism. His seminal work, The Prince, has been interpreted as a guide to political power and manipulation. However, the extent to which Machiavelli himself adhered to the principles outlined in his book is a subject of continuing debate. This article explores whether Machiavelli can be classified as a true Machiavellian, examining his political career, his writing, and the context of his times.

The Role of Virtu and Fortuna in Politics

Machiavelli often stated that success in politics is divided equally between Virtu and Fortuna. According to him, Virtu refers to the individual’s skill and ability, while Fortuna refers to external factors beyond one’s control.

During his lifetime, Machiavelli faced many external challenges. Despite his efforts, most significantly, he lacked the luck (Fortuna) required for high political success. This is evidenced by the fact that despite holding several significant positions, such as equivalent roles to a USA Deputy Secretary of State and Secretary of War, he never achieved the highest political office, Gonfaloniere of Justice (President), in the Republic of Florence. This suggests that while Machiavelli had the Virtu and some opportunity, he was ultimately hampered by Fortuna.

Was Machiavelli Politically Successful?

Despite the obstacles, it is argued that Machiavelli was indeed successful in his political career. He held several high-ranking positions which were crucial to the functioning of the state. His ability to navigate the complex political landscape of Renaissance Italy, even in the absence of the highest office, is indicative of his political acumen. This suggests that Machiavelli was capable of applying political principles effectively, even if those principles were not entirely his own.

Machiavelli's Personal Alignment with His Philosophy

Less clear is whether Machiavelli followed his own philosophy outside of his professional roles. It is often suggested that Machiavelli was merely a writer, spending his free time on plays and intellectual pursuits, without political ambitions. This perspective implies that he did not actively apply his teachings to his own life, as he lacked the necessary power and context to do so. However, this interpretation faces criticism. It is possible that Machiavelli wrote his book, The Prince, as a tool for political leaders and thinkers, rather than as a personal guide for himself.

Defining Machiavellianism

The term "Machiavellian" can be used in different contexts. In one sense, it refers to the person who exercises political authority in accordance with the principles laid out in The Prince. In this strict sense, Machiavelli himself did not hold significant political power, hence he cannot be classified as a Machiavellian in a political sense. However, if the term is used more broadly to describe someone who merely espouses or accepts these principles as valid, then Machiavelli qualifies, at least in a technical sense.

Conclusion

While Machiavelli left an indelible mark on political theory, his own adherence to his principles is less clear. The success he achieved in his political roles and his ability to navigate the political world do not necessarily indicate personal application of the Machiavellian mindset. Whether one views Machiavelli as a true Machiavellian hinges on how one interprets the terms power and application. Regardless, his work continues to offer a valuable lens through which we can understand political behavior and the complexities of power in leadership.

Keywords: Machiavellian, Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Political Machiavellianism