The historical-cultural context

The term ‘Renaissance’ is conventionally used to define the historical-cultural season that began at the end of the 14th century. The new culture of the age looked back on the Mediaeval as a crude, barbaric age; an intermediate phase between two epochs which, instead, were characterised by an artistic and cultural flowering. Classical civilisation and, precisely, that of the intellectuals of the 14th and 15th centuries who represented an era of rebirth. The principal instigators of this cultural transformation, more precociously and keenly felt in the Italian cities, but manifest all over Europe, were the humanists. The underlying beliefs of Humanistic-Renaissance culture were, in brief, the exaltation of the classical world, which was viewed as a model for civilisation; the search for and recuperation of ancient texts, through the use of the scientific instruments of philology; a view of life that was laical and worldly, being strongly centred upon man; and a new scientific approach in many fields of knowledge.
 

        The foundation of the modern state

The formation and consolidation of the modern state was accompanied by intense theoretical reflection. There was a gradual abandonment of  the Mediaeval political notion, which was characterised by the vision of the ‘two cities’, and by the ever-present clash of temporal and spiritual power. About halfway through the 1400s, the Mediaeval universal view by now consumed, humanist political debate in Italy was above all concerned with modern republicanism, and in particular, within the Italian city state. However its decline, the growing weight of autocratic systems in central and northern areas, and the renewed emergence of the feudal-monarchic state in the south, caused attention to shift to the prince.
The attention paid to the figure of the prince, with its ethical implications and peculiar virtues, prepared the way for Machiavelli, who caused individuality - the personality of he who upholds the state - to be the determining factor in politics.
Whilst in Italy Machiavelli’s dream of political unity under the guidance of a prince would never be fully achieved, at the same time, in France, the debate over the foundation of sovereignty was very much alive.
The beliefs of the Counter-Reformation also come into confrontation with the affirmation of the modern state. The Piedmont Giovanni Botero (1544-1617) is the most illustrious representative of the so-called ‘Reason of the Catholic State’, or rather of the tendency to return to monopolistic control under Catholicism. From the end of the 16th century, the north of Europe saw the development of juridical-naturalistic thinking.

        ‘Reason of  State’

The term ‘ragion di stato’ is used to refer to the supreme importance of the state, subordinate to which are all private interests and considerations. The conceptual elaboration of this principle can be discerned in the political philosophy of N. Machiavelli and in the debates in the epoch of the Counter-Reformation. An important contribution was made by J.Bodin (considered the leader of the school of theorists of  the ‘reason of state’) and G. Botero. These, in their treatise on the ‘reason of state’ (1589), defined it as “News on the means used to found, conserve and amplify a state”. Responding in Machiavellian manner, he proposed  the foundation of his doctrine of power, morality and religion, admitting, what’s more, that in order to preserve power it is acceptable to turn to methods which would be condemned by normal moral standards.
 
 
 

        Machiavelli and the foundation of politics

Niccolò
Macchiavelli inaugurated  a methodological and cultural revolution that was to influence political theory, historiography and the philosophy of history. History was now to be placed at the service of politics, in its autonomy and with its realism. In order to understand political phenomena it became necessary to adhere to the “effectual truth of things”, however unpleasant that may be; and political reality must be described and analysed as it is, with the interests, needs and harshness by which it is dominated, and not as we might like it to be.
 

        Naturalistic anthropology and the problem of liberty

The notion of a political science is based, in Machiavelli, on naturalistic anthropology. The immutability of human nature, desires, passions and behaviour, allow us to reduce mutable historical happenings to basic types. The sense that institutions were precarious, and that, in general, human matters were unstable and changeable, and which Machiavelli discerned in the continuous upheaval in the Europe, Italy and Florence of his times, served to mitigate his naturalism, whilst the notion of fortune introduced a variable of unpredictability.
Machiavelli defined ‘fortune’ as the combination of events that could not be willed into being, that is to say, by ‘virtue’ of liberal, conscious human action. Half of the time we can control our actions, but for the other half we are at the mercy of circumstance. Necessity needs to be tamed, fortune must be challenged. Chances must be taken and moulded; opportunities exploited to our own advantage. In politics, if you are not resolute, you will be overcome by events, whilst success will be yours if you know how to act decisively and quickly; changing direction and attitude as soon as circumstances require you to do so.
 

        Political Virtue: the relationship between means and ends, and the exercising of power

Machiavelli established a coherent link between virtue and the achievement of  political ends; this virtue consisting, however, in the adoption of whatever suitable means necessary to arrive at the desired result. The political virtue of a prince is the art of conserving a state “strengthened by good laws, good weapons and good examples”. Shrewdness and steadfastness are fundamental in reaching this aim; the natural instincts of the fox and the lion. For a prince it is better to be feared than loved; to fake and to dissemble. A sovereign is not obliged to be just; only to hold on to power. Machiavelli did not bother himself with the problem of the legitimacy of kingship. All that was necessary in order to legitimise a sovereign, was possession of the throne.
 

        The relativity of institutional systems

A preference for a particular form of institution should be based on its stability, and not on some abstract criteria of justice. All institutions are destined to perish, due to three great processes, which are in some way intertwined.  (1) The degenerative phenomena that characterise each institutional form. Thus, monarchy degenerates into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, and democracy into anarchy. (2) The cyclical alternation of the three types of institution. (3) Conquest by stronger states. By introducing the necessary checks, a mixed constitution should slow down the rate of all three processes. A mixed state, with a popular base and structured social hierachy, is generally more long-lived, as had been the case in Sparta and the Roman Republic, in which the contrasting needs of different social groups were mediated and balanced. The threat to a state is not, therefore, antagonism, but rather the failure to deal with it effectively.
 
 
 

        The need for good laws and good weapons

Machiavelli’s vision of the relationship between states is one that is highly conflictual. Hostile rivalry is the natural condition for neighbour states. War is unavoidable, and it is pointless to disapprove of it. It is important to fight when necessary; mindful of the specific laws by which it is governed. All states are founded on a combination of good laws and good weapons. Seeing military weakness as being partly responsible for the Italian crisis, Machiavelli saw a need to reform an army, largely consisting of mercenaries, in decline; initiating a parallel renewal of military and civic virtue.
 

        The life and works of Machiavelli

In 1498, following a humanistic education, Niccolò
Machiavelli (1469-1527) entered into public service as secretary to the Second Chancellery of the Florentine State. His personal experience of 35 diplomatic missions inspired him to produce the so-called Legazioni (Legations). In 1513 he worked on Il Principe (The Prince) with the intention - of an ethical-civic nature, free from any nationalism - of encouraging a “new prince”, capable of saving Italian political institutions from decay. No longer fired by a sense of urgency, he began to examine the past. Writing and study became Machiavelli’s chief activities, even though he maintained links with current politics, thanks to his meeting with other humanists. Charged with writing the history of Florence he produced, in 1520, the incomplete Istorie fiorentine (Scenes from Florentine history), the treatise Arte della guerra (The Art of War), and the Discorsi sulla prima decade di Tito Livio (Speeches on the first ten days of Titus Livius).
 
 
 

        Guicciardini

Through a precise and rigorous analysis of The Prince Guicciardini tries to demonstrate that Machiavelli’s ideas are completely misleading.
One example of open contrast is the value of a history which can no longer teach us anything, given that it does not contain absolute laws and models which are of practicable relevance to the present.
As far as religion is concerned, Guicciardini sees it in part as being positive, in that faith leads to persistency, and that time itself will often serve to turn the fortune of the obstinate. In other cases it is considered the corruptor of the soul, in that it is emasculating and only serves to destroy the world and deflect mankind from virile undertakings.
Since Guicciardini lacks a transendental, providential vision of history he emphasises its infinite variety and stresses man’s inability to extract from ancient formulae principles that can be put into action. Connected to this concept is a lack of faith in human virtue, which has less influence than fortune in determining events. To cope with this, the philosopher propagates the notion of “discretion”; the key to success lying in the capacity to distinguish and decide, with each individual case, how to act.

Ideology and structure - the breaking up of what is real makes for a more difficult and deeply felt cognitive tension. The pessimistic scepticism which pervades it, leads to a bitter, disillusioned tone of voice; at times ironic, at times disdainful. This did not cause him to give up the confrontation with history and politics, a moral imperative that the precarious nature of events and the entirely relative character of reality, rendered more arduous and risky, without there being any hope of recompense or consolation in the future.
 

The “particular” - This disenchanted vision of reality, of the impracticability of fulfilling desires and aspirations, caused the writer to eulogise the “particular”. That looking after your own interests is the only course that can be followed with good reason by the wise.