Nicolau Machiavelli, born in the second half of the 15th century, in Florence, Italy, is a of the main intellectuals of the period called the Renaissance, inaugurating political thought modern. When writing his most famous work, “The Prince”, the political context of the Italian Peninsula was troubled, marked by a constant instability, since there were many political disputes for the control and maintenance of the territorial domains of cities and States.
Knowing his trajectory as a public and intellectual figure is very important so that the circumstances in which this thinker thought and wrote this work are understood. Machiavelli entered the diplomatic career at a time when Florence was a Republic after the Medici were deposed from power. However, with the resumption of that dynasty, Machiavelli was exiled, at which time he dedicated himself to the production of “The Prince”. This work of his would be, in fact, a kind of political manual for rulers who aimed not only to remain in power, but to expand their conquests. In pages of it, the ruler could learn how to plan and meditate on his actions to maintain the stability of the State, of the government, as Machiavelli recounts the successes and failures of several kings to illustrate his advice and opinions. Furthermore, for authors specialized in his life and work, Nicolau Machiavelli would have written this book as an attempt to bring the Medici government closer together, although it was not successful in a first time.
Another fundamental factor for studying Machiavellian thought is the background of Europe at that time, from the point of view of ideologies and human thought. At the end of the Middle Ages, an anthropocentric view of the world (which considers man as the measure of all things) was once again present in the thought of older civilizations such as Greece, which allowed the emergence of another political idea, not just the one prevailing in the medieval period. In other words, the resumption of humanism would propose in politics the “republican freedom against the theological-political power of popes and emperors”, as stated by Marilena Chauí (2008). This would mean the resumption of civic humanism, which presupposes the construction of a political dialogue between a rising bourgeoisie eager for power and a royalty holding the crown. It is necessary to remember that the formation of the modern state took place through the convergence of interests between kings and the bourgeoisie, marking an important moment for the development of commercial practices and capitalism in the Europe. Thus, Machiavelli witnessed in his time a greater questioning of the absolute power of kings or of any dynasty, such as the Medici in Florence, as a bourgeois elite with its own interests was born, with the exacerbation of the idea of freedom individual. Theocentric power was questioned and the existence of a prince who, holder of the qualities necessary, that is, of virtú, could guarantee the stability and defense of your city against other neighbors.
Thus, considering this scenario, Machiavelli produced his work with a view to the question of legitimacy and exercise of power by the ruler, by the prince. The legitimation of power would be fundamental to the question of conquest and preservation of the State, it being up to the good king (or good prince) to be endowed with virtu and fortune, knowing how to articulate them well. While virtu was about the skills or virtues needed by the ruler, fortune was about luck, chance, the condition given by the circumstances of life. to Machiavelli “...when a prince leaves everything to luck, he ruins himself as soon as she changes. Happy is the prince who adjusts his way of proceeding to the times, and unhappy is he whose conduct does not conform to the times.” (MAQUIAVEL, 2002, p. 264). As Francisco Welffort (2001) states about Machiavelli, “political activity, as an architect, was a practice of man free from extraterrestrial restraints, of the man who was the subject of history. This practice required virtú, domination over fortune”. (WELFFORT, 2001, p. 21).
Do not stop now... There's more after the advertising ;)
However, the way virtú would be put into practice in the name of good government should bypass the Christian values, from the current social morality, given the incompatibility between these values and the politics according to Machiavelli. For Machiavelli, “this image does not fit the idea of Christian virtue that preaches an angelic goodness achieved by liberation from earthly temptations, always waiting for rewards in heaven. On the contrary, power, honor and glory, typical worldly temptations, are goods pursued and valued. The man of virtu can achieve them and fight for them” (WELFFORT, 2006, pg. 22). Thus, it was this Machiavellian interpretation of the political sphere that allowed the idea that “the ends justify the means” to emerge, although this phrase cannot be literally attributed to Machiavelli. In addition, the idea that Machiavelli would be someone articulate and without scruple, giving rise to the expression "Machiavellian" to designate something or someone endowed with a certain meanness, cold and calculating.
Machiavelli was not immoral (although his book was banned by the Church), but placed political action (constructed by the sum of virtu and fortune) in the foreground, as an area of autonomous action leading to a break with morals Social. Moral conduct and the idea of virtue as a value for living well in society could not limit political practice. What one must think is that the main objective of the policy would be to maintain social and government stability at all costs, since the European context was one of wars and disputes. In the words of Welffort (2001), Machiavelli is incisive: there are vices that are virtues, and we should not fear the prince who wishes to remain in power, nor to hide his faults, if this is indispensable to save the State. “A prince should therefore not care for being considered cruel if it is necessary to keep his subjects united and in faith. With rare exceptions, a prince regarded as cruel is more pious than those who, by great mercy, allow disorders to happen that can result in murders and robbery, because these consequences harm an entire people, while the executions that come from that prince offend only a few individuals" (MACHIAVEL, 2002, p. 208). Thus, the prince's sovereignty would depend on his prudence and courage to break with the current social conduct, which would be incapable of changing the nature of human defects.
Thus, Machiavelli's originality would be largely in the way he dealt with this moral and politics, bringing another vision to the exercise of power once sacralized by values defended by the Church. Considered one of the fathers of Political Science, his work, already in the 16th century, addressed issues that are still asked today important, such as the legitimation of power, especially if we consider the characteristics of the sandy soil that is life politics.
Paulo Silvino Ribeiro
Brazil School Collaborator
Bachelor in Social Sciences from UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Master in Sociology from UNESP - São Paulo State University "Júlio de Mesquita Filho"
Doctoral Student in Sociology at UNICAMP - State University of Campinas