Machiavelli and the History of Prudence (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 445 philosopher offering rigorous (and in no way disingenuous) demonstrative arguments and establishing antiorthodox (but theologically acceptable) conclusions on issues in cosmology, philosophical theology, and practical philosophy. For Leaman, it is only when we understand Averroes as a philosopher working within the religious tradition that we have any chance of overcoming the "dualism" between philosophy and (revealed ) law which the Straussian interpreters foist upon Averroes. For the Straussian, however, Averroes, qua philosopher, cannot hold that philosophy and revealed law (religion) are commensurable. And when Averroes argues just the opposite in his Fo4l al-maqfd (The Decisive Treatise on the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy), that there is a deep harmony between the two, and, even more, that the Qur'fm demands the study of philosophy, Averroes must be dissimulating in some manner, according to the Straussian interpretation. But Leaman will have none of this. He shows that reflection upon the Fa4ldoes not support the doctrine of "double truth," the (ultimately) fideistic position which entails a rigid compartmentalization of philosophy and religion. For Leaman, "[although] Averroes did emphasize the differences between religious and philosophical language, yet [he] also argued that both types of language describe the same reality. They describe it in different ways for different purposes for different audiences. But these different ways of talking are not autonomous activities which operate separately from each other" 067). Leaman agrees with the Straussian interpreter that a political motivation is at work here. The Islamic ruler, for Averroes a prophet, a legislator cum philosopher and analogue to the Platonic philosopher-king, has the capacity to translate his theoretical knowledge of the good into practical (political) terms, so that a community can be established and maintained and each member of the state can partake of the social good and achieve what measure of human happiness he can. But the important point to stress (as Leaman does throughout; see 127-3 o, ~5o, 195-96 ) is that, although the ruler has his own political agenda in mind, he carries it through on the basis of "the way the world really is" (196), i.e., with the realization that the (true) grounds of political philosophy and rule are not at odds with metaphysical reality. The ruler speaks to different audiences in different ways, each according to his capacity. Nevertheless , in so doing the ruler (philosopher) never loses sight of the fact that there is but one truth, demonstrable to some, nondemonstrable to others. And it is this doctrine of the unity and oneness of truth, a truth indeed displayed in many different modes, which is the heart of Averroes' thought, and something in which he, unlike the Straussians, deeply believed. DANIEL H. FSANK University of Kentucky Eugene Garver. Machiavelli and theHistory of Prudence. Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. Pp. xiv + 238. $28.5o. Machiavelli has stimulated and continues to stimulate critical interest in a number of academic disciplines: history, moral philosophy, political theory, and literature. In 446 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 28:3 JULY 1990 recent decades the number of fields so stimulated has increased to include management sciences, and social psychology. Management and Machiavelli by Anthony Jay (1967) and Modern Management and Machiavelli by Richard G. Buskirk (1974) are read in many business schools, while Studies in Machiavellianism by Richard Christie and Florence L. Gels (197o) finds favor with many students of psychology. The work under review attempts to place Machiavelli in yet another field, that of rhetoric and its allied field, the history of prudence. Being a pioneering work, it should be welcomed by all those who are interested in Machiavelli and his impact on human affairs. Garver argues that prudence has a history but that it still remains to be written. His own work here is designed to be a start in that new enterprise. Such a history, he further argues, must be written in tandem with the history of rhetoric. The Prince and the Discoursesof Machiavelli provide the focus of his analysis, although Aristode's Ethics and Rhetoric are in the background. The assumption running through the book is that notions of actions thought to be prudent and abilities deemed to...