Machiavelli (review)

Mythology turns into philology in the last book that Francesco Bausi has devoted to Machiavelli. Fueled over the years by a mammoth bibliography rivaled solely by that on Dante, the myth of the Florentine secretary has been grounded on the fertile soil of his (alleged) philosophical depth, vast humanistic background, and unshakable republicanism. Bausi's chief concern, vigorously expressed in the introductory chapter ("Machiavelli tra storia e mito"), is to discard such ideologies by means of a more historically oriented analysis (Bausi speaks of "integrale storicizzazione" [15]). In fact it is not difficult to dispel the aura of myth that has surrounded Machiavelli if one considers his weakness in mastering philosophical tools, his limited knowledge of classical literature, and his substantial indifference to archival material. But this only accounts for the pars destruens of Bausi's interpretation, which nonetheless leaves unharmed Machiavelli's subtlety and acumen. What gradually emerges is in fact a Machiavelli whose political, pragmatic stances supersede any theoretical formula: "un Machiavelli 'politico,' che in ogni frangente della sua vita e in ogni pagina della sua produzione si propone di comprendere gli eventi storici del momento e di suggerire le più efficaci modalità per intervenire su di essi; un Machiavelli che muove sempre dalle concrete sollecitazioni politiche contingenti, e che ad esse sempre ritorna, senza preoccuparsi di conservare una 'coerenza' ideale resa di fatto impossibile dall'evolversi incessante degli avvenimenti e degli scenari" (16). In short, Machiavelli's thought evolved over the course of his writing career; thus it cannot, for Bausi, be reduced to any discrete ideological formula. This statement is best illustrated by the study devoted in the fifth chapter to the Discorsi sulla prima Deca di Tito Livio, traditionally and tenaciously deemed the theoretical stronghold of Machiavelli's republicanism. Philology is the author's best ally in this enterprise, because his arguments are largely based on textual evidence (it is worth mentioning here that in 2001 Bausi had published a well-received critical edition with commentary of the Discorsi for the Edizione Nazionale delle Opere di N. M.). By carefully investigating the labyrinthine redaction of the Discorsi and by reconstructing its extended chronology (163–69), he draws our attention to the extraordinary amount of contradictions , theoretical aporiae, weighty historical inaccuracies—in part already highlighted by the best recent Machiavelli scholarship—that subverts the work's originary conception, permeated by a juvenile adherence to a strict republican project, and that reflect Machiavelli's developing predilection for unitary solutions of political issues (all the more post res perditas, i.e. after 1512, when Machiavelli seeks to capture the Medici's sympathy and favor upon their return to Florence after the exile).

This leads us directly to the heart of the Principe: having many of its relevant compositional features in common with the Discorsi (i.e. its lengthy incubation, its provisional status, its posthumous publication, etc.) the opusculum presents the same politically "fluid" Machiavelli that we saw above. Bausi points out that what may appear as incoherence also arises from the fact that some of the theoretical positions of ser Niccolò are significantly overcome by political considerations. Symptomatic of this is the case of the Magnifico's grandson, the young Lorenzo, soon to become duke of Urbino, to whom his uncle Giovanni de' Medici, elected pope Leo X in 1513, left the care of Florentine affairs. The first redaction of the Principe dates to the same year, and chapters IX and X are devoted to the theme of the "principato civile." As Bausi explains in one of the book's densest sections (203ff.), this political category—among the most debated by Machiavelli scholars—indicates, as opposed to the "principato assoluto," "un regime intermedio fra la repubblica e il principato propriamente detto, o meglio una forma di governo sostanzialmente monarchica ma nondimeno esercitata all'interno di uno stato repubblicano . . . una sorta di principato 'dissimulato,' un potere di fatto monarchico ma esercitato nell'àmbito di uno stato che conserva, almeno a livello formale, istituzioni repubblicane" (204). Bausi convincingly argues that there is a direct link between Machiavelli's decision to devote a large section...