Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
* The authors wish to thank Professor Tim Duvall and Ms. Allison Hinson for help in the
initial conceptualization of this essay. A version of this essay was presented to the International
Society for Intellectual History Conference on “Quarrels, Polemics, Controversies” at Trinity
College, Cambridge, July 2001.
1. Originally published in 1961 and republished in revised form in Hans Baron, In Search of
Florentine Civic Humanism: Essays on the Transition from Medieval to Modern Thought, 2 vols.
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), I, pp. 101–151.
2. The position famously advanced by Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli (Glencoe, IL:
Free Press, 1958).
3. Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1978), I, pp. 113–189 passim; Skinner, Machiavelli (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1981); and J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1975), pp. 156–218.
82
Liberty, Security, and the Kingdom of France in Machiavelli 83
accurate, seems satisfying neither intellectually nor in light of the manifest lin-
guistic continuities across his corpus.4
In recent times, however, the dichotomous approach within Machiavelli
scholarship has increasingly been eroded and replaced with a line of interpreta-
tion that identifies a middle ground as his starting point—a kind of “broad band”
framework that can embrace both monarchic and republican institutions and
systems of rule. One version of this thesis, associated with Friedrich Meinecke and
lately propounded by Harvey Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov, holds that
Machiavelli’s “republicanism was of a rather special sort” (in the words of Maurizio
Viroli), able to endorse monarchism as conducive to the republican cause.5 Along
similar lines, Nicholai Rubinstein has argued that Machiavelli’s conception of
vivere politico or vivere civile designates a generic “constitutional order,” indiffer-
ent to institutional arrangements.6 Developing Rubinstein’s case, Janet Coleman
has asserted that Machiavelli’s supposed indifference to regime type—“un vivere
politico can be either a republic or a monarchy”—reflects his extension of a quin-
tessentially medieval belief “about the liberty that . . . was natural to political men
and which the ‘state,’ monarchy or republic, was meant to acknowledge and
secure.”7 For these scholars, therefore, the alleged tension between Machiavelli-
the-republican and Machiavelli-the-monarchist is illusory and perhaps a product
of anachronism.
One of the main pieces of evidence supporting this attempt to locate
Machiavelli’s political thought on a middle ground between monarchy and repub-
lic is his repeated and effusive praise for the political arrangements of France,
alongside those of Sparta, Venice, and Rome. The French state in the early six-
teenth century was already well on its way toward the structures that would yield
the classic absolutist regime one hundred years later. Throughout his writings, but
especially in the Discourses, Machiavelli lauds the contemporary French monar-
chy for its law-abiding character, its constitutionality, and its success at calming the
feudal chaos of earlier centuries. In this—perhaps surprising—commendation of
France, Rubinstein finds confirmation that “Machiavelli’s vivere politico encom-
passes both republics and monarchies . . . He firmly believed that a constitutional
4. The charge of inconsistency is leveled, for instance, by Felix Gilbert, Machiavelli and
Guiccardini (New York: Norton, 1984), pp. 166–167. One recent attempt to refute this view is
Marcus Fischer, Well-Ordered License: On the Unity of Machiavelli’s Thought (Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books, 2000).
5. Maurizio Viroli, Machiavelli (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 115.
6. Nicolai Rubinstein, “The History of the Word Politicus in Early-Modern Europe,” in
Anthony Pagden, ed., The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 52–53. Also see Rubinstein’s “Italian Political Thought,
1450–1530,” in J. H. Burns and Mark Goldie, ed., The Cambridge History of Political Thought,
1450–1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 41–58.
7. Janet Coleman, “Structural Realities of Power: The Theory and Practice of Monarchies
and Republics in Relation to Personal and Collective Liberty,” in Martin Gosman, Arjo
Vanderjagt, and Jan Veenstra, eds., The Propagation of Power in the Medieval West (Gronigen:
Egbert Forsten, 1998), pp. 218, 230. Coleman has more recently reiterated this interpretation in
her A History of Political Thought: From the Middle Ages to the Renaissance (Oxford: Blackwell,
2000), pp. 266–271.
84 Cary J. Nederman and Tatiana V. Gómez
order could be achieved by either. The one contemporary monarchy which repre-
sented such an order was, according to him, that of France.”8 Likewise, Coleman
asserts, “Machiavelli firmly believed that a constitutional order could be achieved
by either a monarchy or a republic and he thought that in his own time, the French
monarchy had achieved it.”9 Machiavelli’s remarks about France, then, highlight
the possibility that he was less committed to a fixed set of political institutions than
to a general principle of good political order.
The intent of the present paper is to challenge this “generic” constitutional-
ist reading of Machiavelli and to help restore to him the status of a profoundly
republican thinker.10 Our central claim is that Machiavelli consistently and clearly
distinguishes between a minimal and a full conception of “political” or “civil”
order, and thus constructs a hierarchy of ends within his general account of com-
munal life. A minimal constitutional order is one in which subjects live securely
(vivere sicuro), ruled by a strong government that holds in check the aspirations
of both nobility and people, but is in turn balanced by other legal and institutional
mechanisms. Such is the character of monarchic government in France. In a fully
constitutional regime, however, the goal of the political order is the freedom of
the community (vivere libero), created by the active participation of, and con-
tention between, the nobility and the people. Only in a republic, for which
Machiavelli expresses a well-known preference, may this goal be attained. Hence,
our conclusion is that the significance of Machiavelli’s commendation of France,
as evidence for his supposed indifference to regime type, has been seriously
misunderstood and even distorted by some recent scholarship.
MACHIAVELLI’S FRANCE
14. Mark Hulliung, Citizen Machiavelli (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983),
p. 149.
15. See Cadoni, Machiavelli; Nicola Matteucci, “Machiavelli Politologo,” in Myron Gilmore,
ed., Studies on Machiavelli (Florence: Sansoni, 1972), pp. 209–248.
16. Bertelli, ed., Arte Della Guerra e Scritti Politici Minori, pp. 146–147.
17. Ibid., p. 164. An English translation of this tract has never been published, to our knowl-
edge; we have completed one that we plan to publish in the near future.
18. On the legal and political history behind this process, see Charles T. Wood, The French
Apanages and the Capetian Monarchy 1224–1328 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1966).
19. Bertelli, ed., Arte Della Guerra e Scritti Politici Minori, p. 165.
20. Ibid., p. 169.
21. Ibid., pp. 172–174.
22. Ibid., pp. 166, 168, 173.
23. Ibid., pp. 169, 173.
86 Cary J. Nederman and Tatiana V. Gómez
resentment toward the nobles who directly govern the populace. Since the king
cannot depend upon his own subjects to fight in his army, he must turn to merce-
naries, who are costly and unreliable.24 On Machiavelli’s account, the military is
the only significant weakness of the French kingdom.
The Ritratto seems to provide the source material for the appraisal of French
government and society that appears in Machiavelli’s later work. Many of its
observations recur, although now placed in a developed and sophisticated theo-
retical framework. Interestingly, Machiavelli makes relatively little comment about
the French monarchy in The Prince, instead incorporating most of his analysis of
the topic into his great work of republican thought, the Discourses.25 (There are
also some references to the circumstances of France in several other writings, such
as A Discourse on Remodelling the Government of Florence and The Art of War.)
The discussion in The Prince, however, summarizes Machiavelli’s mature attitude
toward the strengths of the French regime. He recognizes that the strength of the
king of France derives from his relationship with the barons, over whom he exer-
cises effective control (despite their apparent independence) and who in turn assist
him in governing the subjects.26 Indeed, Machiavelli contends that this general
means of arranging political rule is so successful that “it is impossible to hold
without difficulty states organized like France.”27 In France, then, the unity of the
ruling elite is the source of royal strength.
Such strength is explicitly praised in chapter 19 of The Prince. In the context
of substantiating the claim that the wise prince strives neither to harass the mag-
nates nor to disturb the contentment of the people, Machiavelli states, “Among the
best well-ordered and well-governed kingdoms of our time is that of France.” He
thereby returns to the observation of the Ritratto concerning the social founda-
tions of French rule, this time pointing to the role of the Parlement in deflecting
the resentment of both the nobility and the people toward the crown. In France,
he says,
are found infinite good institutions on which the liberty and security of the
king depend. Of those, the first is Parlement and its authority. Because the
orderer of that kingdom, knowing the ambition of the powerful and their
insolence, and judging that it was necessary to rein (correggere) them in with
a bridle, and, on the other hand, knowing the hatred of the masses against
the great, founded on fear, and wanting to secure (assicurare) them, he did
not want their care to be the king’s particular duty, in order to take away the
burden that he could incur from the great by favoring the people, and from
the people by favoring the great . . .
24. Bertelli, ed., Arte Della Guerra e Scritti Politici Minori, p. 166.
25. References to Machiavelli’s major works will be to Francesco Flora and Carlo Cordià,
eds., Tutte le Opere di Niccolò Machiavelli, 2 vols. (Milan: Arnoldo Mandadori, 1949–1950). Trans-
lations are our own. Citations will be given to the chapter numbers from these works, followed
parenthetically by the volume and page number from the Italian edition.
26. Machiavelli, Il Principe, 3, 4 (I, pp. 7, 14–15).
27. Ibid., 4 (I, p. 15).
Liberty, Security, and the Kingdom of France in Machiavelli 87
VIVERE SICURO
At first glance, the presence of Machiavelli’s most extensive remarks about the
French king and kingdom in the Discourses rather than The Prince might seem
odd, if we uphold the image of him as a dedicated republican. Why would
Machiavelli effusively praise (let alone even analyze) a hereditary monarchy in a
work supposedly designed to promote the superiority of republics? The answer,
we think, stems from Machiavelli’s aim to contrast the best case scenario of a
monarchic regime with the institutions and organization of a republic. Even the
most excellent monarchy, in Machiavelli’s view, lacks certain salient qualities
that are endemic to well-ordered republican government and that make the latter
constitution more desirable than the former.
While Machiavelli’s treatment of France in the Discourses echoes some of
the themes touched upon in the Ritratto and The Prince, he also introduces impor-
tant new elements into the analysis. In particular, he asserts that the greatest virtue
of the French kingdom and its king is the dedication to law. “The kingdom of
France is moderated more by laws than any other kingdom of which at our time
we have knowledge,” Machiavelli declares.31 In explaining this situation,
Machiavelli refers to the function of the Parlement. “The kingdom of France,” he
states, lives under more laws and orders than any other kingdom. “These laws and
orders are maintained by Parlements, notably that of Paris: by it they are renewed
any time it acts against a prince of the kingdom or in its sentences condemns the
king. And up to now it has maintained itself by having been a persistent executor
against that nobility.”32 These passages of the Discourses seem to suggest that
Machiavelli has great admiration for the institutional arrangements that obtain in
France. Specifically, the French king and the nobles, whose power is such that they
would be able to oppress the populace, are checked by the laws of the realm that
are enforced by the independent authority of the Parlement. Thus, opportunities
for unbridled tyrannical conduct are largely eliminated, rendering the monarchy
temperate and “civil.”
Yet such a regime, no matter how well ordered and law abiding, remains
incompatible with vivere libero. Discussing the ability of a monarch to meet the
people’s wish for liberty, Machiavelli comments that “as far as the . . . popular
desire of recovering their liberty, the prince, not being able to satisfy them, must
examine what the reasons are that make them desire being free.” He concludes
that a few individuals want freedom simply in order to command others; these, he
believes, are of sufficiently small number that they can either be eradicated or
bought off with honors. By contrast, the vast majority of people confuse liberty
with security, imagining that the former is identical to the latter: “But all the others,
who are infinite, desire liberty in order to live securely (vivere sicuro).” Although
the king cannot give such liberty to the masses, he can provide the security that
they crave:
As for the rest, for whom it is enough to live securely (vivere sicuro), they
are easily satisfied by making orders and laws that, along with the power of
the king, comprehend everyone’s security. And once a prince does this, and
the people see that he never breaks such laws, they will shortly begin to live
securely (vivere sicuro) and contentedly.
Machiavelli then applies this general principle directly to the case of France,
remarking that “the people live securely (vivere sicuro) for no other reason than
that its kings are bound to infinite laws in which the security of all their people is
comprehended.”33 This is not to say that the French king lacks absolute authority
in certain matters, such as the military and public finance; but his power is not, as
Matteucci notes, “arbitrary.”34 Machiavelli’s larger point here is that the law-
abiding character of the French regime ensures security, but that security, while
desirable, ought never to be confused with liberty. This is the limit of monarchic
rule: even the best kingdom can do no better than to guarantee to its people tran-
quil and orderly government.
Machiavelli holds that one of the consequences of such vivere sicuro is the
disarmament of the people. Reiterating the observation he makes in the Ritratto,
he comments that regardless of “how great his kingdom is,” the king of France
“lives as a tributary” to foreign mercenaries.
This all comes from having disarmed his people and having preferred . . . to
enjoy the immediate profit of being able to plunder the people and of avoid-
ing an imaginary rather than a real danger, instead of doing things that would
assure them and make their states perpetually happy. This disorder, if it pro-
duces some quiet times, is in time the cause of straitened circumstances,
damage and irreparable ruin.35
A state that makes security a priority cannot afford to arm its populace, for fear
that the masses will employ their weapons against the nobility (or perhaps the
crown). Yet at the same time, such a regime is weakened irredeemably, since it
must depend upon foreigners to fight on its behalf. In this sense, any government
that takes vivere sicuro as its goal generates a passive and impotent populace as a
inescapable result. By definition, such a society can never be free in Machiavelli’s
sense of vivere libero, and hence is only minimally, rather than completely, politi-
cal or civil.
that citizens will always fight for their liberty—against internal as well as external
oppressors. Indeed, this is precisely why successive French monarchs have left their
people disarmed: they sought to maintain public security and order, which for them
meant the elimination of any opportunities for their subjects to wield arms. The
French regime, because it seeks security above all else (for the people as well as
for their rulers), cannot permit what Machiavelli takes to be a primary means of
promoting liberty.
The case of disarmament is an illustration of a larger difference between
minimally constitutional systems such as France and fully political communities
such as the Roman republic, namely, the status of the classes within the society. In
France, as we have seen, the people are entirely passive and the nobility is largely
dependent upon the king, according to Machiavelli’s own observations. By con-
trast, in a republic, where the realization of liberty is paramount, both the people
and the nobility must take an active (and sometimes clashing) role in self-
government.38 The liberty of the whole, for Machiavelli, depends upon the liberty
of its component parts. In his famous discussion of this subject in the Discourses,
he remarks,
To me those who condemn the tumults between the Nobles and the Plebs
seem to be caviling at the very thing that was the primary cause of Rome’s
retention of liberty . . . And they do not realize that in every republic there
are two different dispositions, that of the people and that of the great men,
and that all legislation favoring liberty is brought about by their dissension.39
38. A point underscored by Neal Wood, “The Value of Asocial Sociability: The Contributions
of Machiavelli, Sidney and Montesquieu,” in Martin Fleischer, eds., Machiavelli and the Nature
of Political Thought (New York: Atheneum, 1972), pp. 287–291. Also see Benedetto Fontana,
“Machiavelli and the Rhetoric of Republican Liberty,” presented at the 2000 Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
39. Machiavelli, Discorsi, 1.4 (I, p. 104).
40. Ibid., 1.4 (I, p. 104).
41. Ibid., 1.6 (I, p. 112).
Liberty, Security, and the Kingdom of France in Machiavelli 91
conducive to the common good than does the closed conversation of the royal
court.
CONCLUSION
48. For some other aspects of the superiority of republics over principalities, see Cary J.
Nederman, “Machiavelli and Moral Character: Principality, Republic, and the Psychology of
Virtù,” History of Political Thought 21 (Summer 2000), pp. 349–364.
49. Maurizio Viroli, For Love of Country (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). We tend to agree
with the view espoused by Jean Bethke Elshtain: “The citizen = the self-sufficient, armed warrior
= the armed militia = armed civic virtue/the popular state: this is the Machiavellian recipe for civic
autonomy” (Women and War [New York: Basic Books, 1987], p. 57); she follows a position pio-
neered by John Pocock.
50. See Cary J. Nederman, “Amazing France: Fortune, God, and Free Will in Machiavelli’s
Thought,” Journal of the History of Ideas 60 (1999), pp. 619–620 and note 12.
51. A position defended, for example, by Roger D. Masters, Machiavelli, Leonardo, and the
Science of Power (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996), p. 338; and Nederman,
“Machiavelli and Moral Character,” pp. 363–364.
Liberty, Security, and the Kingdom of France in Machiavelli 93
52. Antony Black, “Harmony and Strife in Political Thought c. 1300–1500,” in Sozialer
Wandel im Mittelalter, ed. Jürgen Miethke and Klaus Schreiner (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke
Verlag, 1994), pp. 361–362.