Of Virt and La Mandragola Alex DeRue 9/13/2011

Delving into the realm of the Italian Renaissance one rarely gets far without encountering a curious word, a favorite of the times across the Apennine Peninsula for playwrights and political thinkers alike, but an outlandish, puzzling concept to Western society today: virt. Defining this word poses a challenge, as its meaning was evolving as rapidly as Italian society in the Renaissance, and its connotations, matched to the social affluence of its speaker. At the most basic level it can be defined as the attitude and the accompanying set of behaviors that set one man above another, made him better in whatever role he played or sought in life. Analyzing it further though one quickly discerns its meaning depended on the age and region of its use, from the warrior creed and camaraderie of Northern Italy of the 13th and 14th centuries, to the aristocratic ideology in full bloom to the South at the turn of the 16th century. Within the works of Niccol Machiavelli, particularly Il Principe or The Prince, its often found at the heart of his debates, taking up not simply a suggestion of strength, but of cunning and the willingness to do whatever may be necessary so long as the ends justify the means. However this sea of history, social rank, and political theory that embodies virt is most easily explained within the comedic plays that enthralled nearly all the population of the Renaissance, albeit the beffa or the central joke of the play typically does better to illuminate and shame the man without, rather than the one with. Machiavellis La mandragola or The Mandrake Root is certainly no exception, telling the tale of how an old fool of a lawyer is tricked into putting his wife in bed with her would-be lover, clearly denoting Messer Nicia as the man whose virtu is apparent only to himself. The real question from the piece is: Who truly embodies Machiavellian virtu? A first glance might suggest Callimaco, the young lover, who finds his way from Paris to Lucrezias bed on whim, but rather it was fortune, born of Messer Nicias slowed cerebrum and Ligurios calculated plans, which thrust him forward in his pursuit. Ironically it would seem Lucrezia rather, is vested with it, adapting rapidly to an ever-changing situation and obligating of some of her motives, the likes of which might not appear to match her virtuous public persona. Her namesake and the misogyny of the age, do well to conceal this, but in his quiet duel with the Medici who had ousted him from his native Florence upon their return to power, Machiavellis suggestion of Lucrezias virt

would have some powerful implications. The other contender for Machiavellian virt, is Ligurio, whose, previously alluded to planning and sheer skill and cunning, led the story from scene to scene, and are nearly the very definition of Machiavellian virt. His motives are even harder to determine and make his presence almost unsettling at times, and leaves the question which of these characters truly embody the virt, Machiavelli sought to show Florence it was missing. The motivations and actions of Lucrezias character throughout the piece suggest a great deal of virt as Machiavelli considered it, despite her absence from many pivotal scenes and often being spoken for rather than speaking herself. Her namesake from the common fable of the time, the Rape of Lucrezia, and her introduction to the audience, as a woman praised so highly for both her beauty and her manners, (I.i) and so virtuous and totally against the games of love, (I.i) that her motives are easily lost with this intended perception of her. She does however, have major motivation within the play, particularly to bare a child. And to put it bluntly, she doesnt simply want a child as Messer Nicia, but needs one for as her mother stated, a woman who doesnt have children doesnt have a secure home, (III.xi) because once, her husband dies, she is abandoned by everyone. (III.xi) Her well-being is dependent upon a child apparently by Messer Nicia to ensure his familys continued support of her. However, she hasnt been able to have a child by him, a fault for which he always places the blame upon her. Machiavelli however stated in The Prince that The desire to acquire things is truly very natural and ordinary, and when men who can do so are successful, they will always be praised and not blamed (Chapter 3) and Lucrezia found a means by which she could acquire what she wanted successfully. Albeit she was initially against the means by which was to be done, she consented upon hearing the Friars case for the clear good and the uncertain evil, (III.xi), a restatement of Machiavellis argument for the ends justifying the means or vices inherent in his brand of virt. Bearing in mind her husbands disregard for her safety in this and prior endeavors for pregnancy and the frequency with which he leaves their house cursing the pain in the neck (II.v) its not an unreasonable assumption that shes unhappy with him, and although her virtue or perhaps simply the locked door of their home prevents her, she is in fact seeking something more. Again she encounters this and through her own virt, adapts with haste, not only accepting her new lover but ensuring shell be able to see him whenever she likes, informing her husband she holds him in the highest regard and I want him to be our close friend, (V.vi) to which the old fool happily complies and hands him the key to their house. Some might argue that this is

vilification of her virtuous nature and that all these suggested examples of virt could be tied to Christian value or, as she herself suggests in the fourth scene of the fifth act, fate. However one must bear the author in mind, and one passage in particular from The Prince in which he suggests to the princes vested with virt, that it is useful, to appear-and to be- merciful, loyal, humane, forthright, and religious, but to have your mind disposed so that, when it is necessary not to be that way, you will be ready and able to change to the opposite. (Chapter 18) That passage perfectly defines Lucrezias evolution throughout the play. In light of all this, one might go so far as to theorize Machiavelli is implying that the most virt to be found in now-again Medici Florence, the now disgraced Florence they forced him from, is vested with a woman, not to rule out Ligurio already but as his nature suggests, he is something foreign to the Florence in question. Ligurio epitomizes Machiavellian virt throughout the piece, as his pervasive cunning allows him to string together every scene with a hand of the steadiest manipulator. Without his guidance Callimaco would have been lost, raving with passion, but instead Ligurio, did as all wise princes should: they have to look not only to present dangers but also future and make every attempt to forestall them. (Chapter 3) This quote from The Prince seems to have defined Ligurios role, him having been the one to recognize, Some man could turn up there who likes Madonna Lucrezia as much as you [Callimaco] do, and he could be richer and more attractive (I.iii), and all other potential dangers that lay in the path and having adapted the plan in light of these and steadily Callimacos prevailing intent to die, to not be months off at the baths, but simply a matter of days. Perhaps one of his most cunning devices, which exhibits not only that Machiavellian maxim but another as well, takes place in the fourth scene of the third act, upon first contacting the Friar within the church. He spews the obscene tale of the pregnant nun seeking an abortion to test the Friar and then exact the comparatively simpler deed of telling a pious girl to allow herself to be raped, which in practice matches The Prince s ideal of, what prudent archers do when the place they wish to hit appears very distant they aim much higher than the target to be able to hit their target. (Chapter 6) Without question Ligurio exhibits the behavior of virt, its simply a matter of determining what motives truly drive him in the Machiavellian sense, what ends justify his means. Given his profession as marriage broker on his way to running a prostitution ring, this deed might seem simply an extension of his work, and consequently a source of income. However with how rarely his pay is mentioned and deeply

invested Ligurio is with this ridiculous scheme, serving not only Callimaco, but Messer Nicia as well, it seems to well beyond simple business. This lack of clear motivation beyond theoretical power hed have over the new couple, to extract further coin, makes him a very unnatural character within a play in which all other major players have rigidly defined motivation. The dramatis personae describes him as a parasite which certainly is a product of his less than reputable line of work leeching off Florence, but also suggests his unnatural, foreign presence as an outsider among those who are a part of the city. With this notion, his exemplary virt, and the way he apparently manufactures each scenario as though he were writing the play himself, it seems Ligurio is not simply Machiavellian but in fact, embodies Machiavelli himself. If such were the case the old fool of a lawyer would then be allegorical to Medici banking aristocracy, which Machiavelli considered without virt and reason why Italy was had fallen so far. Continuing with this allegory of Messer Nicia and all who responded to Messer and di Medici, Ligurios motivation would simply be Machiavelli playing out his hatred for those who forced him from his native Florence and a reinforcement of his threat at the opening of the play that, wherever Italian is spoken he fears no one, even though he may play the servant to those who are more powerful than he. (Introduction) Machiavelli suggests to Medici, how vulnerable they truly are in the public sphere whereas all of Italy is his realm. And although they might not see their own faults, believing in their own virtu, the public will see this is your Florence, (Introduction), this Messer Nicia, this fool without virt is your Medici, regardless of whether the parasite to expose it goes by Ligurio, Machiavelli or any other name. Virt pervades both Ligurio and Lucrezias characters without question. But as to who truly represents Machiavellian virt, Ligurio does so only in practice, not in motive unless one gives credence to him as incarnation of the author, and so that would raise Lucrezia to that pedestal. And I believe this is how Machiavelli truly intended it, challenging the Medici, opening with the statement, that this was their Florence and that it was because of their presence, that ancient virt has been entirely lost today. (Introduction) and by the end of the play having scoured all the characters of Florence, the one with the most virt, is in fact, a woman. Ligurio exists somewhere outside that Florence, narrating every scene to be sure no one can miss the woman, fit to manage a kingdom. (I.iii)