Liberty, Prudence, Imperfection, and Law

Discourses on Livy: III.26-29

James Madison

III.26–29

There is no doubt, in our time or in Machiavelli’s, that women have an important role to play in the life of the state. But just what is that role? We might think in terms of suffrage, equal rights, or grrrl power. Machiavelli, however, doesn’t take such a developmental or progressive view. Having told a story about a mixed marriage that led to civil unrest that led to the conquest of the state, he concludes:

…one sees that women have been causes of much ruin, and have done great harm to those who govern a city, and have caused many divisions in them. (III.26.2)

In fairness, men have historically done far more “harm to those who govern a city” and been the cause of far more divisions in the state than women have ever dreamed of. And I say this as someone who would by no means be classified as a modern feminist (despite my persistent belief that women should be able to vote, hold office, and be paid the same as men for doing the same work). In some ways, this section really does seem unnecessary and ill-thought-out—conditions made worse by the section’s brevity. Of course, we might have even stronger reactions to a longer reflection by Machiavelli on the role of women in the state. Yet a longer essay at least wouldn’t have the feel of so casually and thoughtlessly dismissive an opinion that this section has.

Still, Machiavelli seems to be aiming at something worthwhile, whatever the value of his conclusions. In these last few discourses he is reflecting on the relationships between leaders and the people in a state and the role those relationships have in the decline and collapse of a nation. Women do need to be included in such a reflection, I’m just not sure Machiavelli has really given their role the thought it deserves. If you want to read a different perspective on the place of women in the Middle Ages, Christine de Pizan’s Treasure of the City of Ladies is an excellent place to begin.


Machiavelli uses this discussion to spring into a reflection on how to properly unite a state divided into warring factions. He thinks there are three options, of which only one is truly effective:

1) Kill the leaders of the factions and force the rest to live together;

2) Exile the leaders of the factions and force the rest to live together;

3) Force the leaders of the factions to be at peace with each other and to promise to play nice in the future.

“Of these three modes, this last is the most harmful, least certain, and most useless” (III.27.1). To be fair, Machiavelli is considering a state that appears to have been through some form of extreme civil war (based on the examples he provides). When so much blood has been shed,

it is impossible… that a peace made by force last, since every day they together look themselves in the face; and it is difficult for them to abstain from injuring one another, since every day new causes of quarrel can arise among them through interchange. (III.27.1)

The second option does work to some extent, but not nearly as well as the first, since it always involves the possibility of one side or the other making a return and bringing back civil strife. Alas, people these days are wimps and refuse to follow the strict examples of the past by executing those who divide a state. “The weakness of men at present, caused by their weak education and their slight knowledge of things, makes them judge ancient judgments in part inhuman, in part impossible” (III.27.2).

Whether one adopts the first or second option, in either case the recognition must be that ruling a divided state is impossible. At the end of the day, the government will find that

it is impossible for you to maintain both these parties [in the divided state] friendly to yourself, whether you govern them as prince or as republic. For it is given by nature to men to take sides in any divided thing whatever, and for this to please them more than that. (III.27.3)

This is especially pernicious in a republic, where the two factions will race each other into corruption in an attempt to get the upper hand over and above the other. And whenever the government takes one side in a given issue (however just and right it may be that they do so), the other side automatically becomes rebellious.

I’ve mentioned this before, but here Machiavelli is in exact agreement with Madison and the Federalist Papers. In Federalist 10, Madison comments on the danger of faction:

The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations.

While Madison believes the Constitution rather than the gallows is the solution to the problem of faction, his view of the root issue is functionally the same.


Yet another danger to the state is… mercy. That is, the state is endangered when the rich and powerful use mercy to buy support for themselves in their bid for power. “Here,” Machiavelli says, “it is to be noted that many times works that appear merciful, which cannot reasonably be condemned, become cruel and are very dangerous for a republic…” (III.28.1). Obviously such works cannot be forbidden by a strong state—not least because “a republic without reputed citizens cannot stand” (III.28.1). The state which does not have the kind of people willing to give and serve generously is a wicked republic and will collapse; yet the citizens who are willing to give and serve generously are those who gain the sort of reputation that becomes the foundation for tyranny.

The best way to offset this danger, according to Machiavelli, is to maintain a clear and publicly acknowledged (even legally acknowledged) separation between different kinds of charitable works. Works that are done in public, through public means, and for the good of the public are to be encouraged by the state and rewarded with the appropriate reputation. Charitable works, however, that are done privately, through private means, and for the personal aggrandizement of the benefactor are to be condemned—and maybe even punished.


If a principality does begin to decline, its prince has no one to blame but himself. The people always imitate what they see in their leadership. If the leader is greedy, the people become greedy. If he is violent, they become violent. And so on. While this principle may not work as a stand-alone political idea, in the context of Machiavelli’s discussion of the collapse of a state it is an important note. The organic and causal relationship between the governors and the governed has to be a part of our overall analysis of the collapse of the state.

 

Coyle Neal is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Missouri.

6 Responses to “Discourses on Livy: III.26-29”

  1. wlindsaywheeler

    As we can see today, America is all but in faction. America is a legion of factions.

    This is why you can’t have free speech. Sparta was a successful republic for it controlled the culture for the longest time. Polybius praised it greatly. The whole plan of Lycurgus was to prevent faction from the beginning. “An ounce of prevention, is worth a pound of cure”. Wisdom that is.

    And that is what is wrong in America—women having the right to vote. This is what ended America. If you are into the Bible, God says that women are to be subjected to men. Women are easily decieved. Hitler’s power was in part due to the voting of women. Look at how women gushed over Kennedy? Scandalous. Many voted for him because of his looks. What man does that? Women voted in Obama and Clinton. By droves. If you take the Biblical lesson seriously, is not the man the head of the household? Is he not the representative of the family? So why should the woman cancel out his vote?

    This is why I don’t vote anymore. How can I be a man, when a woman can cancel out my vote? It is insanity. Leadership is Male. That is not only a Biblical teaching but is a teaching of the Natural Law. (It is a title of a book stressing the biblical teaching on that regard.) We wouldn’t be living in Marxist America if it wasn’t for the woman vote. Women have absolutely no business in the public sphere or in voting. Leadership is Male; it is the Male perogative. It is the Natural Order. Socialism/Marxism teaches women in politics because they are easily swayed and decieved. God put women under man’s guidance for their protection. Remove women and give them liberty, and you have Satan ruling. That is why America is going to hell in a handbasket. It is an idiocracy. Insanity rules in America. No, the historical record shows that women should never have anything to do with politics.

    Reply
    • Coyle Neal

      I suspect that Machiavelli would want me to point out that you’re looking at things wrong–by voting, you cancel out some woman’s vote, not the other way around.

      More seriously, I’d suggest you’re reading something into Scripture that’s not actually there. The Bible simply has little to say about the sort of government we should have, including saying anything to whether men should lead or women should vote. It’s on a different topic, but this piece in its 4th point speaks pretty well (and briefly) to that idea:

      “So here’s the point: if the Bible fails to lay out a blueprint for abolition, why would it lay out a blueprint to overturn systemic racism, or criminality, or fatherlessness? Instead, the Bible speaks of how we are to live as Christian individuals in an unjust world: loving our neighbors of every race, abiding by the laws, and owning up to our family responsibilities.”

      In this context, asking whether the Bible says that leadership as a virtue is inherently masculine in the public sphere (as opposed to in the church) is moot; we live in a world that does not confirm to Biblical values–a fact which in no way affects our obligations as believers to the state.

      Which isn’t to say there aren’t occasionally good reasons not to vote. For example, with the exception of the Presidential election, I make it a point never to vote for someone I haven’t personally met. But in most regular circumstances, perfect conformity to Biblical truth should not be a requirement for our participation.

      Anyway, just my five cents–I do appreciate the comment!

      https://chantrynotes.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/what-voddie-said-and-didnt/

      Reply

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

%d bloggers like this: