descending to the particulars the palazzo, the piazza, and machiavellis republican modes and

8/12/2019 Descending to the Particulars the Palazzo, The Piazza, And Machiavellis Republican Modes And

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/descending-to-the-particulars-the-palazzo-the-piazza-and-machiavellis-republican 1/14

Southern Political Science ssociation

Descending to the Particulars: The Palazzo, the Piazza, and Machiavelli's Republican Modes andOrdersAuthor(s): Timothy J. LukesSource: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 71, No. 2 (Apr., 2009), pp. 520-532Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30218968 .Accessed: 13/03/2014 15:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and Southern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Politics.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=spsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30218968?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/30218968?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=spsa

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup



Descendingo theParticulars:hePalazzo,ThePiazza, ndMachiavelli'sepublicanModes nd Orders

Timothy.Lukes antaClaraUniversity

Scholarsf atehave ttemptedo mplicate achiavellin their arious akes nrepublicantraditions, ut heirtendentiousnessbscures clear icture fMachiavelli's wnthinking.hekey ounderstandingachiavelli'sconceptf he epublic,hichequiresewmodes ndorders,s his omparisonf he iazzaand the alazzo.Wherethehyperbolend rresponsibilityf he iazzaretardepublicanevelopment,he eliberatenessnd detail f hepalazzo nspiren indispensableophistication.heresponsiveepublicecognizeslementsn ocietyapable f hepalazzomentalitynd djusts uthorityelativeo he apacitiesfts onstituents.show hatMachiavelli'sngagingaccount

fhe

Ciompiebellionscentralo

understandingisrepublican usings.

iccol6 Machiavellisaysthat he writes bout

princes nhis book called I Principe nd thathe writes about republics n his book that

revisits ivy's history f the Roman republic. n thisbookpurportedlyn republics,heDiscorsi,Machiavelli

begins by comparinghimself o Columbus, claimingto have discoverednew ground, new modes andorders [Machiavelli1960, 123 [Discourses roem]),1upon which to establish eprises f the Roman arche-type. believe Machiavelliwhen he sayshis Discorsiare about republics, nd thatwhat he has to sayabout

republics s new. This essay s myendorsement f his

credibility.Ofcourse, demonstration hat n eminentwriter

does what he sayshe is goingto do is not normallysufficiento justify cholarly nterest. n the case ofMachiavelli's reatmentf republics, owever,t is

difficulto find commentatorhat s satisfied ithMachiavelli'sandor. hereason or his oesbeyondMachiavelli's otorious omplexitynd is, rather,animated y nclinationsfthe ommentatorshem-selves. or unlike rincedoms,epublicsepresentomany, especiallyn the anglophone lluviumofLocke,2 viable and preferablelternativeo thehegemonyf atomistic nd appetitiveiberalism.3

The lastpage of Pocock's monumental epublicangenealogy, uch f tdevoted oMachiavelli,etrayshis disappointment ith the ''impoverishment(1975, 552) of contemporaryiberalism nd hissympathy iththe worldof Lycurgusver thatofPericles.

For Pocock and his colleaguesknown as theCambridge chool, 4Machiavelli as come to be

considered sanctuaryn themigrationf ancient

l modied ordininuovi. The translationsf Machiavelli re mine ndpurposelyavor lumsy ccuracy verfluidity.heoriginalItalian, rom heFeltrinelliditions,s included nfootnotes,nd thepagecitations re to those ditions.

2The ension am about odescriben theEnglishiteratures for hemostpart nticipated,lbeitmore linically,yGennaro asso,perhaps hemostrenowned f Machiavelli cholars. or tsmost conomical ecitationee Sasso 1964,47-51).

3Perhapshemostdrasticxample f this s McCormick2003),whoargues hatMachiavellis actually against epublicanism. orMcCormick,modernrepublicanism eansnothingmore than a semblance f competitionmongelites o rule over a mostlydisinterestedopulace, nd so he implores 2003,616) the ikes fPetitt,ocock nd Viroli o desistnassociating achiavelli ithrepublics,ince ttaintswhat ught o be hisgood populist ame.Butprecluding republican achiavelli ecause fcontemporarymisrepresentationsf theconcepts obviously roblematic.

4For pecificss to the dherentsftheCambridgechool, ee McCormick2003).

TheJournal fPolitics,Vol. 71,No. 2,April 009,Pp. 520-532A 2009 Southern olitical cienceAssociation

doi:10.1017/S0022381609090434ISSN 0022-3816

520

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:01:29 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions






THE PALAZZO, THE PIAZZA, AND MACHIAVELLI S REPUBLICAN MODES AND ORDERS 521

republican irtues.QuentinSkinner, ean of theCambridgeonsortium,abelsMachiavelli neoro-man (1998), and colleaguesMaurizioViroliandPhilipPettitdentifynMachiavelli classical ym-pathy or ivic eligionBobbio nd Viroli 003)andan alternative,essatomistic,onceptionf freedom

(Pettit 997,4). Thesescholarsonginglypeculatethatsuch interests ill finda place again.., incontemporaryolitical iscussion Pettit 997, ).

The other ide of the debateover Machiavelli's

republicanisms linked o Leo Strauss nd HarveyMansfield,othofwhomrejectMachiavelli'sesem-blance o the ncients.More recent ersions ftheir

perspective,ynthesizednder herubric,rapaciousrepublicanismRahe2006, xii), ppear n a volumededicated, otto a precise nderstandingfMachia-velli'srepublic,ut to the dea that Pocock had italmost ntirely rong Rahe2006,xx). Expandingupon a popular nterpretationCroce [1914] 1993;Cassirer 944), hese cholarsrgue hathardly re-positoryor ncient epublicanirtue,Machiavellisin fact ulpable or tsdemise. hanks oMachiavellithe modern epublics a perversionf the ancientagenda, craven urrendero unconscious orces,(Mansfield979, ) where acelessureaucratsegulatedesiresrather han inspire houghtfulness.lacingMachiavellin an Aristotelianaradigmsconsideredby these cholars o be a defensemechanism,n-tended o distract s from ur tainted enesis.And

thusfundamentalistinctionsetweenMachiavelli'sprincelynd republicanommentariesan be ques-tionedAlvarez 999).

From his erspective,henewmodes ndorderspromisedntheDiscoursesre newonly n the ensethat theyare celebrated. hey are, in fact,thepreviouslyisdainedmodes and orders f Thrasy-machus, hoargueshe ndistinguishabilityf usticeand interestsee also Codevilla1997,viii).Machia-velli's discovery, hen,smerelynelevation ftheeasilyaccessible, nd progress s the transitionfromustice asedonopenanddefensiblerinciples,to justicebased on secretmanipulationsnd openbullyingn the ervice f self nterest. oth oncepts,ancient nd modern, gree hat grey minence(Mansfield 998,236) of compromise nd deceitexists, hich ringsrder, ever ood.The differenceis thatwhereasAristotles at bestresignedo thatorder,Machiavelli elebratest.5

Our choices are limited, hen,to consideringMachiavelli'sepublican usings paean, r perver-sion,ofantiquity. either ption akeshisclaimofinnovationeriously.o I begin his ssay yextricat-ingMachiavelli rom heancients, rom oth theirexpressedirtuesndtheir epressedices. do this o

disrupt ny easy integrationf Machiavelli nto atradition nd to be able totake eriouslyis claimofnovelty egardinghe nature frepublics. avingdone o, can then pecifyhe lementsfhisnovelty.

Mythesiss thatMachiavelli's epublic ests otupon classic nstitutions,ut upon a perspectiveregardingolitical ffairshat s imbuedwith senseofhumility,nd that epends ponaccess opoliticalparticulars.Machiavelli epresentshisperspectivemetaphoricallyith hemage f he palazzo, wheredecisions re takenwith a dignity, obriety,nddeliberatenessorthyf a monumentaldifice. nd

to clarifyhe palazzo perspective,e invokes hecontrastingrope fthe piazza, wherempetuosity,rumor,ndbombast revail.ndeed,Machiavelli adwitnessed he meteoric ise and equallyprecipitousdeclineof Savonarola n the Piazza della Signoria,where onfiresncefueledy ecular ooksultimatelyconsumed the friarhimself.Machiavelli, nstead,chooses lessmercurialocus for epublicanuccess,one hat eminds s ofhis enurenthatmostmposingof Florentinetructures,nown n his time as thePalazzo della ignoria,nours sPalazzoVecchio.

Machiavelli ecognizeshatrepublican ompe-tence hiftsocations,o the ask ftherepublics toreallocateuthorityelativeothedistributionf hatcompetence.argue hat heres a fluid,volutionaryquality o Machiavelli'sepublicanpecifications.6nfact, o maintainhepalazzoperspective,achiavelliis willing o abandon some of the mostpreciouscommunitarianrioritiesf his ancientforebears.But tthe ame ime, iscommitmentothe onceptof thepalazzoplaceshimsquarelyn opposition othe decline to pure opportunismf whichhe isaccusedbyStrauss nd Mansfield. s it turns ut,Machiavelli's iscussionsfantiquityre a compo-nent,and not a contradiction,f his interestninnovation. hepalazzoperspectiveequires otonlynimble elocations fauthority,ut also a senseofsobrietyndhumilitymongsthenewly mpowered.Whereprincelymodes and ordersnecessitate u-bris, epublicannnovationsequire umility.hus,Machiavellis more nterestedn a respect or n-tiquityhanhe is in anyparticularncienthing.

5In theend,Mansfield einforceseo Strauss, ho writes: therestorationf omethinghich as beendisestablishedor longtime s no essrevolutionaryrshockinghan he ntroductionf

something holly ew Strauss 958, 17, n2;see also86).

6I amcertainlyotthefirstonotice his. ee Sasso 1980,443-

45).







522 TIMOTHY J.LUKES

Machiavelli'sNovelty

Notwithstandingurrentncentivesor ontextualizing,Machiavelli imselfrovidesvidence f n apparent

antiquarianism.7is claim onoveltynthededica-tion f heDiscourseseemsmmediately,nd trangely,

betrayedn thepreface o the first ook by a callto imitation.8 e learn hat rtistsndtheir atronseclipsethe aptitudes f theirpolitician olleaguesbyemulatinghe ancients. ut as anyFlorentinefthe timewouldappreciate,he emulation f whichMachiavelli peakscannotmean a simple replica-tion.9DonatellofreelyncludesGothic nd Roman-esque elementsn his St. Louis Tabernaclen theOrsanmicheleZervas 1987, 119), much less thecelebrationf Christianconratherhan n ancientscenario. nd his Davidwas a figureype nthink-

able n antiquity Greenhalgh982, 00). Likewise,Botticelli'sepictionfcalumnya concept ear lsoto Machiavelli), hile xploitingncientmythsndimages, id so with iberal nclusion f theChristianand Italian Dempsey 992, 4).

And fMachiavelli'shoice f rtistss models f

appropriatemulation s notenough o nuancehisantiquarianism,e follows ith ributeso uristsndtodoctors, ocations hat ould match r exceed heinnovations ndertakenn the artistic ommunity.ForwhileBotticelli asreshapingalumny,heFlor-entineuristswere ransforminghe oncept f accu-

sation Martines 968),the laudable alternativeocalumny romoted yMachiavellin theDiscourses.The inquisitorial odel, nthis ase a less notoriouscivilversion, as endorsing ublicoverprivateni-tiation faccusations, practice hatwewill see isextolled yMachiavelli.10 nd as fordoctors, et-rarch 2003) had already landered heir eparturesfrom ncient efinement.yMachiavelli'sime, heirupstartguild had successfully igrated romthehumanitieso the ciences.

Wemay easonablyuspect,hen,hatMachiavelli'sinterestnantiquitys selective,nd that hedistinc-tionbetween hepoliticiansndthe hreemore up-posedlycapable professionss complex. n fact,believe hat he Discoursess above all Machiavelli's

attempto describe ow thepoliticalystemf Flor-

ence andsimilar enues trugglingithmaturation)can match he nnovationsfmodernegal, cientific,andartisticommunities.ndonly n the course fthat dvice does it become clearwhyhe mentionsantiquity ith uchfrequency.n fact,t is thesuc-cesses of endeavors n fields uch as the artistic,scientific,nd egal hatmakepoliticsmoredifficult.Evenmore han heother rts, hepolitical rtmustguard against n excessof hubris; reverence orantiquityan thusbe especially elpful.Machiavellirecommendso reformershat hey etain at leastthe hadow f ncientmodes Machiavelli 960, 92

[Discourses .25]),11 husendorsingn appearanceover realityf return.will howhow the pparentcontradictionetween n ambitious edicationndacautiouspreface ccupy cohesivenventoryfre-publicannnovations.

Misreadinghepreface s a straightforwardn-comium f ntiquityGentile 968, 65-72;Merleau-Ponty 964;Toffanin921)conditionsommentatorsin a waythat bscureswhatmight therwise e themostobvious f themes.12ntoxicated ithMachia-velli's omplimentso antiquity,cholars pprehend

a disillusionmentithmodernity.et Machiavellisnot so much worried boutdecline s he is aboutsuccess. n fact, e openstheDiscourses ith dis-cussion of how to restrain he excesses f fertility(Machiavelli 960,125-29[Discourses .1]), an oddtopic fhe struly isappointedith isownenviron-ment nd anxious o return o a predecessor. s Iwill substantiateater, onnections o Polybius e-yondthestylisticvaporates Machiavelli escribespolitics s the rtofmaintainingn auraofnecessitywhere he nvironmentightecapable f ustaining,for t east ome ime, degree fostentation.ivilityrequireshemodestyhat ssuesfrom n impressionofneed.AgainMachiavellincouragesmodesty,utlike his homageto the ancients, he modesty spredicated ponan efflorescencef resources.

Machiavelliontinuesis nventoryfrepublicaninstitutions ith heseeminglyuirky iscussion f

7Sasso 1964, 45) concedes,n fact, hat he Discoursess not aunitary ork, nd that t is a combinationf historicalributeand originalhinking.

sCoby s perhaps he most resistanto Machiavelli'snventive-ness.He says hat n theprefaceMachiavelli announces hathewill ravel heretoforentroddenath;but he does not furtherexplain henovelty f his endeavor 1999,21). Of course,believe henoveltys there or hosepreparedo notice t.

9Vasari'sLivesof the Artists ontainsfrequent eferencesooriginality.ee,for nstance,hatof Luca della Robbia Vasari1822,2: 45-54,seeesp.54).

o1In act,Machiavelli'sraise orRoman awwasnot o much oritsrigiditys for ts bilityoadapt o new hallenges1960, 24-

29 [Discourses .40].

almeno I'ombra e' modi antichi.

'2Fortunately,neednotrevealny ecretmessagen Machiavelliin order oprovemypoint. ullivan1996),one of few o takeseriously achiavelli'slaim fnovelty,rgueshatMachiavelli'srepublics most mportantlyheresy,nd thathe cannot ay o

for isk f retribution.








calumnyndaccusation,ndorsinghe atter ithtsformal nd publictransmissionf grievances. ot

primarilyo facilitateustice, ccusation s directedrathertreforminghe goof he mpetuousccuser.The institutionf accusationmaintains ignitynddeliberateness.arochial nger s exposed o public

disapproval, nd citizenscome to recognize helegitimacyf strangerss participantsn personaldisputes. ess nterestedbservers itiate herageofthe mmediatearticipants,ither iluted n a senseofsolidarity,r deflated henpettinesss exposedunder disinterestedcrutiny.egislatorshat nsistuponthetransformationfcalumnyo accusation,Machiavelli nformss, providenotonly mecha-nism o etoff teamsfogarsi)1960,147 Discourses1.7])but lsoa sense f obrietyue to the horough-ness ndneutralityftheprocedure.

There s a pattern evelopingn what o a firstencounteran seem series fdisjointediscussions.Followinghe ncientssimportant,utonly o con-tain hehubris f reativitynddiscovery.heburdenofnecessitys mportant,utonlynan environmentof plenty.And now soberpoliticalproceduresreneeded, utonly o rein n theexuberance fcockycitizens. ardlyn diosyncraticetail,he nstitutionof accusation oesto theheart f theDiscoursesndto Machiavelli'soncept fpolitics. heviabilityfMachiavelli's epublics irrevocablyttached o thecapacities fthose o whomhe entrustst. fMach-

iavelliweremerelyocelebrate isdiscovery,twouldbelost. nstead, isdiscoveryemands esponsibility,and hisdiscussionf trarely scapes orrespondingrigors.We oughtnot,however,verlook henoveltyfor tsrequisiteobriety.

The synthesisf thesediscussions f fertility,necessity,ccusation,nd calumnys Machiavelli'sdiscussion fpalazzo and piazza (1960, [Discourses1.47]); and I believeMachiavelli's repidationse-gardinghepiazzaare at thecenter f hisrepublicaninnovations. hereMachiavellipeaks fprior imes

sustaining criticalmass of citizens ensitive o theconstraintsf imited esourcesnd competingon-stituencies,owhis itysplaguedwith dle peculatorswho spreadhyperbole mongan undiscriminating,cynical,nd ympatheticudience. hepiazza,ntermsof the accumulating epublican ernacular,osterscalumnyn the form fwhisperednd exaggeratedslanders, s it shunsnecessity y fosteringpeechdisconnected rom ubstantiation. achiavelli's is-

covery annotbe entrusted o those of thepiazzamentality.

Thosewho occupythepiazza believe hatthe

comparativeobrietyf thepalazzo s no more han

the satedness f co-optation.Machiavelli,esscyni-cally, rgues hat hepalazzo exposes tsaficionadosto particulars, he pprehensionf which nspiresdeliberatenessndcircumspectionuperfluouso thegrand heorizingfthepiazzadilettantes. here m-petuositynd excessmight haracterizealumnious

commentsmade in thepiazza, accusations levateparticipantsotheperspectivef thepalazzoand arethus akenwithmoregravity.heequivocationhatlooks ike o-optationooutsiderssreally responseto the mpact fresponsibility1960,240 [Discourses1.47]). The palazzo simultaneouslyumbles tsad-herentsnddelegitimizesrivate,mpetuouslterna-tives. here s no mentionf altruism n thepart fthe alazzo enizens,nly more omplexnd ccurateperceptionfpolitical ffairs. or does thepalazzointroduceonely toms o communalife; hepiazzatoo is a civicvenue, ut a dangerousne. Theextentthat hepalazzomightecalled public, hen,sdueitsrigor, ot ts communalism.

Although he distinction etweenpalazzo andpiazza will become clearer s theessaydevelops,brief ut tarkomparisonmay ehelpful ere. f hepalazzo nd ts ttendantumilityefine he epublic,thenwemay peculatehat heprince oesnot lwayshave recourse o itsadvantages,nd that heprincemay n fact e definedythedynamicsfthepiazza.Thisperspectivelluminateserhapshemost amouspassage n ThePrince, hereRemirro 'Orco is left

bisectedn thepiazzaat Cesena.There s no indica-tion, o the Cesenati t least, s to the source f theatrocity,r of ts ustification,o as totrulytupifytspatrons. ndthat he pectacle remiersheday fterChristmasnspiresxtraordinarypeculationsmongits udience. he esson s thatwithout he uxuryflegitimacy,orgia s compelledo exploit he mpet-uosityndintriguefpiazza dynamics.

The reverses true f theformationfrepublics.Micheledi Lando,who we will see is lauded byMachiavelli s one of thefew epublican opefulsn

thewake f heCiompiRevolt,ssues rom hepiazza.However, e is gifted ith clear ppreciationndaptitude or alazzocomportment,nd he has accesstoestablishednstitutionsnd at east omereceptivefollowers. o when he brieflyssumespower inFlorence, e erects gallows1962a,245 [HistoryfFlorence.16]), n so doing extendinghegravityfthepalazzo ntothepiazza. Despite haring orgia'sintentionfmoderatingrandiosemachinations,hesource of this mechanisms clear. ts constructionis deliberate,ts functions clinical, nd there sno doubt as to theparticularsf its victims. here

is little room forwhispers r rumorsregarding







524 TIMOTHY J. LUKES

its origin. Republican education replaces princelystupefication.

Under Michele di Lando, executions re publicin the Machaivellian sense; and although d'Orco'sexecutionsmeant or ommunalisplay,t s privatein the sense of the distinction etweenpalazzo deli-

beration and piazza intrigue. ullivan (2006, 71), aproponent fMachiavelli's rapaciousrepublicanism,correctly rguesthat Machiavelli embracesexecutionas an important oliticaltool. However, he does not

distinguish he verydifferentpproaches of Borgiaand Di Lando and is thus not open to the lessMachiavellian aspects of Machiavelli's republicanmusings. Republican and princely xecutions are sodifferenthat they provide evidence distinguishingrepublics from princedoms, not linking them in

rapaciousness.So thepromised novelty fMachiavelli'srepub-

licanism is emerging. t is distinguishedfrom the

rapaciousness of theprincewith n attention o themore deliberativenterests f thepalazzo. Yet it mustalso be distinguished rom the classical republicans,to whom Machiavelli is often linked (see Colish

1978). Cicero speaksof an inherent umanmutualityor concordia 1928, 64 [De Re Publica I, xxv, 40];1923, 4 [PostReditumnSenatu i,27]) thatwouldpropel individuals to communityeven under con-ditions of extreme abundance: a copious flowingstream feverything 1928, 64 [De Re Publica , xxv,

39). And Polybius,whose divergencefromMachia-velli will be discussed n detail,speaksof reason and

sociabilityas motivation for human community.Machiavelli, n the otherhand,attributesommunityto an enhanced ability o defend oneself 1960, 131[Discourses1.2]), and he arguesthatrepublicanvia-

bilityssuesnot from oncord, ut from n inescapabledisunione (1960, 137 [Discourses .4]) between he

people and the aristocrats see McCormick 2001,299).

It may be true that Machiavelli shares withan-cient

republicansthe vernacularof a common

goodand a rejectionof imbecillitass the sole motivationfor civility even though, unlike Cicero, he does

worryabout the distractionsof fertility ).What

separatesthem, however, s that for Machiavelli thecommongood and disunion arenotincompatible. nfact,Machiavellibelievesthatdiscord s crucialto themaintenance of the concept of common good. Itshould be no surprise, hen,that it is conflict,not

harmony, hatcharacterizes irtually he entireDis-courses see Skinner 1978, vol.1, 181). Machiavellidoes not condemn faction,only the ignoranceand

decadence that threaten tsproperregulation.

Palazzo and Piazza

Machiavelli'sntriguingabit fsituating epublicannoveltyn an ambianceof deference aturates isdiscussion f hepalazzocomportment.ignificantly,hedistinguisheshe nimo fpiazza mpetuosityrom

palazzodeliberationn a proverb,urportedlyharedamong manymen andmany nstances 1960,240[Discourses.47]).13Amongother hings, levatinghispreferenceor hepalazzo oproverbialtatus is-tracts is audience rom n alternativeeference,till

operativen contemporarytalian politics, o theagitations eld in piazza, a persistent opulistbattle ry.Likewise,heproverb esignationoftensMachiavelli'spotentially angerousmetaphoricalmerger f piazza to loggia (1960, 239 [Discourses1.47]), whereby e clarifies hat impetuositynd

impulse an traverselassboundaries.A more mportantmploymentf the antiquefacade, owever,s Machiavelli'samous olybianon-text or isrepublican usings,contexthat nformsthepalazzo rescendo.ome have ccusedMachiavelliof cribbing olybius's istoriesHexter 956,75).And, not surprisingly,he Cambridge chool hassuggestedtronghematic onnectionsCoby 1999,14;Pocock1975,190,204;Shumer 979).However,there ersists discomfort ith hefull ompatibilityof Machiavelli nd Polybius Sasso 1980,443-47),which findmostpronounced egardingheir e-spectiveeflectionsnthe oncept frepublic.nfact,Machiavelli's ositions drastically,lmost iametri-cally, ivergentrom tsPolybian xoskeleton,ein-forcinghe lternativergumenthavepresentedorhisdeferenceo the ncients. hedivergence,believe,also cries ut for nalyticalonnectiono the onceptofrepublic.

Although olybius ndertakes umerous ltera-tions or he akeofpracticality,edoesnot ompro-misethe Platonic istinctionetween oodand badregimes1923, II,274-77 TheHistories, v,2-13]).

The republics a mixture f kingship, ristocracy,and democracy,nd its advantages its ability oforestallecline, r corruption,nto the ncorrigiblealternativesftyranny,ligarchy,nd anarchy. hePolybian epublic,onsistent ith he classical on-ception, epends ponthe sociabilityndcompan-ionship Polybius 923, 79 [6.5.10])of thepeopleand is thus compatiblewith concepts ike civicreligion nd communalism. owever, ociabilitysfragile,nd even hebestregimesnevitablyuccumb

13 moltiomini molte olte








to corruption, s theyraverseheuniversalhasesofgrowthoprime o decay 1923,385 [6.51.4]).

In thewonderfuleformulationfPolybiushatopens heDiscoursesndsurroundsnd substantiatesMachiavelli'sndorsementsfaccusation, ecessity,and palazzo,Machiavelli tterly ismisses he im-

portance fPlato's, nd thusPolybius's, istinctionbetweengood and corrupt egimes.n so doing,Machiavellictuallyllieshimself ith hehistorian,Ephorus, hoPolybiusondemns or otrecognizingthequalitativeistinctionsetweenhegoodSpartaand thecorrupt rete,where ppetites so reveredthat no gain s disgraceful1923,373 [6.46.4]). nfact,Machiavelli's earcontemptuousssessmentfthe Polybiandistinctions that ts undertakingsfutiledue he imilaritythas nthis ase he irtueand thevice 1960,131[Discourses.2]).14 onsid-eredirrelevantnd fanciful, achiavelliwastesno

time withspeculationss to how to fend off heonslaughtfappetitiveness.emarkably,achiavelliundertakesisrepublicmidst olybian orruption,revealinghatalthoughPolybiusmay provideanimportantontextnwhich o discussMachiavelli'srepublic,t s as a foil ather hanmodel.

Perhaps hemost ellingreakwith olybiussaliteral ne; forwhenMachiavelli oes finallyntro-duce themetaphorfpalazzoandpiazza,heforsakesthe comity f the GreekPolybius orLivy'smorethoroughlyomanparadigm f action nd tumult.

Machiavellis infatuated ith scenario hathe re-peatsn threeeparatenstances,wo romivy's ome,and one fromhis own Florence. he scenario x-

pands upon the twoanimations,r minds, hatheconnects o palazzo and piazza. (Machiavellintro-duceshisproverbn themidst f he econd xample,thatwhereCapua's chiefmagistrate,acuvio, uc-ceeds nmollifyingplebeian ebellion.)n eachofthe three nstances,lements f thepopulation,npiquesoffrustration,omentisplacementf uthor-ities.However, pon assuming mportant esponsi-bilities n thecrisis, ach of the rebellious actions

pursues moremoderate nd humble lternative,nso doing preservingherepublic.Machiavelli on-cludes his discussion f these instanceswith theassurance hat republican yes are opened whenencouraged o descend to theparticulars 1960,240 [Discourses .47]).15

Because hepalazzo representscommitmentothe protectionnd maintenance f a respectfor

politicalparticulars, epublican uthoritys fluid,invested n the humour hatbest understandshis.Sometimes hisauthorityan be undertakeny aknightlyristocracy,r even (albeitrarely) n aninspiredmonarchy,here liberty maybe rarefiedat best 1960, 156-59 [Discourses.10]). But when

excesses f hepiazzaconsume hegoverningntities,protectionfthepalazzoperspective ust e soughtelsewhere. or Machiavelli's lorence, here s an

incorrigiblensouciancen the ristocracy,ndprom-ise shifts o the people. In his three nstances fpalazzo uccess,here s a telling iscrepancyetweenthe wo ncientxamplesrom ivy,ndMachiavelli'sown Florentinexample. n the ancient xamples,themoderatingorces manate rom hearistocracy,while n the Florentinexample, cadre from hecommonpeople s congratulatedor tsrepublicancompetence.

However,venregardinghepeopleMachiavellifears hat he ertilityf he ocial andscapes ufficienttoproduce bundance asterhan hepolitical ystemcan provide he necessities o prevent he samevanitynd arrogancehathas overtakenhegrandi(1960,191 Discourses.24]). n fact, orNaples ndMilan,thereremainsnothing o grave thatcanrehabilitatehe people, much ess the ristocraciesof thoseunfortunateities 1960, 178 [Discourses1.17]). New modesand orders, hen, re best dis-cussedwithin he aura of imitatinghe ancients,

which imultaneouslymposes necessitynd curbsarrogance. o respectnd appreciatehepastelicitstherequisiteumilityor ealingn thepresent.hisis the sense n which nnovators re especiallyn-couraged o respecthepast Machiavelli 960,496[Discourses .43]).

The problem s connectinghe ascending u-mour ocorrespondingesponsibility.t s themoreregime-neutralodes ofparticularitynd delibera-tion, nd the ccompanyingrders f accusation ndnecessityhatdistinguishepublics. hose of the

appropriateumourmust e

exposedo the

palazzo,via political ndmilitary articipationnd involve-ment in institutionsike accusation, n order tomaintain quotientfgravityndhumilityufficientto sustain viable epublic.What srightnd what sarbitrary,hat s freedom nd what s domination,can have more to do withtherecipientsfpolicythanwith heagents.Without palazzomentality,even hemost airlyistributedocialburdens illbeexperienceds intolerable.

Machiavelli's iscussion fcorruption,xaminedwithout he distraction f a now suspectPolybian

root,providesmore detailregardingis republican

14 pera similitudinehe ha inquesto aso a virtuted ilvizio

'5 discendere' particulari







526 TIMOTHY J.LUKES

theory. ikePolybius,Machiavelli elieves hat re-publics rebest uited o resist orruption,nd likePolybius, e oftendiscusses he two concepts o-gether. owever,s stated arlier,Machiavelli's la-tant disdainforthe classical anctityf the modelregimesenders isconcurrenceith olybiusn the

conceptof corruptionmpossible. orMachiavelli,corruptionannot be the rust and woodworms(Polybius 923, 91 [6.10.3]) aidto distort ingshipsto tyrannies,ristocracieso oligarchies,nd democ-racies oanarchies,inceMachiavelli oes notrespectthe fundamentalifurcation. or does Machiavellibelieve thatregimes ollow n inexorable ecline,since he speaksof thepossibilityf improvementaftermaturity1960,130 [Discourses.2]).

For Machiavelli, he piazza is the source ofcorruption,ut corruptions not a byproduct fdecline.nstead,welearn hat heres a certain vo-

lution hat eads citizens o the ptitudesndsophis-tication o afford he distraction f glib chatter.When Machiavellipeaksof humanmalignity eassociates t notwithselfishnessr ignorance,utwith stuzia Machiavelli 960, 93 [Discourses.5]),the ame traitwe encountern the uccessfulrince.A byproductf immoderatestutenesss thegen-eration fgranddeas nd generalities,hat n turninspire rrogantnd ambitious hinking1960,191[Discourses .24]),crucial or budding rince seeLukes 001),butdebilitatingorepublicanitizensn

need of humbling particulars o reduce zealousattachmentso narrow nd frivolousolutions.nte-

restingly,achiavelli iscusses antewho,deprivedof the particularsf Florence fterhis expulsion,succumbs o the hubrisof distantgeneralizations(Machiavelli 965,187-88 Discorso dialogontornoalla nostraingua]; ee also Peterman990,192-93).

It is notonly he deficienciesfthearistocracythat promptthe redirection f attention o thepeople. n addition, nd to a great xtent ecauseofthenew ttention,hepeople rebecomingmore

knowledgeablebout natural

things Machiavelli1960,164 [Discourses.12]).16 arthquakes,clipses,and lightningremoredifficulto exploit s omens(1961,487 [Art fWar6]), and thepeoplebegin odoubt the mpeccabilityf eaderswho continue oassumepopular nnocence.Machiavelli,choing heobservationsfPlutarchndLivy,peaks ftherela-tivemalleabilityfprimitiveeoples 1960,275,164[Discourses.1,1.12]),describingowmuch asier tisforNuma or nomad hiefso maintainublic on-

fidence1960,161-62 Discourses.11]).Machiavelliis amused hatCaesar could recover rom pratfallupon andingn Africa y cutely ecreeing:'Africa,I have akenyou' (1961,487 [Art fWar6]).

In stark ontrast,he moreformidableopulaceofMachiavelli's lorence as evolved o where astu-

teness nd humanmalignityavecome where t cancome (Machiavelli1960,293 [Discourses .5]).17AmongstheFlorentines,stuteness asescaped on-tainmentnhumility.fMachiavelli's ewmodes ndorders epresent dialecticalmovement,s I thinkthey o,then orruption,s an avoidable ut threat-eningbyproductfastuteness,hreatenseification.Discoveries,ncludingMachiavelli's ew modes andorders, ngender angerous erspectives.nFlorence,Caesar would not findhis errors o easyto spin.Dismantlinghe ristocrats'rimacy oes notensurethe urvival fthepalazzomentality.ewchallengesarisewith he hift o thepopularhumour. orrup-tion s not a failure frationalitySkinner 990,304) as much as it is a failure f itsunrestrainedsuccess.

Republican lorence

Machiavelli's lorentineistoriesubstantiateis the-oretical istinctionetweeniazza ndpalazzo, dis-

tinctionrucial o understandingsuccessful odernrepublic,nd toseparating achiavelli rom he om-peting ontemporarycholarlynterpretations.nd fmy mpressionf a morefluid oncept frepublicscorrect,t is not surprisinghatMachiavelliwouldneed to specifyherepublican omponentselevantto theFlorentineetting.orMachiavelli,nly ne ofthetwohumours hat omprise ontemporarylor-entineocietyemainsusceptibleo theweightf hepalazzo,that of thepeople.As forthe ncorrigibleclass,the aristocracy, achiavelli aments n irre-deemable

ffeteness,nobsession ith

ettyquabblesand delusions f grandeur.Machiavelli akesgreatpainsto itemize hegenerousnd civil ctions akenbypatriarchacopo e' Pazzi as late s onedaypriorto his nfamousmeltdown1962a,522-23 HistoryfFlorence .9]). That a personof suchmagnanimitycould thenext ay uccumb o such profound et-tinesss llustrativef heunavailabilityo thewealthyclass sense f scale nd moderation. he Pazzi had

exchangedhepalazzofor hepiazza, nd n so doing

16 piUonoscitorielle osenaturali 17 la stuzia la malignitamanai venuta ove a pu6 venire








had ost oliticalerspective.heirarochialrob-lems ereerceiveds themonumentalroblemsfFlorence,nd theirunilateralntervention as thefantasizedanacea.Thisfatalmyopias the ource fthe transition achiavelli escribes herebyristo-crats exchange n inspirational or a disruptive

identity.he unfortunateepercussionf thedegra-dation of this ncreasinglyivisive lement s thecausethatFlorence otonlyof armsbut ofevery

generositytrippedtself' Machiavelli 962a,211[History fFlorence .42]).'18

ThegenerosityfwhichMachiavellipeakss thegenerosityruni elieves till vailable o thegrandi.ForBruni, he oath ofknightlyllegiancend vali-ance anberevived,asedon the ontinuingotentialforpolitical nterpriseso be considered acred. nOctober f 1279,Pope Nicholas II, an Orsini, is-

patchedardinal atino e'

Frangipanio resolve he

growingiscordwithin lorence'sristocracy. hileBruni 2001,287-91)describes hevisit s a success,highlightinghe embrace fpeace between uelphsand Ghibellineshatpurportedlyevitalized com-munalpatriotism,achiavelli ismisseshevisit s afailure1962a, 151-53 [History fFlorence .10]).Bruni,not Machiavelli, opes for a return. runiretains aithnthe ncienteadership,he ristocracy,thusexploiting istorymorestraightforwardlyhanMachiavelli.

Sacrificingne's life for one's country an be

spirituallyedeeming,nd there s an essential ener-osityn Bruni'sknighthood-capable,e argues, fvalor nd heroism. orMachiavelli, owever,entle-manlyaths ave ome obebinding nlywhen amilyinterestsre t stakeMachiavelli 962a, 01 [Historyof lorence.37]),and commitmentsopublic erviceamong he ristocratsre maintainednly s long stheir mmediate ersonal enefitingers1962a,219[History fFlorence.5]). There s historicalustifi-cation orMachiavelli'serspective.ecker1967,5)mentions hat as early s 1281,magnateswere no

longer ompelled ythe kissofpeace to maintainorder.nstead,heywere equiredopost bond, obe forfeitedf theirvoluntarynterestn publicconcerns ecamedistractedythe more mmediate.The aristocrats ave migratednextricablyo thepiazza,and whileMachiavellimayat times amentthe ossof ntegrityufficiento legitimizeromises,he is more often musedby the irretrievableim-plicityf ncient ultureshat ustainedmoral urity

(1960, 160-69 [Discourses, .11, 12, 13]). In themeantime,he aristocratsave fallen ictim o theirown cleverness nd as a resulthave escapedthegravityf their ndertakings.

Machiavellicompleteshis discussion of thegrandiwith hepromise hat eventhough he no-

bility adbeendestroyed,everthelesso fortune asnotmissingmodes o makereborn ornewdivisionsnewtrials 1962a,211 [HistoryfFlorence.42]).19The conditions o support nighthood,hecavalry,and theopulent ntouragere unavailable.Machia-velli s not so naive s to think hat hepeople,withaspirationsmuchless grandiose han their risto-cratic redecessors,ill mbrace hivalrous ehavior.Instead,Machiavelli ooks to new trials o fosterthe generosity eeded omaintainepublicanncli-nations.Generositys not o much pposed osting-iness s it s to

arrogancend

simplicity.he humours

must be reorderedn proportionsommensuratewithreceptivityo the nstitutionf accusation ndthegravityf thepalazzo.He looks to a newarmy,and a newsegment f society,20hat lthough otenthralled ith acrificend bravura,might ever-theless e willing o defer season'sharvest or heprospectfmore eacefulnd ucrativeommercenseasons o come.More mportantly,t s a segmentfsociety otfullynfected ithcalumnynd excess,remaining apable of distinguishinghe frivolousfrom heweighty.

Thus,while tmayhaveformerlyeen the casethat henobles ndmilitaryeservedmore ttention,now it is necessaryto satisfyhepeopleover thesoldiers, ecause t is thepeoplethatcan do morethan hose 1960,83 [Prince 9];see also 1960, 61[Discourses.58].21 n theDiscoursesnd theHistoryofFlorence,e earn hat hepeoplemust e attendedmorescrupulously. achiavelli s not expectingrrecommendinghedisappearancefthearistocracy;conflictetween he lasses,sper heRomanmodel,will emain hekey lement frepublicanuccess. ut

he does detect radical hift,nd he can no longerembrace hepatronizing inks nd nods of thean-cient epublicanshatviewed opular nfluences a

'8 cagioneche Firenzenon solamente i

armi,ma di

ognigenerositai spogliasse.

19 bench6usse a nobilita istrutta,ondimeno lla fortuna onmancoronomodi a fare rinascere er nuove divisioninuovitravagli.

20Thishelpsto explainMachiavelli'songstandingnterestnrecruitinghe newmilitia rom hecontado,ndwhyhe oftenmentions herepublican romise fTuscany, ot Florence.

21 satisfare'populi

he a' soldati,erche

'populipossonopiudi quelli.







528 TIMOTHYJ.LUKES

concession,not an asset.22Rather, e isrelocating hesourceofvirtue,wayfrom hegrandi nd towardthepeople see Lukes2004).

TheCiompiRevolt

Machiavelli's escriptionf theCiompiRevolt,nwhich the tropesof piazza and palazzo appearprominently,s especiallynformativeegardinghedynamicsfrepublicanompetence.he revolts anexplosionof popularhubris,precipitated y thetainted formation f the guilds.The Ghibellineleadership, nder Count Guido Novello, s fatallytardyn recognizinghegrowing apacities f thepeople Machiavelli 962a,148-51 [HistoryfFlor-ence .8,9]), o from he tart heguilds licit opular

resentment nd mistrust.Having become astuteunder the abuse of the Ghibelline randi, ut de-prived f hepalazzoperspective,hepublic esortsohuntingown ndiscriminatelyhosewhowerehatedfor eitherpublic or private ause (Machiavelli1962a,241 [History fFlorence .14]).23The rebelsare neither degenerateabble, s Bruniwouldhaveit,nor thedesperate ispossessed,s later nalystshave rguedRodolico1945).LikeBruni,Machiavellihas ittle dmiration or heuntutoredlebs.But hedoes notice n its midst more houghtfullement,

whoserelegationo thepiazzadoes notfullybscureitsgrowingualificationsor hepalazzo.The mostobviousof this lement s Micheledi

Lando,to whomMachiavelli onfers igh compli-ments.Michelemaybe scalzo 1962a,245 [Historyof lorence.16]),buthe shardlyansculotte.nfact,he is a pettinatorei lana, one of thesubsidiaryprofessionso the woolenguildinterestedess indisruptinghe tatus uo than nenteringt.Machia-velli describes n detail thebreakupof the fragileunionofciompi ndlumpen,whereMichele oura-geously, ut humbly, eorders ather han ruins

institutionsfdeliberation.ndas already escribed,Michele uicklyntroduceshepalazzoparadigmntothepiazza withthe erection f a gallows.Gravity,both iterallyndfiguratively,s theoperativeorce.

Although achiavelli,ollowingavalcati, runi,and Guicciardini,auds the nterventionf Michele

in theCiompi disruption,e clearly onsultsGinoCapponi, ntroducingndsignificantlyltering ap-poni's essformidable,utno less mportant,iompiparticipants.orinstance,Machiavelli omplementsMichelewith neNiccol6da SanFriano, epicted yMachiavelli24s keeper fthePalazzo clock.Niccol6

is immersed n complextechnologynd is thusreceptiveo thegravityf thediscussions e over-hears n the adjacentHall. Literally,hen,he hasaccess o thepalacebutnoauthorityithint.He hasthe scientificnd technical nowledgehatqualifyhim to understandhe nnerworkingsf thestate,the articulars,uthe s solated. e is denied ecogn-ition nd audience nd canonly isten o theunder-takingsfthe ignori hile imultaneouslybservingthegrowingnrest n thepiazzabelow.So whenheoverhearshetorture fa Ciompiconspiratorntheadjoining hamber,25isonlyparticipatoryecourseis to descend from he tower,foment ngerandmilitancenhisneighborhood,ndtherebyerail hepreemptivetrike hat he uthoritiesadengineeredfor heearlymorning.

I think here s a reason for Machiavelli's n-clusion fwhatmightt firsteem superfluousis-cussion fa clockkeeper. or t is Niccol6,notthemoreheroicMichele,who s thequintessentialeta-phorfor hat art fthepeoplequalified or alazzoaccess.ForMichele s exceptionally,erhaps xces-sively, redisposedo republicaneadership, aving

been more o nature han o fortunebliged 1962a,245 [HistoryfFlorence.16]) forhisthoughtfulnessandresponsibility.e isconstitutionallyverse othedistractionsfthepiazza, nd needs ittlen terms fnewmodes nd orders o reinforceis ntegrity.

Niccol6, n theother and, s lessheroic,nd ndire needofrecognitionnd encouragementf hisaptitudesnd education. believe, hen, hathe bestrepresentsthe people in Machiavelli'smodernrepublicanomponents.isenvironmentscomplex,and dependent pon his expertknowledge f the

particulars.f

encouraged, ewill

understandndparticipatenpolicy eliberations,uthe has neitherthecharisma orthe ourage o undertakeesponsi-bility nilaterally.ather,ffrustrated,e is morelikely o forsake is sophisticationnd join his less

22The mixed onstitutions fantiquity ere,n effect,ligar-chies Badian 1966,xv), and thiswas embraced yAristotle,Polybius,icero ndPlutarchseeYarbrough979, 6).Notonlydid Machiavelli onder t the nnocence f theancient eople,but so didLivyLivius1861,1:385 HistoryfRome10:40]).

23 0per publica per privata agione

24It s highly mprobable hat this was in factthe case. Foralthoughhere re referenceso hisemploymentnthe ower searly s 1353,he does not ppear n therecord fter 358,whenthe positionwas assumedby a Giovanni Paciui di Milano(Machiavelli 962b, 15n.).

25Machiavelli'sendition f the Ciompirevolt s the onlyone Iknow of that llows a close connection etweenNiccolo and

Simone, heunfortunateuspect.








enlightenedolleagues ho arealwaysoiteringn thesquare.

And,ofcourse,t is impossibleo resistinkingthe woNiccolos, specially iven heprobabilityhatMachiavellintentionallylters istoryoprovokehecuriosity.t has ongbeen uspectedhatMachiavelli

signals onnectionsf himselfoNicomaco, he oldman ofClizia,by wayof similar ames see Lukes1980). Transporting etanothernamesake o thetower ncouragesn exquisitemetaphoricalonnec-tionoftwoexperts,ne in themechanicsf a clock,theother n themechanicsf tate, hodespiteheirexcruciatingroximityopower re not allowed ullparticipation.achiavelli'swnofficen thePalazzo,infact,s an alcove cantmetersway rom heGreatHall. And to furtheroinourauthor o hismedievalpredecessor,heearlierNiccol6 s nominallyssoci-atedwith anFriano,he uarterf he ity owhich

the stubborn lorentine uelphswho refusedxilecongregated.ubmersion n particulars istinguishbothNiccolos, s does thefrustrationnd tragedyof xclusion. nd, f ourse,my peculationsere reless fanciful ivena theory f republicanismogroundedn the mportancefpolitical xperienceanddetail, ssets hat lso defineMachiavelli'sife.

Similarly rovocative,owever,s Machiavelli'sdescriptionf he nfortunateecipientf he ignori'sraucousnterrogation,imone ellapiazza.There requestionsregardingMachiavelli's lteration f Si-

mone'sname,which ome ccountspecify erelysSimoncino,ndwhich apponi 1862, 58)elaboratesas Bugigattoalla Porta San PietroGattoliniseeGaeta'snote ,Machiavelli 962a, 40).There s evensomedoubt, ecauseofdiscrepanciesn the variouseditions f theFlorentineistories,s towhetherhep inMachiavelli'siazza s ower ase nd thus es-

criptive,rupper aseand thus nlynominal.Whilesome (see Carli'snote,Machiavelli 967,303) con-sider hediscrepancyharmlessmprecision,iorini,in his meticulous oncordance1962b,314 n.), ele-vates he ssue o some

mportance.e insists,lbeit

with nsufficientustification,pon the lower casepermutation,husratifyingdescriptiventention.

Fiorini s right o considerMachiavelli's lter-ation ofthe nameas intentional.suggesthat headjectivalssociation f Simonewith hepiazzare-veals he omplexitynd ophisticationfMachiavelli'sanalysis,s well as the importancef thepalazzo/piazzametaphor. ot allmembers f heplebs reforMachiavelliualifiedo assume epublican esponsi-bility,nd theCiompirevolts a challenging ixtureof egitimacynd chaos. Simone'sdedication o the

cause s shallowndunconsidered,nd hisrelegation

to thepiazza smetaphoricalubstantiation.owever,Simone's implicitynd cowardices counteredythefrustratedompetencef his disenfranchisedeers,whichmay e morenterestingnNiccol6 hanMichele.

The Ciompi descriptionemonstrateshat or-ruption s not the byproduct f decline but of

popular stuteness. ichele ndNiccol6 re nvestedinFlorentineociety,ut renot dequatelyewardedor recognized. heir economic and technical uc-cesses ngendern astutenesshatMachiavelli eemssufficiento assume, vendemand, participatoryrole.That hey re bothultimatelyxpelled rom hepalazzo and unburdened f itsgravitys themorecomplex ource fcorruptionotoften ecognized.Unfortunately,iccol6 and Micheleare unable toresist hereactionaryressuresfthe exiled risto-crats.The piazza is too prominentn this cenario.Thegrandi re forced o exploitt, nd theplebshas

no recourse uttooccupyt. Machiavellis clear hatthiswas thebeginningf theend, nd thefailure orecognize ualifiedparticipants egan a doomedstrategyfpalliatives.

Machiavelli's epublic, hen, hould be consid-eredfor tsabilityo curbpiazza prominence.26yextending he palazzo perspective,nd then thepalazzo tself,oqualifiedlementsf he eople, oli-tics volvesn a way hat mbraces new ndhopefulelement,esssusceptibleo simplicityndimpetuos-ity.WhenMachiavellipeaks freturn,e cannot e

speaking iterally. or can he consider orruptionsimply loss ofwhat receded.nstead,orruptionsbasedongain, nd thusnecessitatesnew modesfornewproblems. runi ndSavonarolamay gree hatcorruptions nothingmore than moral decay(Pocock 1975,204) demanding he suspension fthe timeprocess 1975,205).ButPocockmisreadsMachiavelliwhenhe lumpshim in thisgroup. n-stead,Machiavelli ccepts, venembraces,hecor-ruptionshat omewith ime,ndhemoves oadapt.His concept frepublics accused fnot accommo-

dating orruption,hen t is

reallyased on

seeingandresistingt.

Conclusion

Not recognizinghefullcomplexityf Machiavelliallows trauss o accusehimofcrude elativism.ut

26I dare ay hat eligions a major omponentfre-establishingthe palazzo mentality,nd that Machiavelli's reatment fChristianity,orthyf an essay n itself,merits evisitingith

an eye oward ompatibilityithhisnovelty.








forMachiavellihekeyo uccessfulepublicanoliticsis nottomanipulateirtue ofit he diosyncrasiesfthepresentlyowerfulndividual,ut to adjust helocation frepublicanirtue o the volvingophisti-cationof theparticipants.trausss famous orhisindictment f Machiavelli's raven abandonment

of Socrates. argue hatMachiavelli hunsSocratesnotso he can engage n thesimpler alculations fThrasymachus,ut becauseSocrates nd his friendsoccupy hepiazza.AndwhereAthensmayhavebeensimple nough o tolerate uchdistractions,lorenceis not.

Spinoza,27 ot Machiavelli, s more aptly theThrasymachan;28or t is Spinozathatarguestheprimacyfthepassions,nd that thicsredisingen-uouslymanufacturedn church t the end of life(Spinoza 1951,289). For Spinoza,nothing esem-bling thics esidesn thepalazzo.ButMachiavelli,n

a dramatic ontradictionfhis reputation, irectlyconfrontshis ynical osition. e recognizest n hispeers, sheaccuses hem f uspectingelloutmongthosewhoadjust o thegravity,fnotethics, f res-ponsibility.pinoza s enamored f Machiavelli e-cause he is a practicalpolitician nd thus notburdened ith hilosophy.ut Machiavelliespondsthat t is preciselyecausehe is a politicianhathecan see the picturemoreclearly nd soberly, otmore imply.

It is notsurprisinghatStrauss s thestrongest

voice in attemptingo linkMachiavelli o Spinoza.Strauss s convinced hatMachiavelli's elativismsanimated ythebanality f unsublimatedppetite,despitethe reservations f others that attenuateSpinoza's attractionCalvetti1972). Conceding oStrauss, orargument'sake, thatSpinoza is en-chantedwith ibido, arguethat neither pinozanorStrauss are o see a more ophisticatedource fMachiavelli'selativism,amely is nterestnadap-tationsnecessaryo sustain heperspectivef thepalazzo.Appropriatelyonstitutedndsustained,he

palazzoand its

metaphoricalxtensions

rotectnd

inspire esponsibilitiesranscendentf he mmediateand libidinal.

Butprotectionndinspirationoes not demanda heroic imposition f civic religions r ancientmoralities.orMachiavelli,herepublicanmpetus

needonly erecognizedndprotectedn the ocietalelements hat evolve to the maturity equisite omaintain t.Niccol6da San Friano nd MichelediLando have come to appreciatehecomplexityndgravityfpublic ffairs,nd Machiavellis confidentthatthey re capableof bringingo publicaffairs

the ngredientsfrepublican overnance.epublicanmodes and orders re needednot so much to con-dition nd restricticcol6 ndMichele s theyretoidentifynd embrace hem.

Skinner nd his ensemble nvoke an almost

religious everence or communal irtue,nd forMachiavelli's ttachmento it, as if some magicalmigrationo altruism r harmonys Machiavelli'sinterest.et t s not s if he ommunityoesundis-cussed nthepiazza; n fact, hepiazza s moregre-garioushan hepalazzo.Andneithers t he ase hatthe Pazzi did not consider hedestinyfFlorence.

The distinctionfpublic ndprivates not that e-tweenhe ommunityndthe ndividual.hepalazzoisdistinguishedromhepiazzaby consciousnessfthe omplexityndsophisticationfpolitical ffairs.The task f he epublics tofacilitate,ot reate,hatconsciousness.

A concern or erspectives not exclusive o theDiscourses.n his dedicatoryetter o The Prince,Machiavelli,iterally,llowshisprince o remain nthemountaintop,loof rom articulars,s ong s heseekscounsel mongst edestriansike Machiavelli.

The Prince s a shortwork,packedwithsweepinggeneralitiesndinspirationalnction or heMedicidu ourto whom t s dedicated. learly,hepalazzohasyet o beerected,nd theprincesonly istractedwithdescents o particularity.he contrastingtylesofMachiavelli'swomost amousworks repowerfulreflections f his theoretical istinctions etween

republicndprincedom,alazzoandpiazza.Thedangersfunmitigatedactiontem otfrom

competingnterestsut from heir implisticrose-cution.What eparates achiavelli'sepublicrom is

princedomre not diverse

regimetructureshat

nurture oble ommunitariannclinations.hose hat

expect uchdistinctionsrecompelledo rejectMa-chiavelli'sontentionhat is womost amous ookstreat wodiscreteolities. ather,heprincedomndtherepublicredistinguishedythereplacementfthe clever nd heroicprincewith a powerfulndsophisticatedegment f the populace,that whileirreconcilablytoddswith ompetingnterests,ever-thelessunderstands hat alternative ositionsarelegitimate. here heprince annot lways espectthe istinction,he epublics dedicatedo preference

for alazzoover iazza.

27MymentionfSpinozawill eem ogical o those amiliar ithStrauss. or a quickrefresheree Strauss1972,273-77).

28Curleyays: I do notcallSpinoza Machiavellian ecausehebelieves hat ights coextensive ith ower,ince do notthinkMachiavelli imself elieved hat.AsSpinoza s sometimes oreHobbesian hanHobbeshimself,ometimes e is moreMachia-

vellian hanMachiavelli 2002, 328).








Acknowledgments

For their enerous elp, am gratefulo ElizabethDale, SilviaMarchesini,eterMinowitz, van Piv-onka,Anna Sbampato, nd the three nonymousreviewersrom heJournalfPolitics. ompliments

are alsoduemy tudentsnouruniversity'summerprogram n Verona,who patiently uffered ndhelped mprove volvingterationsfmymusings.

Manuscript ubmitted 7 July 007

Manuscriptcceptedor ublication3April 008

References

Alvarez,eo Paul S. 1999.TheMachiavelliannterprise.eKalb,IL: NorthernllinoisUniversityress.

Badian,E. 1966. Introduction. n Polybius.The Histories.NewYork: wayne ublishers.

Becker, arvin . 1967.FlorencenTransition,olume ne: TheDecline f heCommune. altimore:he Johns opkins ress.

Bobbio,Norberto nd MaurizioViroli. 2003. The Idea oftheRepublic,rans.AllanCameron. ambridge: olity ress.

Bruni, eonardo. 001.History ftheFlorentineeople, ol. 1,books1-4,trans.JamesHankins.Cambridge, A: HarvardUniversityress.

Calvetti, arla Gallicet.1972. Spinoza ettore el Machiavelli.Milan:Universita attolica el Sacro Cuore.

Capponi,Gino. 1862. I1 Tumulto de' Ciompi. In Cronica

Fiorentina,d. Dino

Compagni.lorence: .

Barbara,33-329.

Cassirer,rnst. 944. TheMyth f he tate. ortune9 (June):165-206.

Cicero.1923.TheSpeeches,rans.N. H. Watts. ondon:WilliamHeinemann.

Cicero. 1928. De Re Publica and De Legibus, rans. ClintonWalkerKeyes. ondon:WilliamHeinemann.

Coby,J.Patrick. 999.Machiavelli's omans: ibertynd Great-ness n the Discourseson Livy.Lanham,MD: LexingtonBooks.

Codevilla, ngeloM. 1997. Editor's ntroduction.n Niccol6Machiavelli, hePrince, d. AngeloCodevilla.New Haven:YaleUniversityress, ii-xviii.

Colish,MarciaL. 1978. Cicero'sDe Officiisnd Machiavelli'sPrince. ixteenthenturyournal (4): 81-93.

Croce,Benedetto.1914]1993.Cultura vitamorale: ntermezzipolemici.Naples:Bibliopolis.

Curley,dwin. 002. Kissinger,pinoza, ndGenghis han. nThe Cambridge ompanion o Spinoza,ed. Don Garrett.Cambridge: ambridge niversityress, 15-42.

Dempsey,Charles. 1992. The Portrayal f Love: Botticelli'sPrimaverand Humanist ulture t theTimeofLorenzo heMagnificent.rinceton,J:Princeton niversityress.

Gentile, iovanni. 968. tudi ul Rinascimento.ol. 15 ofOpereComplete.lorence: ansoni.

Greenhalgh,ichael. 982.Donatello nd his ources. ewYork:

Holmes nd Meier.

Hexter, .H. 1956. Seyssel, achiavellindPolybiusi: TheMysteryf theMissingranslation.tudiesntheRenais-sance : 75-96.

Livius, itus. 861.TheHistoryfRome, vols., rans. eorgeBaker. ewYork: erby.

Lukes,imothy. 980. Fortuneomes fAgeinMachiavelli'sLiteraryorks). ixteenthenturyournalWinter):3-50.

Lukes, imothy. 001. Lionizing achiavelli. heAmericanPoliticalcience eview5 September):61-575.

Lukes,imothy. 004. Martialingachiavelli:eassessingheMilitaryeflections.heJournalfPoliticsNovember):1089-1108.

Machiavelli,iccol6. 960.l PrincipeDiscorsiopraaprimadeca i Tito ivio,d.Sergio ertelli. ilan: eltrinelli.

Machiavelli,iccol6. 961.Dell'arte ella uerra.nArte ellaguerra scrittioliticiminori,d. Sergio ertelli. ilan:Feltrinelli,07-520.

Machiavelli, iccol6.1962a. storielorentine,d. FrancoGaeta.Milan: eltrinelli.

Machiavelli,iccol6. 962b. storielorentine,d.Delio Canti-

mori, ommentaryittorio iorini. lorence: ansoni.Machiavelli,iccol6. 965.l teatro tuttili crittietterari,d.

FrancoGaeta.Milan: Feltrinelli.

Machiavelli,iccol6. 967. eOpereMaggiori,d. Plinio arli.Florence: e Monnier.

Mansfield,arvey. 1979.Machiavelli'sewModes ndOrders:A Studyof the Discourseson Livy. thaca,NY: CornellUniversityress.

Mansfield,arvey . 1998 1966].Machiavelli's irtue. hicago:UniversityfChicagoPress.

Martines, auro. 1968. Lawyersnd Statecraftn RenaissanceFlorence.rinceton, J:Princeton niversityress.

McCormick, ohn . 2001. Machiavellianemocracy: ontrol-

ling liteswith erociousopulism. mericanolitical cienceReview 5 (2): 297-313.

McCormick, ohn . 2003. Machiavelli gainst epublicanism:On theCambridgechool's Guicciardinian oment'. olit-icalTheory1 (5): 615-43.

Merleau-Ponty, aurice. 1964. A Note on Machiavelli. nSigns,rans. ichard McCleary.vanston,L: NorthwesternUniversityress, 11-23.

Peterman,arry. 990. GravityndPiety:Machiavelli's odernTurn. Review fPolitics 2 (2): 189-214.

Petrarca, rancesco. 003. Invectivesgainst Physician. nInvectives,d. and trans.David Marsh.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityress, -179.

Pettit, hilip. 1997.Republicanism: Theory fFreedom ndGovernment.xford: larendon ress.

Pocock, J.G. A. 1975. The MachiavellianMoment: lorentinePoliticalThought nd the AtlanticRepublicanTradition.Princeton,J:Princeton niversityress.

Polybius. 923.TheHistories,vols. rans.W. R Paton.London:WilliamHeinemann.

Rahe, aul A. 2006. Machiavelli's iberal epublican egacy. nMachiavelli's iberalRepublican egacy, d Paul A. Rahe.Cambridge: ambridge niversityress,xx-xxx.

Rodolico,Niccol6. 1945. I Ciompi:Una pagina di storiadelproletariatoperaio. lorence: ansoni

Sasso,Gennaro. 964.1lpensiero olitico i NiccoloMachiavelli.

Torino:RAI.








Sasso,Gennaro. 980.NiccoloMachiavelli:toria el uopensieropolitico. ologna: I Mulino.

Shumer, . M. 1979. Machiavelli: epublican olitics nd ItsCorruption. olitical heory (February): -34.

Skinner, uentin.1978. The FoundationsfModernPoliticalThought,vols.Cambridge: ambridge niversityress.

Skinner,Quentin. 1990. The Republican deal of Political

Liberty. n MachiavellindRepublicanism,ds. GiselaBock,QuentinSkinner,nd Maurizio Viroli.Cambridge: am-bridgeUniversityress, 93-309.

Skinner, uentin.1998.Liberty efore iberalism.ambridge:Cambridge niversityress.

Spinoza,Benedict e. 1951. A Political reatise. n TheChiefWorks, ol. I, trans.R. H. M Elwes.New York. DoverPublications,79-387.

Strauss, eo. 1958.Thoughtsn Machiavelli. hicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Strauss, eo. 1972. Niccolo Machiavelli. n HistoryfPoliticalPhilosophy,econdEdition, ds. Leo Strauss and JosephCropsey. hicago.RandMcNally, 71-92.

Sullivan, ickieB. 2006. Muted and ManifestnglishMachia-vellism: he Reconciliationf Machiavellianepublicanism

with iberalismnSidney's iscoursesoncerningovernmentand Trenchard'snd Gordon's ato'sLetters. n Machiavelli's

Liberal epublicanegacy,d PaulA. Rahe.Cambridge:am-

bridge niversityress, 8-86.

Sullivan,Vickie B. 1996. Machiavelli's hreeRomes:Religion,HumanLiberty,nd Politics eformed.eKalb, L: NorthernIllinoisUniversityress.

Toffanin,Giuseppe. 1921. Machiavelli ii Tacitismo : apoliticatorica l tempoellaControriforma.adua:Draghi.

Vasari,Giorgio. 822.Opere, vols. Florence: . Audin.

Yarbrough, ean.1979. Republicanism econsidered: ome

Thoughtsn theFoundation nd Preservationf theAmer-icanRepublic. eviewfPolitics1 (January):1-95.

Zervas, iane Finiello. 987. TheParteGuelfa, runelleschindDonatello. ocustValley, Y: J.J. ugustin.

Timothy . ukes sprofessorfpolitical cience,

SantaClaraUniversity,antaClara,CA 95053.

descending to the particulars the palazzo, the piazza, and machiavellis republican modes and

Documents