Reflections - Week 7

October 20, 2010.

Reflections: Week 7

The Prince, Machiavelli. Written 1513; Published 1532
The Praise of Folly, Desiderius Erasmus (Gerrit Gerritzoons). Published 1509.


"We have replaced decency with reason" (Koestler, Darkness At Noon)

“Like most religions, reason presents itself as the solution to the problems it has created” (J.R. Saul)


I can see why Machiavelli’s name is associated with cold calculations in conflict but does he really deserve the negative connotations associated with the mention of his name used as an adjective? After all, The Prince was written to save his country from invaders and he wanted to help his fellow Italians, no? It’s not as if acts of savagery only started to occur after this book was published. Although, many of the statements in The Prince are delivered in such a way as to make the author seem cold and uncaring, I think he can be forgiven for this. Wars, along with all of its atrocities, were happening, and were to continue, regardless of what Machiavelli wrote; it could be that his advice amounted to a utilitarian argument for seemingly cold and unjust behaviour by a Prince.

In The Prince Machiavelli appeals to Lorenzo de Medici in the hopes of getting back into the game of Italian politics (he was in exile at the time) and is offering his answer to the political instability of the day. To me there is something mercenary in his intentions but I wonder what legacy his book had on wars since its publication in 1532. Henry VIII declared himself supreme head of the church in 1534. He acted more like an Italian prince than an English king. I wonder if Henry VIII had a copy - probably; he was very well read. I would not be surprised to learn that regions governed by leaders who followed Machiavelli’s tenets were more peaceful as a result of heavy-handed rule. Limp-wristed rulers, although painted as nice people, may not be the best thing for their citizens in the long run, especially if the leaders’ weakness makes them a target by forces from the outside. Of course, this could be totally false if The Prince was written as a satire. It’s ironic to think that the qualities we associate with Machiavelli might be completely unwarranted, especially if Rousseau (among others) is right in writing that Machiavelli was “a proper man and a good citizen”.

My impression was that Machiavelli, in The Prince, applies Reason to war. Although his arguments are sound, there is little room for morality which makes me wonder how moral a state should actually be… For an individual to have morality is one thing, but what about the state? Is this a bastardization of reason? I imagine his excuse would be that different standards of morality apply to both state and the individual.

The methods of applied reason are such that for every question there is one right answer. Machiavelli's solutions seem sound, but just like his reason does not take morality into account (along with other complexities of humanity), I can't help but think that the solid pillar he builds with Reason is overly-simple and that the multitude of factors that are at play in wartime - ones that Machiavelli does not mention in The Prince - can collectively cause his rock to crumble.

Machiavelli coolly talks about liquidating whole populations for the maintenance a princedom but it's nothing personal for him, his aim is merely to communicate a recipe for a stable state and his sound arguments are based on history.

I am reminded of the documentary Fog of War. In this clip you have Robert McNamara talking about the lessons he learned in his involvement in war. He was a player in destructive operations both in WWII in Japan and, (in Vietnam), the Vietnam War (never mind his equally destructive involvement with the World Bank!) Here is a man whose legacy might bring about a new pejorative term: "McNamarian", but what struck me in the docu was that McNamara seems like a decent guy even though he was so involved in horrendous events. Just as Machiavelli takes morality out of the equation of reason, McNamara divorces himself from any responsibility for his wartime involvement. He is talking for the state, not for any individual. Like he says in the movie clip, "I was part of a mechanism that, in a sense, recommended [the firebombing of Tokyo]".

Another interesting thought - "There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not" (Chapter XIV), as if being armed will ensure security. Thinking of Afghanistan, this rule no longer applies although it seems to be advice that nations have adopted in recent history. Is The Prince in G. W. Bush's extensive personal library?

The Praise of Folly

“Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched” (I don't know)

Erasmus was a questioning Catholic. His reading of the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians is the basis on which he judges the society of his day. A priest, but also a humanist, Erasmus would contend that his society has been lead astray from the original teachings of the church.

The Renaissance was as a turning point in European history, a time when serious critiques of society were rearing their heads. Erasmus was highly connected within the church and therefore was relatively safe from excommunication. He chose a very “safe” way of writing his critique and does so using the voice of a ‘woman’. Just like a boss whose first warning regarding an employee's untidy appearance or laziness is done jokingly, so is Erasmus’s approach in criticizing the church – he does it through the mouth of the Goddess Folly.

But what is folly, exactly? Here is a brief “History” of Folly: There used to be parades of folly where a “Goddess of Fools” was elected; In literature, fools are common (Rabelais, Don Quixote, Shakespeare (e.g. King Lear)). Through the mouth of the fool, we not only hear the follies of the world, we also hear Truth. Court Jester/fool is the only person who can say the truth to the king (usually truth that the king cannot bear to hear from anyone else.) The great secret of the success of the fool is that he is not a fool at all.

An interesting point brought up in class: For secular stories, there is a tendency to attach them to past myths. The mythic fall of man as an act of folly – this echoes back to Eve, someone not exactly positively viewed by the church. But just as what is considered a "fall" for Adam and Eve is actually a Rise (I consider the endowment of Reason and Free Will over Ignorance an improvement not a setback), this critique of religion in the Renaissance was a necessary evil. It was bound to happen as society at the time was becoming unhinged.

There is a definite change in tone after p. 45. After this, Erasmus hones his polemic toward the church and targets social institutions that matter. One might consider the first part of the book a warm-up. In it, Erasmus is setting the stage and getting the reader engaged and in agreement with him. He gets the reader on the wagon, so to speak, all the while implicating the reader and his society.

How dare he? Erasmus covers his butt by blaming folly, that irrational woman! On p.62, Folly speaks: “But here I meet with a great noise of some that endeavour to peck out the crows' eyes; that is, to blind the doctors of our times and smoke out their eyes with new annotations; among whom my friend Erasmus, whom for honour's sake I often mention, deserves if not the first place yet certainly the second”, (removal of italics, my own). It could be that after many treatises appealing for change in the church that were ignored, Erasmus finally wrote this satire, since all else failed. Erasmus knew exactly what he was doing and what he wrote, along with its implications. Have you seen portraits of him by Holbein?

Of course Erasmus took his words seriously!

Here is a pair of equalities brought up in seminar (although presented far more eloquently, and I think with a different point...): Passion=folly, crucifixion=passion... so therefore folly=crucifixion? QED. On page 67 Erasmus does refer to Jesus as a fool, "And Christ himself, that he might the better relieve this folly, being the wisdom of the father, yet in some manner became a fool when taking upon him the nature of man, he was found in shape as a man."

Had Catholicism listened to Erasmus, perhaps there would have been no break-up of the church; No reformation or counter-reformation… but who knows where that would leave us today.
Folly is Natural; it is in our nature. How is this related to Passion and Wisdom? Your homework tonight is to think about that. The more I read the more I see dualities dissolve. To say that Folly is part of Nature is enough; its roots and branches are found in both Wisdom and Passion.