Posted on 11/29/2001 6:38:35 PM PST by ThJ1800
Throughout history, there have been those who were opposed to dynamic, or radical, change, either from irrational fears or to protect their interests. They were persons disposed to keep to established practices and well-beaten paths; they were conservatives. In political philosophy, there were two men who sought to guard these ways and keep them fixed, and they preferred governments that could preserve tradition. These two men were Niccolo Machiavelli and Edmund Burke.
Born in 1469, Machiavelli was a native of Florence, Italy, during the reign of the mighty Medici family. Although he considered himself a republican, he understood the necessity of gaining favor with those in power. So, in 1513, he addressed his work, The Prince, to the ruler of Florence, Lorenzo di Medici. Along with The Prince, Machiavelli produced two other major works of political philosophy. In 1521, he wrote The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy[a Roman historian], in which he introduced his preference for a republican form of government by examining the Roman one. In his later years, Machiavelli was commissioned by Pope Clement VII to write The Florentine Histories. The forms of government may have changed throughout these works, but the principles which allowed these various governments to operate remained the same, because Machiavelli focuses on the means of the state, rather than its ends (Ebenstein, 284).
Throughout his works, fortune held a primary place in Machiavelli’s political philosophy. In The Prince, Machiavelli devoted a whole chapter to the discussion of fortune, its role in human affairs and how to oppose it. He began his discussion by mentioning those who believe in being ruled by chance. Machiavelli rejected this view, because in his analysis, free will had not been altogether extinguished (120). In chapter 25, Machiavelli compared fortune to a raging river that occasionally floods, and destroys, the earth, but when it is quiet, men might use their free will to prepare against it, “hoping to conquer her by force” (125). However, men could not eliminate change, so “…the prince must be adaptable to unforeseen events” (34).
A significant cause of these unforeseen events was religion. In The Florentine Histories, Machiavelli wrote, “But among so many changes, change of religion was not of lesser moment, because in the struggle between the custom of the ancient faith and the miracle of the new, the gravest tumults and discords were generated among men” (Machiavelli, 15). Some of those tumults were centered around Girolamo Savonarola, who caused quite a stir in Florence, ultimately ending in his execution. Rejecting the secularism of the Renaissance, Savonarola became a Dominican preacher, calling the people of Florence to repentance (Grimm, 46). His forceful preaching earned him respect in Florence, whose people began to institute his reforms. According to Machiavelli, these reforms eventually lead to his undoing. In The Discourses, he tells a story of one of Savonarola's reforms, which involved trials for treason. The reforms allowed those convicted of treason to appeal the judgment, but shortly after the law was passed, five men were convicted of treason and were not allowed to appeal. Machiavelli states that Savonarola never condemned the violation of the new law, and "Since this made it plain to all that at heart he was ambitious and a party-man, it ruined his reputation and brought him much reproach" (Discourses, 221). Ironically, when the people turned against him, he was convicted of treason and executed by the very government that he had created. One of the events leading to Savonarola's execution was his excommunication by the Catholic Church. While Machiavelli was often quite critical of the Church and could be critical of religion in general, he recognized the ability of religion as a controlling, calming influence upon the populace. Ruling by use of ancient religious customs, regardless of the theology, a prince could maintain good order due to the power that those customs hold over men (Prince, 69). Machiavelli did not see religion as personal experience between God and man, but simply as a means of keeping power and order, and the best way to do this was to maintain the traditional religious practices.
Another part of maintaining order in the Machiavellian state depended on the treatment of the two parties which make up the state – the aristocracy and the populace. In the Prince, he wrote, “Well-ordered states and wise princes have studied diligently not to drive the nobles to desperation and to satisfy the populace and keep it contented” (Machiavelli, 297). To understand how this is done, a must have known the desires of the aristocracy, as well as the desires of the populace. In The Prince, he stated that the desire of the populace is to avoid the oppression of the aristocracy, and the desire of the aristocracy is to command the people (63). In The Discourses, he cited a more economic reason, that the aristocracy wished to preserve what they had established, while the populace, who had not, desired to acquire more (117). Despite these seemingly different causes, Machiavelli's point remained the same - there was a natural conflict between the populace and the aristocracy. When addressing the ruler directly, Machiavelli made note of several ways in which the prince might satisfy the desires of these parties. In Chapter 17 of The Prince, he advises the ruler in this manner: "but above all he must abstain from taking the property of others" (90). In another place, he told the prince that the populace was easier to please, since their aim was more honest, i.e., the desire to resist oppression (Prince, 64). Moving away from the policies of the prince and more toward the constitution of the state, Machiavelli noted that those who created good governments recognized the existence of these two parties and designed the mechanism of government in such a way that the clash between them would produce legislation favorable to liberty (Discourses, 113). In this we see something of an end for the state - that of securing liberty, but the primary role of that body was to provide the order in which that liberty could be enjoyed.
As has already been noted, Machiavelli conceived the role of the state to be one of providing order, and he recommended several way of doing just that. In The Prince, he stated the chief foundations of all states were good laws and good arms, without which a state could not hope to exist, since it could not preserve order (72). By good laws, the state, or rather, the prince, should be miserly, because "niggardliness is one of those vices which enable him to reign" (Prince, 87), for by spending less, he makes the state rich, whereby he can conduct wars without burdening his people, thereby avoiding rebellion and revolt. The prince must also be a lover of merit, rewarding those who improve their lot and that of the state, and allowing trade to proceed in a quiet manner, whereby men shall not fear of being molested (Prince, 113). By good arms, Machiavelli meant a reliance on one’s own forces, those born within the state. The loyalties of auxillaries and mercenaries could be bought, and as such, it could be little relied on. In fact, they might turn on you in times of peace, thereby causing instability in your state. Advising princes on whether or not they should build fortresses, Machiavelli says this, “Therefore the best fortress is to be found in the love the people, for although you may have fortresses they will not save you from the hatred of the people” (Ebenstein, 299). Through an orderly rule, the prince provides liberty, prosperity and stability - all necessary for the improvement of the state.
Born in Dublin, two centuries after Machiavelli, Edmund Burke was the product of Protestant rule in Ireland, and he too sought the improvement of the state. At 21 years old, Burke, the son of an attorney, left Ireland to study law in London, a study he later abandoned (Ebenstein, 506). In 1756, he published his first major work entitled A Vindication of Natural Society. His purpose in this work was to dissuade people from making rational, or scientific, inquiries into the foundations of civil society and the state. However, it was not until 1789 that Burke began what was to become his defining social commentary. Unlike other Whigs, he was appalled by the French Revolution, which began as an expression of rationalism applied to politics and religion. So, in 1790, Burke wrote Reflections on the Revolution in France, the ultimate expression of his conservatism.
For Burke, change was not the result of natural forces, or fortune, as it was for Machiavelli. Instead, Burke saw it as the result of man’s use of Reason and metaphysics. In his Reflections, he remarked, “It has been the misfortune[emphasis added] of this age, that everything is to be discussed…" (Ebenstein, 527). In Burkean thought, it was considered taboo to discuss and inquire into the foundations of the state, because it would undermine the natural order. This natural order was part of a divine plan, “a divinely ordained moral essence, a spiritual union of the dead, the living, and those yet unborn” (Kirk, 510), diametrically opposed to the chaos of Machiavelli’s world. Hence, rather than use reason to oppose change, it is reason, the cause of change, that must be opposed, because any change in the divine order would result in chaos.
Since the divine was at work in keeping order, religion played a much more important role than it did for Machiavelli. Burke saw religion as the basis of civil society and as “the source of all good and all comfort”, because “man is by his constitution a religious animal” (Ebenstein, 527). As the basis of society, it could not be challenged, and while toleration could be allowed, outright dissent was intolerable. Atheism, which was in vogue in France during the Revolution, was a source of confusion and chaos, as it was the ultimate rebellion against divine order, because, Burke states, it was “against, not only our reason, but our instincts” (Ebenstein, 527). Had the British thrown off Christianity, he believed that they would have replaced it with some “uncouth” superstititon (Ebenstein, 527). Therefore, in order to protect the divine order, Burke authorized the use of an established religion to keep men within the proper bounds. This religion was the Christian religion, “which has hitherto been our boast and comfort, and one great source of civilization amongst us and amongst many other nations” (Ebenstein, 527). And unlike Machiavelli, Burke required that the church have control over the minds of the rulers that “all persons possessing any portion of power ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in trust” (Ebenstein, 528). One of Burke's quarrels with the French Revolution was that the National Assembly reversed this necessary construction with the "Civil Constitution of the Clergy" by which the assemblymen took over church lands and made the clergy employees of the state. No longer did the church in France hold sway over its rulers, but was now subject to them, but perhaps the worst of the situation was the confiscation of church property by the lesser party.
Whereas Machiavelli simply recognized that two parties existed within the state, Burke adamantly maintained that an established inequality was necessary for the preservation of order. For Burke, this inequality was natural and extended to an individual’s ability to rule. For example, in his Reflections, Burke wrote that if those engaged in such servile occupations as hair-dressing and tallow-chandlering were allowed to rule, the state would be oppressed (Ebenstein, 518). In France, the Third Estate, or commoners, dominated the National Assembly at the expense of the aristocracy and the clergy. To Burke, this was intolerable, as they were men who had not been taught to respect themselves (Ebenstein, 517). However, wisdom and talent could be found in any state, but if you were combating this prejudice - that commoners, in general, should not rule - then you were at war with nature (Ebenstein, 518). Allowing that virtue and wisdom could exist in any state, Burke saw it as necessary to create a mixed government, which would allow for the preservation of property and an outlet for the ability of the common people. This France did not do, but rather set about leveling the aristocracy and doing away with the old feudal ties. On August the 4th, the nobility gave up their feudal rights in a symbolic gesture to appease the French people, who had been vandalizing the homes of the aristocracy and destroying all evidence of feudal ties, during the summer of 1789. Burke was horrified by this aspect of the Revolution, saying to the French, "But you, who began with refusing to submit to the most modest restraints, have ended by establishing an unheard-of despotism" (Ebenstein, 520), by which he meant that the people of France had been forced to give up all vestiges of property. In Burke's eyes, the French had undermined the very purpose for which government existed.
The role of the state, its primary function, was to protect the right of property, particularly the right of perpetuating that property. For Burke, "The power of perpetuating our property in families [was] one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends the most to the perpetuation of society itself" (Ebenstein, 519). This perpetuation of property tended to the perpetuation of society, because society was a contract and partnership, but not a partnership that existed for transitory things, and as such it could not be achieved over the span of a few years. Instead, “it [became] a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those whoa re to be born” (Ebenstein, 528). For this reason, those who held the most property, the nobility, had to be secure it in, as they were not in France. According to Burke, because they had this power in greatest abundance, and as the fate of society was essentially in their hands, "Nobility [was] a graceful ornament to the civil order. It [was] the Corinthian capital of polished society" (Ebenstein, 519). In order for these men to be secure in their property, they had to be able to protect against an encroaching populace, who might wish to redistribute it, thereby undermining society itself. To protect this property, they must maintain that unequal representation that is fundamental to the British constitution, which France had abolished in their own country, declaring all men to be equal.
Why were Machiavelli and Burke conservatives? First, both saw progress as a precarious situation, in which innovation could lead to collapse. In The Prince, Machiavelli says this about innovation: “But men with their lack of prudence initiate novelties and, finding the first taste good, do not notice the poison within” (79). Burke, while advocating some progress, required that all changes be made in a slow and deliberate manner (Ebenstein, 530). They also looked to the past for guidance, rather than to the future for hope of better things. Machiavelli exalted the example of the Romans as one which all constitutions should follow, and Burke called upon British history and tradition for proof of the excellence of his thesis. They also saw men as an inherently passionate being. According to Machiavelli, men were lazy and devoted to pleasure, particularly those of the present: “For men are much more taken by present than by past things, and when they find themselves well off in the present, they enjoy it and seek nothing more” (Prince, 118). Burke stated his position much more simply: “You see, Sir, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings” (Ebenstein, 526). When Machiavelli and Burke looked men, they did not always see that passionate individual, but the group of individuals. For Machiavelli, this group was the aristocracy and the populace (Discourses, 109). For Burke, there was the propertied class and the laborers (Ebenstein, 520). And finally, both men believed that a strong government was necessary to restrain the passionate attitudes of men, and these governments must be created with the particular people in mind, so that it can be conformed to their traditions and habits.
Both Machiavelli and Burke desired a well-ordered state, but sought opposing means to achieve this end. Machiavelli allowed for any means necessary. Burke, on the other hand, required means which fit into the divine order of nature. In keeping with their means, they have been applauded and harangued for decades.
1. Butterfield, Herbert. The Statecraft of Machiavelli. Collier Books: New York, NY. 1962.
2. Ebenstein, William and Alan. Great Political Thinkers: Plato to the Present. 6th edition. Harcourt College Publishers: New York, NY. 2000. Pp. 283-290, 504-532.
3. Grimm, Harold J. The Reformation Era. The MacMillan Company: New York, NY. 1973
4. Kirk, Russell. Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered. Arlington House: New Rochelle, NY. 1967.
5. Machiavelli, Niccolo. Discourses on Livy. Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY. 1997.
6. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Mentor Books: New York, NY. 1980
7. Macpherson, C. B. Burke. Hill and Wang: New York, NY. 1980. 8. Stanlis, Peter J.,ed. Edmund Burke: Selected Writings and Speeches. Anchor Books: Garden City, NY. 1963
I'm afraid not, but I will certainly look into it.
"If One Wishes That a Sect of a Republic Live a Long Time, It Is Necessary to Draw It Back Often toward Its Principle."
"May princes know then that they begin to lose [their] state at that hour in which they begin to break the laws and those customs and usages that are ancient and under which men have lived for a long time."
"In all cities and in all peoples there are the same desires and the same humors, and the same as they always were. So it is an easy thing for whoever examines past things to foresee future [things] in each republic and to take those remedies that were used by the ancients, or not finding any used, to think up new ones based on the similitude of events."
"[Men without] fear of God [have] no faith in other men."
"A perfect republic... that will run the whole course ordained by heaven."
"And truly, never was there an ordainer of extraordinary laws to a people who did not recur to God..."
"Our religion has glorified humble and contemplative men more than the active. It has placed the highest good in humility, abjection, and in scorn for human things: that other [ancient Roman] religion placed it in greatness and spirit, in strength of body, and in all the other things apt to make men the strongest. And if our religion asks that you have strength in yourself, it wants you to be more ready to suffer than to do something strong."
"I shall always esteem it not much to live in a city where the laws do less than men, because that fatherland is desirable where possessions and friends can be securely enjoyed, not where they can be easily taken from you, and friends for few of themselves abandon you in your greatest necessity."
A couple other things:
Both Machiavelli and Burke desired a well-ordered state, but sought opposing means to achieve this end. Machiavelli allowed for any means necessary.
Absolutely NOT! Niccolo had a definite plan -- drawn from history and example, the very nature of his conservativism. It was very simple: what has worked will continue to work, such as property rights and religion, per the above.
Niccolo was mostly concerned with the state as a whole, that is, its very existence, not its intrinsic makeup. That, he left to history to define. He was more worried about outer dangers, although he gave great advice on how to keep hold of things inside. But don't lose the perspective of the period's City States -- each against each other, and, of course, Rome.
Viewed through Niccolo's advice in The Prince, the U.S.of A. did a marvelous job of managing the Cold War. A marvelous job.
Then this:
And unlike Machiavelli, Burke required that the church have control over the minds of the rulers that “all persons possessing any portion of power ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in trust” (Ebenstein, 528). One of Burke's quarrels with the French Revolution was that the National Assembly reversed this necessary construction with the "Civil Constitution of the Clergy" by which the assemblymen took over church lands and made the clergy employees of the state. No longer did the church in France hold sway over its rulers, but was now subject to them, but perhaps the worst of the situation was the confiscation ofof church property by the lesser party.
I don't see the same difference between Burke and Nicollo coming from Burke's Revolution . Seems to me Burke objected more than anything to the rejection of the institution as anything else, not so much the philosophy of the religion. He thought it was stupid and counterproductive to take the church's properties and expell its agents -- counterproductive to stability and law, just as Machiavelli would have it.
Well, glad for your discovery -- welcome aboard! These two are imperatives to reality.
PS For my mispeling of the man's first name, go to the profile.
Burke was a genius. He was the intellectual force of the Whig Party in Britain for the second half of the 18th Century. He was a contemporary of the founding fathers in America and like them he was a "classical liberal." He supported America in her dispute with Britain & wrote "On Conciliation with America" in 1770. The Torys in Britain caused and fought the war against America. When the Torys under Lord North fell from power it was the Whigs who made peace. He knew that America would serve as a beacon of liberty to the world and predicted that when liberty was under seige in the old world America would one day protect it.
Ever wonder why American patriots during the revolution called themselves Whigs and those against American independence called themselves Torys? The political views of Burke and the founding fathers were similar.
One of Burke's most unselfish acts was the doomed from the start Impeachment of Warren Hastings. Hastings was Governor of India and had violated the civil rights of Indians and abused his power. He was also a powerful man who directed British forces to victory after victory. Burke acted on principle as a man of conscience. He also supported religious freedom and the rights of the Irish - wildly unpopular positions for the times.
The French Revolution was the issue that divided Burke from the Whig Party then lead by his friend Charles Fox. Burke correctly saw the ugly malignancy at the heart of the French revolution. He ascribed this evil as having it's source with Rousseau. Rousseau was perhaps the worlds first left wing "illiberal." He was a statist who thought private property the root of all evil. In Reflections Burke exposed Rousseau's habit of fathering illigitimate kids then dropping them of at the local orphanage like so much garbage. Burke detested Rousseau the man and Rousseau the political philosopher.
In any event Burke was absolutely right about the French Revolution. In 1790 he correctly predicted the murder of the King and Queen, the reign of terror, and the instability and chaos that would ultimately lead to a Napolean like military dictator.
Burke was a reformer who built upon work previous generations struggled to pass on to the future. He was rightfully fearful of revolutionaries who sought to destroy society and build a new utopian one - which history has shown us can only ben done by eliminating freedom under the totalitarian boot.
"...but conservatives in 2001 should not be conserving the existing norms, but rather be working very hard to change them to their former order.
That's just the point -- exactly what Burked objected to in France of 1792.
It's been some time, but I would guess I dragged them all from De Grazia's "Machiavelli In Hell," which was my intro to the species and the original source of my enthusiasm. The M-Man himself takes patience, btw. Git it, though!
They're all from Prince and Discourses. I'll see what I can find for you. Go to De Grazia, regardless. And do good by Niccolo!
People tend to think that Burke was a Tory. There was a lot of Whig in Burke. Your discussion of Burke's attitude towards religion indicates this Whiggish strain and the parallel to Machiavelli. Disraeli was much more critical of liberalism and Whiggery in theory, though he wasn't opposed to using liberal policies in practice when it suited his aims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.