davidson machiavelligramsci 1973

8/13/2019 Davidson MachiavelliGramsci 1973

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/davidson-machiavelligramsci-1973 1/26

S&S Quarterly, Inc.

Guilford Press

Gramsci and Reading MachiavelliAuthor(s): A. B. DavidsonSource: Science & Society, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Spring, 1973), pp. 56-80Published by: Guilford Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40401692 .

Accessed: 11/12/2013 10:13

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].

.

S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Science &Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 164.11.203.58 on Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:13:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40401692?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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





http://www.jstor.org/stable/40401692?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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



GRAMSCI AND READING MACHIAVELLI

A. B. DAVIDSON

BULK OF GRAMSCI'SNOTES on Machiavellire inthevolumeNote sul Machiavelli, ulla politicae sullo statomoderno) heremainder re scatteredbout in hisotherPris-

onNotebooks, speciallyn Gli intellettuali l organizzazione ellacultura nd in the sectionof II Risorgimentontitled RiformaRinascimento. 1n thesenotes, nd in his moregenerainotesonreading,Gramsci uggests ow we shouldread Machiavelli nd givesa preliminary istoricistnterpretationf thegreatFlorentinepo-litical thinker.

Both thesemethodologicalproposals

and theinterpretationhave been ignoredby scholarsof Gramsci, pparently ecause of

earlyover-hastyssessmentsothbyhis editors,who suggested hathisnoteswerenotaboutMachiavelli t all but thathewasusingtheFlorentine o cloakan attack n certain spects f the fascistorpora-tive state,and by the critics, ncludingAlderisio,MatteucciandSasso,whosuggestedhathehaddistortedMachiavelli oomuch forpoliticalpurposes, o justify is incorporationntothe istof valua-blecontributionso ourunderstandingfMachiavelli.2 hese initial

criticisms arried ufficienteight o forestallnyattemptoapplyGramsci'smethod othestudy fMachiavelli, r anyreassessmentf

1 AntonioGramsci,Note sul Machiavelli, sulla politica e sullo stato moderno Turin,1949); Gli Intellettuali e l'organizzazionedella cultura (Turin, 1949); //Risorgi-mento Turin, 1955).Henceforth:Mach; Intellettuali:Risorgimento. ome of Gram-sci'swritings n Machiavelli are in translation n L. Marksed., The Modern Princeand Other Writings New York, 1967), Part III. English readers should also lookforthe forthcomingollectionof Gramsci'swritings dited by Hoare and Nowell-Smith and published byLawrenceand Wishart.

2 Felice Alderisio, Ripresa machiavelliana. Considerazioni critiche sulle idee di A.Gramsci,di B. Croce e di L. Russo intorno a Machiavelli in Annali dell'Istituto

universitario di Magistero di Salerno, 1949-1950, I, pp. 205-6; Nicola Matteucci,Antonio Gramscie la filosofia ella prassi (Milan, 1951), esp. p. 58ff;Gennaro Sasso,Antonio Gramsci, interpretedi Machiavelli, Lo spettatoreitaliano, III, No. 4,

Aprii 1950, pp. 91-93. For the bulk of the remainingrelevant criticisms ee ElsaFubini, in Gramscie la cultura contemporanea Rome, 1970), II, esp. pp. 496-7.

56







GRAMSCI AND MACHIAVELLI 57

his contribution o the studyof Machiavelliby students f eitherGranisci r Machiavelli,3 espite hefact hattheir uthorshad notread all ofGramsci'swork (and thus were uninformed ),nd de-spitethefact hat heyhad been attacked yGranisci orthe nade-quaciesoftheir wntreatmentfMachiavelli,which astsdoubtontheobjectivityf their ssessment f hiswork.4

Scholarsof Machiavelli,who strugglen a dungheapof overtwothousand itles n Machiavelli, nd nearly s many nterpreta-tions, ave beenthe

poorerfor heir ailure o consider

eriouslyne

of the mostsophisticatedmethodologies pplied to the studyofMachiavelli,whichthisessaywill suggest llowsus to resolvemanyofthecontradictions hich cholars laimare apparent n Machia-velli.5

Gramsci's nowledgeofMachiavelli

Gramscialmostcertainlyknew something bout Machiavellievenas a schoolboy ecause every tudentn Italyknowsbyheart 6

3 See the comments f A. R. Buzzi,La Théorie politique d'AntonioGramsci Louvain,1967), Part II, Ch. II, who relies heavily on Matteucci and Alderisio; Servio Ber-telli, Considerazioni ui recenticonvegnimachiavelliani, Pensiero politico, II, No.3, 1969 (Special number containing the proceedingsof the Perugia conferenceonMachiavellismo e anti-machiavellismo el cinquecento ), p. 503,who writesof therhapsodic and sometimesoverlypolitical notes of Gramsci and B. H. Crick, In-

troduction o The Discourses (London, 1970),pp. 15, 73, who while recommendingthat studentsof Machiavelli read Gramsci'snotes,also suggestswith the tongue-in-cheek malice of English academe, that Gramsci made Machiavelli as near a pre-incarnation f Lenin as anymortalman could getbeforethe birthof Marx, a pointalmost denticalwith thatmade byBuzzi,p. 147.

4 A. Pozzolini recently, nd in my opinion correctly,uggestedthat Matteucci'sbookon Gramsci'sthoughtwas uninformed. ee A. Pozzolini,Antonio Gramsci,An In-troductionto his Thought (London, 1970), p. 153. Gramsci wrote of Alderisio'sIntorno aWartedello stato di Machiavelli: Alderisio poses the problembadly, andthe fewgood reasons which he has are lost in the general disconnectedness f anerroneousgeneral framework,Mach, p. 119, and also had reservations bout theChabod school of Machiavellan scholarshipto which Sasso belongs,Mach, p. 211.

5 Useful indicators of the varietyand confusingcontradictoriness f interpretationsof Machiavelli can be gained from L. W. Cochrane, Machiavelli 1940-1960,Journal of Modern History, June 1961, pp. 113-36; I. Berlin, The Question ofMachiavelli, The New YorkReview of Books, November4, 1971; M. Bonfantini,

Introduction toNiccolo

Machiavelli, Opere (Milan, n.d.); D. Lemar Jensenpro-vides a potted collectionof the main interpretationsn Machiavelli, Cynic,PatriotorPolitical Scientist London, 1960).

6 See Leonardo Olschki, Machiavelli scienziato, Pensiero politico, II, No. 3, 1969,p. 518.







58 SGIENGE AND SOCIETY

the famousetterMachiavelliwrote o Vettorin 1513describing isbookish ommunionwith ancientmen/*7ythetimeGranisciwasat theuniversitynTurin this ursory nowledgewasdeepening ndin 1917wasso profound hathismentor nd professorfliterature,UmbertoCosmo, tarted ourgehimtowrite bookon Machiavelliand machiavellismo.8 hatwe knowofCosmosuggestshat uchasuggestionwould not have been made lightly.9 ramsci's nterestsmost urely ecamemorepolitically rientedn succeeding ears uthe never ost his interestn Machiavelli.The bookshe

purchasedshowed hathewaskeeping breast fthe nterpretationsfMachia-velli,and Cosmo again urgedhim in 1922 to put his thoughts o

paper.The meagerevidencewhich s available can suggest hat n1922Gramscihad muchthe sameviewof Machiavellithat he hadtenyears ater.10n the twenties, hen the fascistnterpretationfMachiavelli s a proponent fraisond'étatvied with hat fChabod,forwhomMachiavellihadno popular eaningswhatsoever,hepub-licationof Gramsci'sview would have been a politicalmatter f

somemoment.We cannot void thepossibilityhatCosmo'sappealtohimtopublishwaspartly oliticallymotivated. e that s itmay,itdoesnot detract romGramsci's reat nterestn Machiavelli. venwhenhe was enduring hehardshipswhichaccompaniedhis trial

bythefascists,e stillwrote ohissister-in-lawsking ormaterial n

7 Machiavelli to Francesco Vettori,December 10, 1513 in Bonfantini, ed., p. 1111.The translationsof Allan Gilbert in either Machiavelli: The Chief Works andOthers (Durham, 1965), III vols., or The Letters of Machiavelli (New York, 1961)will be followedwhereverpossible. The author notes that he does not agree with

Crick'sestimationof these translations.Crick,op. cit.,p. 72.8 LetterfromGramscito Tatiana Schucht,February23, 1931, n A. Gramsci,Lettere

dal carcere Turin, 1965),p. 411.

9 In his Tre maestri, n Italia civile,ritratti testimonianzeManduria-Bari-Perugia,1964),NorbertoBobbio writesof his teacherCosmo: Nel suo campo, la letteraturaitaliana, Cosmo era davvero un maestro p. 134),and that he had l'amore disinte-ressatodel sapere e il senso della dignità della scuola (p. 139).

10 For example,in Literatura i revolucija,September1922,he wrote thatMachiavelli^theorieswere that: la lotta ... tra i partiti ocali che conducono la nazione versoil caos, dovrebbeessere accantonata per opera di un monarca assoluto. . . , in An-tonio

Gramsci,Socialismo e

fascismo,L'Ordine nuovo 1921-1922

(Turin, 1967), p.527, and again suggestedthat Machiavelli should be seen as a political activist nL'Unita, October 13, 1926: II nostro Machiavelli' sono le opere di Marx e Lenin,in Paolo Spriano, Gramsci: ScrittiPolitici (Rome, 1967),pp. 7-9, which suggestscontinuity etween1922-1927.








Machiavelli nd informingerthathe wasfollowinghecelebrationsof theMachiavellian entenary ery losely.11 lthoughwe do notknowwithprecisionhetitles fall theworkswhichhereadwhile nprison,12nd we do know, n the otherhand,that he felthimselfseverelyimited n his sourcematerial, dmitting hathis readingoftenonly revivedfaultymemoriesof earlier reading,we can,througharefullyerusing isnotes nd letters,stablish hathehada profound nd fresh nowledge f Machiavelliand Machiavellian

scholarshiphenhe wrotehisnotes.

The works f Machiavellihe read while in prisoncan be di-vided ntothree ategories. irst,he read Machiavelli'smajorworksand manyof his minorwritings.He had several editionsof ThePrince and at least one oftheDiscourses vailable to him.He readthese, nd theArtofWar and theFlorentineHistories.He probablyalso read or rereadthe Vitadi CastruccioCastracanidi Lucca, theLegazione l duca Valentino nd theRitratto elleCosediFrancia.13Beyond hesewe cannotreconstruct hathe read. Second,he read,

or indicatedthathe had read at some time,the greattraditionalworks f interpretation:oseólo, Alfieri, e Sanctis nd Croce. Hemayalso have read the thenstandardbiographies f Villari andTommasini, utit s doubtful hathehad access o these n prison.14Third,he definitelyead themajorschoolsof interpretationf thetwentiesnd thirties hilehe was n prison.He readChabod,whoseessay f1925hadsent he talianschools f nterpretationfMachia-velli in newdirections; e read Luigi Russo'sProlegomeni Mach-iavelli and

althoughhe nevergotthe

oft-requestedook byÈrcole,

he readsomeofhiswork n articleform.15o thesehe added somereading fscholars f anti-Machiavellind humanism.n particular

11 Letters o Tatiana Schlicht,ecember 7, 1926,November 4, 1927, nd April11,1932,n which1) he askedforFrancescorcole, a politicadi MachiavelliRome,1926),whichhe had purchased efore oing o prison ut notread;2) announcedthe arrival fthe pecialnumberfMarzocco n Machiavelli;nd 3) told her thathe had read four ccountsfthecentenary.ettere al carcere,p. 27,145, 03.

12GiuseppeCarbone, I libri del carcere i AntonioGranisci,Movimento peraio,IV,No.4,Tuly-August,952, p.640-689.

13See the etters f March14, 1932, nd May2, 1932,n Lettere al carcere,p. 589,615;Carbone, . 668 andMach,pp. 10, 9.

14Mach,pp. 119-120.15Mach,p. 212.







60 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

he read and liked Toffanin's work.16He followed the contemporarydebates in learned journals very closely.17

So much thenforany inferencethat the Gramsci who wrote thenoteson Machiavelli did not have a good or up-to-dateknowledgeofhis subject. His knowledgewas necessarilypartial because his accessto the sources was restrictedor he had to rely on memoryand hehimself recognized the limitations this imposed on the validity of

anythinghe wrote in prison.

I believe t is impossibleforme to studyproperly, ormanyreasons,notonlypsychological ut technical s well; it is difficultorme to givemy-selfcompletely o a subjectand immersemyselfn it and nothing lse,asone does whenstudyingeriously,o as togather ogetherll thepossiblerelationshipsnd connectthemharmoniously,

he wrote to his sister-in-law.18n particular, given his method, hemust have missed having access to the historiesand biographies ofMachiavelli and his times. This militated against his according his

interpretation ny degreeof

finality.t also makes both his

explicitand implicit directionsforreading Machiavelli rathermorevaluablethan his own interpretation,which is more a program forresearchand an illustrationof his technique of reading than a full-fledgedinterpretation.

Reading Machiavelli

For purposes of exposition we can divide Gramsci's theoryof

reading into tworelated areas, though in theirpractical application,

forexample, to the studyof Machiavelli, theyare operated simulta-neously by the reader and even in theorythe second is an essential

complement to the first.The first s essentially a historical and

philological reading.According to Gramsci, anyone who wished to understand the

thoughtof a man like Machiavelli, which had never been systemat-ically expounded and ''whose essential coherence is to be soughtnotin a single writingor a series of writingsbut in the entire develop-ment of his varied intellectual thought'* n which the elements of

16Risorgimento,p. 14-19;Carbone, . 679.17Mach,pp.211-12;Carbone,p.682-6.18 GramscioTatianaSchucht, ay23, 1927, ettere al carcere,. 92.








hisconceptionwere mplicit, adfirsto recreate he man's ifeandhishistory;hen oreconstructheprocess fhis ntellectual evelop-ment o identifyheelementswhichhave become table ndperma-nent/'that s,which have become his own thought, ifferentndsuperior o the material'he previouslytudiedwhich servedas astimulus ; nd finally o recognize hatonly his own thought sessential n thewholeprocess fhis ntellectual evelopment.19

So a readingofMachiavellihad to startwitha reconstruction

of thetime nd the needswhichMachiavelli awin them. He hadto be examined: 1) as the necessary xpression f his time andtightlyinked to the conditions nd needs of the time which re-sultedfrom he nternal trugglesfthe Florentine epublic nd theparticular tructure f the state,which could not free tselffromthe residueof the municipalcommune,that is, froma formotfeudalismwhichhad becomea fetter; ) from hestrugglesetweenthe Italian statesfora balance of powerwithinthe Italian ambitwhichwas hamperedby theexistence f the Papacyand by other

feudal ndmunicipal emnantsf the territorilessity-state;) fromthestrugglesf the moreor less united talian states o establishEuropeanbalance ofpower, r from hecontradiction etween heneedsoftheEuropeanstates trugglingorhegemony. 20he beliefthatMachiavelli's hought hould be situatedhistoricallyn a dy-namic, omplex, tructuredeal and theoretical istorical raxiswasnotnew and in variousforms as severalpractitionersoday, mongthem heldonWolinand Felix Gilbert. t is also fairlyasytograspif thetheorys understoodn a simplecommon-sense ashion s a

productof thathistory.Moreover,most scholars of Gramsciareawareofthis spect fhismethodology. hat snew,difficulto un-derstand,nd has seldombeen notedbyscholars,s thesophisticationofhis notion ftherelationshipetween hetheorynd thehistoricalpraxis.

According oGramsci,while thesolutionsmenfind writtenrother) o the ocialproblems hat hey ace, re theproducts fthoseproblems, heydo notnecessarilynclude in themselvesnyof theraw material fthose ocialproblems hemselves,or do theorder,

structurend modeoffunctioningf thoseproblems utomatically

19 A. Gramsci,Materialismo torico la filosofia i BenedettoCroce (Turin, 1966),p. 77.20 Mach, pp. 13-14,p. 118.








becomepartofthe solutionor reproduce hemselvesdenticallynthe solution.Between the problemsthemselvesnd the solutionstherenterveneshemanwho,while himself historical roduct, nthe one hand perceives hem, nd on theother,usingtheintellec-tual and experiential ools at his disposal, producesthe solution.The solution tself s a creation,whichtranscendshematerialoffacts nd ideasfromwhich t is created. tsconstituentarts renotnew,but it is a neiusynthesis. imilarly,when men reflect n themore

generalmeaningfthe real facts nd the mmediate olutions

whichthosefacts rompted,nd proposeon thatbasisa general o-lutionto thetotalproblem n itscomplexity,hey n factproducesomething ew. He wrote:

In realhistoryheantithesisends odestroyhethesis; he thesisanti-thesis?-d.]willbe a going eyond,ut withouttsbeingpossible o es-tablishwhat part.- d.]of the hesis illbe conservedn the ynthesis. . . themistakeonsistsn raising o a factor f methodwhat s purelyimmediate,obe precise, levatingdeologyo [the tatus f.-Ed.] phi-

losophy.21The proportionsnwhich hesubject ranscendshe imitations

imposed n himbyhisobject (ofwhichhe isa part,he is situatednit,so it is bothsubjectand object, t is notexterior o him)cannotbe stated priori. t can onlybe established yempirical nvestiga-tion of the subject's praxis.Here empirical hould not be under-stood n itscrudesense,but in the sensewhichtheearlyMarxgaveto it,as thestudy ffacts jacta-whatmen created r are creating),men as conscious, ife

activity.n such a

realityherecan be no

mathematical quation.22Gramsci's heory freading llowsus to graspwhat s new and

universaln the workofa writer, othon an ideological evel (im-mediate olutions o immediateproblems) unconscious f its spe-cificdifference)nd on a theoreticalevel (his totalsolutionto theproblem fsocialorganization) conscious fthespecific ifference).The questionof theadequacyofthetheory o itsobject,changingsociety,s a separate uestion.Unlike an evolutionary heory,r a

21 Materialismostorico,pp. 27, 33, 185; for a general discussionof this problem inGranisci, ee NorbertoBobbio, Nota sulla dialettica in Granisci, Studii gramsciani(Rome, 1967),pp. 73-86.

22 Materialismo torico, p. 128-9,132,185.








theoryfconservation, hich tresses hesources f inspiration,hepragmatismnd the historicalimitedness f the theory,Gramsci'snotion of therelationship etweentheory nd historical raxisisnotcapableof a simplereductionism, here he ideasare producedbythe real problems hemselves.23n thecontrary, hile there sunitybetweenreality, deologyand theory, hereis no identity.There is always dynamic bject, n whichthefacts re not inani-matedata (what regiven)but human ctors,nda dynamicubject,the authorhimself. wo

interacting roduct/producers, utuallyinteracting.SowhenreadingMachiavelli oproduce n interpretationf his

workwe shouldbear n mind: 1) thattheauthor nd theobjectshestudies reunitedbut not identicalhistorical roducts; ) thattheyare also theproducers fhistory; ) thathistorys producedbyoneproductworking n theother n an empiricallyscertainable ash-ion; 4) that n ourcase it is theauthorwhoworks n theobjectsofhisstudy utbothhe and hisobjectofstudy re in dynamichistor-

ical movement nd thushiswritings avemeaningone in relationto theother, ossibly relation ftranscendenceo thatthethoughtin one is notnecessarilyhedevelopmentfthethoughtn itspred-ecessors.tmaywellbe severed rom,r a rejection f, uch deasbutonlywithin he imits ftheexisting eal and theoretical istoricalenvironment.

Gramsci's 'interpretation f Machiavelli illustrates his tech-nique ofreading.He starts,s he himselfuggests, iththehistory

23 I am aware that thisassertionconflictswith the interpretation f Gramsci'stheoryof knowledgegiven by Louis Althusser n Lire de Capital (Paris, 1967), II, ch. 5,whichmaintains that forGramscithe idea of the object was the same as the objectitself, hat therefore hilosophy the history f philosophy history tself, nd thusthat Gramsci subscribed to a crude linear theoryof production of ideas akin tothat of Croce. Indeed, much earlier, Italian scholars had made much the samecriticism f Gramsci's dialectics. See G. MorpurgoTagliabue, Gramsci tra Croce eMarx, //Ponte, IV, No. 5, May 1948, pp. 228-138; G. Carocd, Un intellecttualetra Lenin e Croce, Belfagor, II, No. 4, 1948, pp. 435-445. However, it has beenconclusively stablishedby scholarsmore au fait with Gramsci that his theoryofdialecticsis not the same as that of Croce: see E. Agazzi, Filosofia della prassi e

filosofia ello spirito, La Citta futura.Saggi sulla figurae il pensiero di AntonioGramsci (Milan, 1959), pp. 189-269. It appears that Althusseronly arrived at hisinterpretationf Gramsciby not followinghis own valuable suggestions orreadingan author, by looking only at what was explicit and not what was implicit inGramsci.








whichproduced herealitynwhich hewriter s situated nd whichhe analyzes.

Following closely nd explicitly he Pirennethesis bout thegrowth f the taliancity tate n the feudalworld whichprecededand surroundedt,Granisciheld that thecity tate first ad to es-tablish tsright o exist n a hostilefeudalworld whosesystemwaslegitimatednd indoctrinatedntothepopulacethrough heclergy,who preachedthe values of the cosmopolitan nd supranational

church.Bythe

12-1th

century,he

citystate

bourgeoisiehad

reachedtheeconomic-corporativetageof theirdevelopment: heirsocial-productiveolehad beenrecognizedn an antithetical eudal

politicalorder.However,unlike theirBritish nd Frenchcounter-parts, he talianbourgeoisie id not thenproceedtoestablish heirpoliticalpowerbysupportinghe establishmentfa united bsolutemonarchy. ramsci sserted hat thereasonsfor their tasiswas tobe sought n Italianhistorynd not in theses bout effectsfTurk-ish invasions nd thedeclineof Mediterraneanradeafter hedis-

covery f America.24His analysis f the local reasonsfor the failureof the Italian

bourgeoisie ogo beyond heeconomic-corporativetageofdevelop-ment svery omplex, hough imitedbyhislack ofsourcematerial.

1) Like all other tates, hecity tateneededfunds o survive.It raisedthesefunds n twoways, itherbya tax,whichwas basedon capacity opay, ndwhichresembled hatofthe feudalfocatico,or bya taxon consumer tems.The firstax favored hepoor andthe secondtherich,and therichnaturally ried,when in a posi-tionto do so, to shift heburdenonto thepoor.This createdgreatclassconflictwithin ach city tate, houghbothsideswereled byseigneurial roups.As a result, hecity tateremainedweak.25

2) Italian merchant nitiativebecame greatlyrestricted, s-

pecially fter hecollapseof suchbankers s the Bardi and thePe-ruzziofFlorence.The rich thenpreferredo investnot in bankingor tradebut in land,as this ppearedmoresecure.Consequently,section f thecitybourgeoisie ecame andownersn a feudalcoun-

tryside,ntermarryingith the old feudal classes.Thus the des-

24 A. Gramsci, li intellettuali l'organizzazioneellacultura, . 33.25 Risorgimento,p.8-9.







GRAMSCIAND MACHIAVELLI 65

tinies ftherichoraristocraticarty fthecitybecame inkedwiththereactionaryorces f thetime, hefeudal andowners.

3) As a result, omesections fthecitybourgeoisie theGuelffaction) ecame dentified iththePapacy,becoming trongerhantheir ivalswithin hecity nlyat theexpenseof losingtheir ntel-lectual utonomyo thePapacy-infact herewas a tendencyor heintellectualsfthecity tates obecomeabsorbedbytheclergy,whowerethe traditionaldeology-makersfthesociety.26

4)The

other, popular, faction,whose eaders lso camefrom

theseigneurial roups, erforce ecame allied in timewith theop-ponents f thePapacy (theGhibellinefaction). t was theweaker,and had theupperhand less frequently,ut it retainedmoreau-tonomy. here seems ittledoubt thatGramsciplaced the Mediciamongthe leadersof thisgroupand regarded he failureof thatfamilynd in particular, orenzotheMagnificent,o transcend et-ty ocal interestss crucial n thefailureof the Italian bourgeoisieto transcendheeconomic-corporativetageof theirdevelopment.27

Becausethey pposedtheChurch, nd wereless influenced y theclergy, he traditional ntellectuals f the society, his factionre-tained more intellectual utonomy nd graduallydevelopedtheirown intellectuals o give themhomogeneitynd awareness n theeconomic, ocial and politicalfields.28hey startedwithmen likeDante,whowas against heanarchywhichwas createdby thefail-ureof thecity tate ogobeyond heeconomic-corporativetage, utwho was not equipped withthe intellectual ools to proposeanypolitical olution ut theUtopian cheme freversiono anAugustan

age.29n time,however, hese ntellectuals eveloped nto the hu-manist chool,manyof whosemembers ecognized ither xplicitlyorimplicitlyhe imitsmposed n Italiandevelopment ythelead-ing role playedin Italian politicsby the Churchwithits cosmo-politan interests.

5) The humanists pposedto the doctrine fthe ChurchtheirglorificationftheRoman pastand itsvirtues, ut beingfewer nnumbersndmuchweaker nd bywritingn Latin,restrictinghattheydiscussed o a smallcasteofLatinists,manyhad their ritique

26 Intellettuali,. 33.27 Risorgimento,. 35.28 Intellettuali,. 3.29 Risorgimento,. 6.








nullified.Others, hemoresignificanttream,wrote n thevulgartongue nd reachedmuchwider udienceswith their ounter-valuesystem.

6) The lattergroupwas typifiedy Machiavelli: Humanismwas ethical/political/ot artistic,t was the research or the basesof an Italian state*which should have been born together ndparallelwithFrance,Spain and England: in thissense,Humanismand theRenaissancehave as theirmost xpressivexponent,Machia-

velli.30

By a humanistGramscimeant a man who having tudiedantiquity,nd in particular heCiceronianperiodwhichprecededtheEmpire,derivedhis understandingfthe worldnot onlyfromthathistoryutfromocatinghimself istoricallyn relation o thathistory,nd whobelievedthatmencould shapetheirownpoliticaland ethicaldestinies nd actedupon thatbelief, nd not a man likeMarsilioFicino,whoseNeoplatonism ed him to regardthe con-templativend notthe active s thehighest orm f life.31 is ideaofhumanismhe took fromToffanin,32ho maintained hat what

iscommonlyegarded shumanism,hecultofLatinityndclassicalstudies,was a reactionaryulturalmovement, thesiswhichGramsciwrote oftencoincides withnotes alreadymade by me in othernotebooks. 33oday,thework fGarin, hemost minent tudent fhumanism n Italy,supportsGramsci's stimate.34 ithoutdoubthis own workhas been influenced y Gramsci's heorizing, ut itcannotbe deniedthat hefacts upport hethesis.

Not only sGramsci's efinitionorneoutbycontemporaryis-toricalresearch, ut his description f Machiavellias a humanist

withinthatdefinitions also well established. ven more thanhisgeneralizationsbout humanism, his locationof Machiavellites-tifieso thebrilliance fGramsci'snsightsntohistory. t thetimehewaswriting,heorthodoxy asdirectlypposedto the thesis hatMachiavelliwasa humanist. he Florentinewasregarded ather s

30 Ibid., p. 16.31 Risorgimentop. 16; sometimesGramcsi describedMachiavelli as beyondhumanism

(Intellettuali,p. 37) but thenhe was comparinghim with the Neoplatonists.

32 G. Toffanin,Cosa fu l'Umanesimo? Florence,1929).33 Intellettuali,p. 37.34 E. Garin, L'Umanesimo italiano (Bari, 1958) and Medioevo e Rinascimento: Studi

e ricerche Bari, 1954),esp. pp. 90-107.








a bureaucratwho wasnotwithout etters.35his emphasiswas dueto lack ofknowledge bout his childhood.Villariwrote, NiccoloMachiavellimakes his appearance n historyn theyear1498,thetwenty-ninthf his age.**36ince thenmoreevidence has come tolight. irst,heLibro di Ricordiofhisfather, ernardo, ublished n1954,has shown that Machiavelliwas taughtLatin, as well as theabacus, ndhisteachers,maestroMatteo,who ived near thebridgeofSantaTrinità, er Battistadi Filippo da Poppi,who held classesin the

church,nd

finallyer

Pagóloda

Ronciglione,37ave been

identified s prominent umanistswithfamoushumanistpupils.38To FelixGilbert's ssiduitywe owe thediscoveryhatBernardo, fwhomthebiographerRidolficould sayno morethan that he was. . . notwithout ulture, ivingmuchthought omoneymatters/'39

washimself artofthehumanistmovement.40n fairnesso Ridolfi,itmustbe notedthathe tooregardsMachiavelli s a humanist.41

The importance f thisevidence bout theapparently arefuleducation eceivedbyMachiavelli nd theambiencewithwhichhe

wasat leastmarginallyssociated s a child, s this: tvalidatesGrani-sci s starting ointwhichallowshimto establish ome idea of theoverallviewMachiavellihad of ife.42

1) Gramsci tates hat Machiavellinaturally eltthe weaknessof all Italiansat a time when Francevied with otherpowersfor

35 P. Villari, The Life and Times ofNiccolo Machiavelli (London, 1892), pp. 239-241.His comparativelyrestrictedculture must doubtless have been a drawback to

him. O. Tommasini,La Vita e gli Scrittidi Nicolo Machiavelli nella loro relazioneal Machiavellismo Turin, 1883), , p. 98.

36. Ibid.37 BernardoMachiavelli,Libro di Ricordi (Florence,1954), p. 31 and passim.38 F. Gilbert,Machiavelli and Guicciardini: Politics in Sixteenth CenturyFlorence

(Princeton, 965),pp. 318-322.39 R. Ridolfi (trans.C. Grayson),The Life of Niccolo Machiavelli (London, 1963), p.

2; Gilbert,Machiavelli and Guicciardini,p. 318.40 Ibid.41 Ridolfi,p. 13.42 Of course,no one can denythat Machiavelli expressedcontradictory,on-humanist

views. Immediatelyafter his release fromprison he wrote workswhich suggestedthat the explanation for the woes of his timewere to be soughtoutside this world

and that salvation could come onlyfromGod: Canti carnascialeschi n Gilbert TheChief Worksetc., II, pp. 879ff.;he sometimes ascribed events to the supernaturalor to magic and refused to discuss them; and he used the language of the middleages, obscuringhis immanent pproach. SheldonWolin, Politics and Vision (Boston,1960),p. 214.








bourgeoisiewas ipso factoan anti-Papalmorality. ut, as his atti-tude towards avonarola hows, t was not onlynegative.His am-bivalent ttitude owards avonarola s explainedbyhisrecognitionthattheothermanopposedthestateofreligion, s he himself id,butthat avonarola ouldonly dvance n abstract topian olution.He, on the contrary,id not make blueprints or the future.Hemerely xpressed nsystematicnd aphoristic eneralconcepts ndan originalviewof theworld 'whichwe can call a 'philosophy f

praxis'or a

'neo-humanism,'n that t doesnot

recognizeither m-

manent r transcendentlements of themetaphysical ind) but isbased completely n the concrete ction of men who because oftheir wnhistorical eedswork n and transformeality/'46

By thisreadingGramscithusproducesa Machiavelliwho isprimarily committedmanwhoproposedplansof actiontoremedythe llshe sawaroundhim and no dispassionate olitical cientistas Olschkiwould havehim.

Together hesereadings vokea Machiavelliwho is writingn

anti-feudal nd anti-Papal heory othbythelogic of his situationand as portrayedn his own concerns. n his Discoursesand ThePrince,whichGramsci uggests re the highest xpression f hisunderstandingf themeaningof his precepts or olving heprob-lemsof taly,we can occasionallyee a realization hat hePapacy sthe inchpin fthesystem.47

Ratherdisappointingly,ramsci eaves us without firmndi-cationof whatthisanti-feudalnd anti-Papaltheory s. But it is

implicit hroughout iswritings. tentative econstruction ould

maintain hat forGramsci heessenceof thePapacywas itsworldview.Politically,hisgavehomogeneitynd legitimacyo the feudal

systemn Italy, ubordinatinghenationalpopular interest o the

cosmopolitan nd supra-nationalnterests f the Church.48 hilo-

sophically,t advancedan Aristotelian otionof man'splace in theworld, n whichman had no notion of therightorderforsociety.He hada necessarytatusmposed ya divine anction gainstwhichit wasuselessforhim to fight,nd no realautonomy. here wasnofreedom

eyondhat fseekingalvation hroughheworks rdained

46 Mach,pp.86,90.47 Mach,p. 15.48 Materialismotorico,p.5-13andpassim;ntellettuali,. 4.








bytheChurch nd thehighest orm f life was that of abnegationand contemplation.

Politically,Machiavelli n response reateda challengeto theexisting oliticalorderbycallingfor Prince to uniteItaly;philo-sophically,he implicitly et up an absolute immanentism, his-toricismnwhichmanmadehis owndestinies, utnot n conditionsdecidedbyhim.For Machiavellitherewereno transcendentulesof social order (no political sciences), nd thusno politicalblue-

printsfor the future.All

judgmentsre

practicallymodified r

verified.Frombeingtheobjectsofpoliticsmenbecomethesubjects f

politics.Their role is no longerone of passiveacceptanceof theexistingocialorderbut active hanging fthatorderfortheir wnpurposes.

This wouldexplainthe stress n conceptsikevirtù n Machia-velli. If the Churchstressed eterminismnecessità),Machiavellialso provideda place forman's own action in decidinghis des-

tiny virtu)fhe knewhowto

graspthe occasion

(fortuna).A GramsciannterpretationfMachiavelli

A preliminaryeading fthebiographiesnd thetexts uggeststhat here s ampleevidence o supportGramsci'snterpretation.

France forcedherself n the attention f Machiavelliwhen sheinvaded taly n 1494.He sawhis city (whichhe lovedmorethanhissoul) in greatperil and his state aid waste bythe arrogantFrench. t left profoundndpainful mpression.49gain, n 1498,whenon oneofhisearliest iplomaticmissions orFlorence, is ownlife was threatened y mutinousFrench mercenaries uringthesiegeofPisa.Yet again,on hisfirstmission o France n 1500 todis-cusshow muchFlorence houldpay forthesemercenaries, e suf-fered reathumiliation nd againfeared orhis life at the hands oftheFrench.50n sum,he was forced n a verypersonalwayto seehis life,Florentine ife,and Italian life as greatly nfluenced yFrance.

Becausehe was forcedby events o see thesemiseries nd de-

49 Prima Decennale in Bonfantini,p. 1056; Machiavelli to FrancescoVettori,April 16,1527 n Bonfantini, . 1136;Villari, , p. 241.

50 Ridolfi,p. 42.








feats s theresult fFrench trength,e could notbuthavedislikedthe French ntensely. e noted (with atisfaction?)hat theFrenchmercenariest thesiegeofPisawere fullofconfusion nd struckwithfear bythedeterminedtaliansopposing hem.51 e revealeda decided ntipathyowards rench rrogancen his famouswaspishstatement o Roanne thatthe Frenchwereno statesmen nd, by1504,when he wrotehis first ecennale,he rejoicedwhenthe ca-pon (capone)challenged hegamecocks galli).52

Like manyother talians,he identified he ills of Italywiththe Ultramontanerinces who devastatedtrepeatedlyfter 494,and he wished to expel themfromhis patria (Florence).But he,unlike others,believed as earlyas 1504 thatdetermined talianscouldbeat the French rmies.53 aturally hismeantmeasuring heItalianstates gainstFranceand lateragainst heothergreatpowerwhichmadeItaly tsbattlefield,heSpanishEmpire.

To make the comparisonhe had to discard the emotionalterminologyn which heFrenchwere barbarians or more ana-

lytical pproach. n hisRitratto elle cose di Francia,of 1510,writ-ten after hree isits o France,he recognized hat: La coronae glire di Franciasono oggipiù gagliardi, icchie più potenti he maifussino.. and amongthemost mportant easonswhichhe gavefor hiswas thatFrancewasunited n an absolutemonarchy.54hebaronswere ll most bedient. On the otherhand,bycomparison,Florence nd theother taliancity tateswerein declineifnot inruin.55

Faced withthisenormousgap

between hepower

of the Ital-iansand thosewho,whether hey ame as friends r foes,werere-

51 PrimaDecennale, in Bonfantini, . 1056.52 Ibid., p. 1048.53 Compare the recognitionof this in Guicciardini,Storia d'Italia in de Caprariis, p.

374ff. assim; and Machiavelli, storiefiorentine,n Bonfantini, . 980; Prima Decen-nale in Bonfantini, . 1056.

54 Ritrattodelle cose di Francia in Bonfantini,p. 471; see too the opening lines ofRitrattodelle cose della Magna (1512) in Bonfantini,p. 487: No one can have anydoubt as to the power of Germany,for t abounds in men, wealth and arms.

55 See by comparisonthe Parole da dirle sopra la provisionedel danaio etc. (1502) inBonfantini, . 433, in which there are phrases ike: any one who has observed . .the ruins of the provincesand the cities, ndicating quite clearlythat Machiavellihad. This was the period when the mythof a Laurentian Golden Age developedpreciselybecause of the markeddecline since that time.








sponsible or hedevastationfthecountry,herewere twoalterna-tives:toaccept (be reasonable nd recognize hattherewasnothingtobe done,whichwasGuicciardini's osition) r to refuse o acceptthe situation nd totry ochange t.All theevidence howsMachia-velli tookthesecondcourse.Whathe wantedweremen whodared,but notwiththetolling fbells, capon's caper,butwitheffective-ness. He foundhis model for what Italians should do in CesareBorgia,whomhe had a chance to observeduringhis missiontoImola in 1502. He was not enthralled

byhis

cruelty,ndeed the

evidenceof the FirstDecennale suggests he contrary, ut in hisdespatches e notedthatBorgia always dded to his good fortunebyactingon his ownbehalf, y relying n his ownstrength. e il-lustratedheadage thatwhere herewerementherewas a way.56

ThereafterMachiavellifrequently eld Borgia up as an ex-ample to be emulated,not becauseof his cruelty, ecauseBorgia'scrueltywas notuntypicalt that ime nd would haveseemedquitenormal oMachiavelli,57ut becauseBorgiawasa man whoreliedon

himself,was not coercedby circumstancesnd graspedoccasions,actingfirmlynd decisively. he Florentines,y comparison, eliedon others,were coerced by the circumstancesnd failed to act

decisively.58It would be a mistake o think hat Machiavelliwassuggesting

that ll Italy houldputherselfnderBorgia'sbanner, r thathewasevenassertinghe needfor condottiererince o expeltheFrench.We canseewhathe seeks ogiveemphasis oby comparingwowrit-ingsof 1503, n one of whichhe specificallyeferredo Borgiaand

in the otherdid not.Bothworks efer xplicitly o thepresence fthe Ultramontaneprinces, who conditioned talian life; bothworks, owever, rgethatthisfactor houldnot deterpeople from

taking he initiativewhencircumstancesermitted. y taking uchinitiatives,speciallyby armingthemselves,heywould forcethe

56 Machiavelli to Signoria,October23, 1503,Bonfantini, . 448.

57 Machiavelli had himselfbeen tortured nd took it quite phlegmatically, ven jok-ing about it later: Your letterfrightenedme more thantherope itself. Machiavellito FrancescoVettoriMarch 13,

April9, 1513, n Bonfantini,

pp.1096,1100. He also

reported quite matter-of-factlyumerous tortures,murders,etc. throughouthiswork.Borgiawas no monster.

58 See forexample, Del mondo di trattare popoli della valdichiana ribellati (1503),inBonfantini,. 431.







GRAMS« AND MACHIAVELLI 73

French orespect hem.Byactingfor hemselvesheywouldchangefortuna tself.

By 1503 Machiavellirecognized hatthistakingof initiativein an arena whichwas dominatedby othersmeantmakinga sig-nificant hange fromtraditionalpolitical activity.On the otherhand, fthepeopledid notmutare entenza, heyfaced lavery nddesolation.59

Otherwriters lso felt hat ucha fate waited talyand whenMachiavelliwrotethesewordstherehad

alreadydevelopeda nos-

talgiaforthe GoldenAge of Lorenzodi Medici.60 his nostalgiawaswidespread nd was usuallyaccompaniedby a ratherfatalisticattitude, ecause Reason indicated hat the balanceof forceswasagainst change.By ragionewe should understandhe oppositeofactionsdirected y desire* r will/ 61 t wasrationality,he tailor-ing of effortso reality, eing realistic. As such it assumed thepresence fexterior ata,whichhad to be accepted.Unlikemany fhis contemporaries,Machiavelli preached an activist ethic and

showed ittlenostalgia or he mmediate ast.He also believedthatfortunetself ould be changed.A datumwasmerely factum,whatmenmade.

SinceMachiavelliwastalking bouta historical eality, is con-cernthatFlorence hould takethe initiativewas expressedn con-cretepoliticalproposals.Equating thepowerof politicalactioninthe contextof the earlysixteenth enturywith the possession farms nd soldiers,fter 506 hisworks re often oncernedwith theneed to developnationalmilitias, t beinghis fervent elief based

on his own personalobservation hatmercenarieswereuseless.Ashe said,mercenaries orked heirway nto thatoccupation hroughthebrothels.62nationalmilitia f educated ndhonestmen woulddo honor o themselves,heir athersnd theirpatria,provided hatthey wed allegianceto the Statewho paid them.63f politicalac-

59 Ibid, andParole da dirle opra a provisioneel danaio,fatto n pocodi proemioe di Scusa 1503),nBonfantini,p.428-437.

60 SeeGilbert, achiavelli ndGucciardini,h.3,esp.pp. 111-14.61 Ibid.,p. 38.

62 Discorso ell'ordinareo statodi Firenze lle armi 1506) n Bonfantini,. 470.63 Ibid.,pp. 465-470; ee also Machiavelli o Francesco ettori, ugust 6, 1513, nGilbert, etters,p. 133-8: Foryouneedto understandhis: that the best armiesare those farmed oldiers. . . And ifyouobserve he defeats fFrance nd hisvictories,ouwill see thathewonas long s he foughtgainst he talians nd the








tionmeant armedmen,armedmen also resulted n changing heconstellation f politicalforcesby elicitingrespect nd providingthe basis forgoodand securegovernment.64

We can describe the concernwith militia as the clothingofhis demandfor nitiativewithpoliticalreality.Creating n armedmilitia,to which he devotedmuch of his life after1506,was notthe sole politicalmanifestationf his call to actionbut it was the

majorone,given hecontext.Againand again,he ascribedmore m-

portancend

primacyo force han to laws,whichhe

equatedwith

the factor fstasis nd stabilitywhichdid notexist n internationalor internal olitics n theearly ixteenthentury.

Creatinga nationalmilitiameantmakingthe peasantry hemainstay fstate trength,ecause itwas theywhowouldform hebackbone f hismilitia, othbecausethecity-dwellersouldhavetosupplythecommandersnd because thepeasantrywould be morereliable.

Machiavellirecognized hatthisproposalfor militiawas, ikehis

generalproposalor

akinghe

nitiative,ew,buthemaintained

that heoldways fmaintaininghe tatewereno longer dequate.65Viewed in this perspective nd juxtaposed to these earlier

addresses o the bourgeoisie f Florence,The Prince (1513) mostcertainly ppearsa call to take the initiative,not to the Medicito whom t was dedicated,but to thebourgeoisie. ike the earlierworks, ot onlydoes it plead thattheexampleofmenlike Borgiabe followed,66nd call in almost dentical erms or ombining rmsandwisdom o make their tates ecure,67ut it also indicates hat

national militiawas the firsttep in a revivalof Italian fortunes.Machiavellievensays, epeatingwhat he has said in thepast,that

Spaniards,whose armies were like his own, but now that he has foughtagainstarmed peoples, such as the Swiss and the English,he has lost, and is in danger of

losingmore.And men of intelligencehave alwaysforeseen his calamityforFrance,inferringt from his not having his own infantry, nd having disarmed his own

people- which was contrary o everyaction and every precept of anyone who hasbeen consideredprudent and great . . . what was done by the king of France (totheVenetians)could have been done by a duke Valentino or any generalof reputa-tion who appeared in Italy and had commanded fifteen housand persons.What

movedme was theirwayof proceedingwithoutgeneralsand soldiers of theirown.64 See fn. 12.65 Bonfantini, p. 465-470.66 //Principe, n Bonfantini, . 27; see also Villari, I, ch. 4.67 Ibid., p. 39.








thismeant doptingnew methods ecause theold were outmoded.68If,whenviewednot n isolation utin terms fearlierwritings,

it is thenopen to interpretations a clarioncall to use determinedmeansto achievedeterminednds, when,as Gramsci dvises, t isintegrated iththe aterFlorentineHistories nd theArtofWar™this nterpretationecomeseven stronger.t would be tedioustorecapitulatehesimilaritiesetween hecontent f theseworks ndThe Prince. t sufficeso saythat ll the themes re stillpresentn

onewayoranother, lthough omeare elaborated t greaterength.The FlorentineHistoriesare intendedto provide essonsfor thepresent ythestudy fthepast,70 goodhumanist ractice. are forexactlywhathappened n thepast s nota feature f thework, ndMachiavellihimself ndicated hatwherehe dealtwith theMedicithereader houldunderstand isownopinions s thosehe attributedto theiropponents.71

It emerges romhis story f the trials nd tribulations f the

city tatethathe feels: 1) thatunpreparednesso compromise e-

tweenthepatricians nd thepopolo minuto, heupper and lowerbourgeoisie, asthecauseof thecity'sweakness; ) that omparativepeace and prosperityxistedonlywhen the citywas ruled by a

good,wiseandpowerfulitizen whothrough dictatorshipllowedlaws to be introducedwhich controlledfactional ctivity; ) thatthelowerbourgeoisiehad turned o the Medici to fulfill hisrolebut thatMedici rule saw a generaldeclineof thecitybecause therulers fthat ime ackedwilland werecharacterizedy deceptions,tricksnd schemes ;

)in theperiod1434-94 Italyputherself ack

68 Ibid., p. 3.69 Mach, p. 15.

70 IstorieFlorentine,n Bonfantini, p. 567-8.

71 Donato, I cannot write this historyfromthe time when Cosimo took power tothe death of Lorenzo as I would write it if I were freefromall obligation. Thefactswill be accurateand I will not leave anything ut; I will simplyavoid discuss-

ing the general causes of events which occurredwhen Cosimo took power, but Iwill not say how and with what means a man may attain such heights.And onewho also wishes to know this,should note well what I make his adversariessay,

because that which I do not wish to say as comingfrommyself, shall put in themouths of his adversaries. Donato Giannotti to Marcantonio Micheli, June 30,1533, in L. A. Ferrai, Lettere inedite di Donato Giannotti, Atti del R. Istitutovénetodi scienze, ettere d arti,Series V, Vol. Ill, 1884-5,pp. 1570ff.; ee also Gil-bert,The Chief Works, II, pp. 1027-8 for the historicalreliabilityof Machiavelli.








intoslavery o thebarbarians, nd 5) themainfailure f thetimehad been the excessive se ofmercenaries.72

The historyf thecity,whilelocated n an internationalon-text,was seen in terms f factional truggles etween trata f thebourgeoisie, nd Machiavelliproposedwaysin which theycouldsolve theirpredicaments. ertainly, nd this emphasizesthe ir-relevance fthededication o The Prince,theMedici werevillainsbecause oftheir efusal o lead thebourgeoisie:Cosimowas a manwho loved himselfmore than his

city 73nd betweenthemthe

Medici excludedall other citizensfromgovernment.74e cannotcredit, ace Whitfield,hathe expectedGiulianodi Medici to leadItalyto a nationalrevolution, othbecauseGiulianowasassociatedwiththeChurch,which Machiavellihad alwaysregarded s detri-mentalto Florenceand Italy,and because the Medici familyhadfailed n therole whichMachiavellihad ascribed o them. fwe canarguethattheFlorentineHistoriesmakeGramsci's ssertion boutthenature fThe Princeofgreaterweight,we can do so evenmore

with heArtofWarandthe ssociatedwork bout Castruccio astra-cani of Lucca.Castruccio,iketheBorgiaofThe Prince,bearsno resemblance

to the realman.He too is a myth igure,n ideal typewho is char-acterized ya refusal obe dominated ycircumstanceseventhoseof his birth)but who,scorning radition,mposedhimself n for-tune. He used to saythatmenoughtto try verything,ot to beafraidof anything. . , 75A militaryman,he can be linkedwithFabrizioof theArtofWar,whocoupledfreedomnd strength ith

the citizen rmy,nwhosemen wereassociated ivicvirtue nd mil-itary ervor,nd whocondemnedmodern ities (myemphasis-AD)and princesforrelyingnot on vigorbut on fortune.76ogetherboththeseworks ontinuethe themespresentfifteen earsearlierwhen Machiavelli addressed the Florentine eaders,and in ThePrince,whichwas writtenmidwaybetween.

The major problemfor Gramsci's nterpretationomes not

72 Istoriefiorentinen Bonfantini,Bk. I, ch. 33; Bk. Ill, ch. 1, 12-13; Bk. IV, ch. 1.

73 Ibid., Bk. VII, eh. 6.74 Bk. VIII, ch. 1.75 Vita di CastruccioCastracani di Lucca in Bonfantini,p. 555.76 ArtofWar in Gilbert, I, p. 624 and passim.








from hesuggestionbouttheaudience ntended nd theargumentshe claimedMachiavelliused in The Prince,but fromhisassertionsthatthe determined nds of the bourgeoisieproposedby Machia-velli were thecreation f an absolutemonarchyike thatofFrance.This assertion uns headlonginto the objection,raised in manyplaces,thatthiswouldmakeMachiavelli nationalist head of histime, nd thattheDiscourses whichare closely inkedwith ThePrince howthathe favored republic ndnota monarchy.77efore

concedinghat t is toread too much ntoMachiavelli o see him as

an exponent fabsolutemonarchy emust,however, onsider are-fullywhat Gramscimeantbyestablishing national absolute mon-archy.

Ifwe understandGramsci's verall framework orunderstand-ing Machiavelli as typified y the denomination philosopher fpraxis, 78henwe mustrecognize hat while forGramscithe lastchaptersan integral artof The Prince (something idely cceptedsinceChabod's investigation) e nevermeant that Machiavelli was

consciously reaching n immediate bsolutemonarchy.Until thefamouswords l'état c'est moi were spoken,the centralized tateemerging rom eudalismwas notunderstood enerally s an abso-lutemonarchy.ndeedno reading fThe Prince could lead anyoneto assume that he thought f Franceand Spain as distinct, ovel

types f state.Rather Machiavelliwould have the bourgeoisie n-gage n thesortofactivity hichwould lead to an awareness f theneedfornationalunity.On s'engage tpuis on voit. . .7Ö

And it is ifwe understand he call foran absolutemonarchyin this ensethatwe can reconcileThe Prince withtheapparentlycontradictoryiscourses, reconciliation hichGramscidid notat-

tempt, resumably ecausehe could see no problem, ivenhis own

approach.Assuming hathe followedhisown rulesforreading,he would

have noted immediatelyhe fundamentallyifferentituation ofMachiavelliafter1513. For the first ime Machiavellistartedtowrite n a leisurely ashion,withtimetogo back to his Roman his-

77Mach,p. 14.78Mach,p. 90.79 See// rincipenBonfantini,. 82.








tories fgreatmen,whatthey id,and howtheyweresuccessful,ofind moregeneralexplanationsforthe phenomenahe described,locating hemrelativelynd comparativelyo givethemmeaning.80Assertionshathemerelyppliedthe dealsof Rome tothesixteenthcentury ecause (old chestnut) e had no notionofprogressn his-tory,n opinionwhichcan onlybe supported yneglectingn im-

plicitreadingofhiswork,do nothelp. It is obviousto all readersthatmuchofRome is transferredolusbolus intohiswork, orex-

amplento theArtofWar. t is

equallyobviousthathe deliberately

used his Roman examplesto draw moralsand generalizations,e-gardless fwhichpost-1512workwe look at. It is thenatureofthegeneralizations hichgiveall fourworks heir heoretical nity.

GiventhatLivywas hismain sourceof inspiration81nd giventhat t his timemensaw thefunctioningfsocietyn terms f neces-sity, ortunend reason (ragione=theoppositeofwill and desire),thecentralityf theconcept fvirtusnLivymusthavestruck im.82It addeda factor otheexisting otions f whatwastherelationship

betweenmanand naturebyshowing hatmen made their wn des-tinies, ven if not on conditionsdecidedbymen; it includedthefactoftheimposition fwill on the environment--theirivirtutesof Livy.

Every ne of Machiavelli^works fter 512 s informed ythisnovelqualityofvirtù (this swhy hey renovel).His noveltys tohave supplantedthe constellationnecessity-fortune-reasony theconstellation ecessity-fortune-v/riw.orhim tis lack ofvirtuwhichhas led to the defeat of men by circumstances,ot because they

lackedwill,but becausetheydid notrealizethat t is thewillsofmenand notfortresses hichare determinantn the lastanalysis.Regardless fwhathe looks at after 512,he discovers ailure n thepassivitynvolved n seeingtherelationshipf manand nature s aconciliation ccording o theconcept fragione.Greatmenare notputoffbybad luck,byfortune; heydominatenecessity. hese no-tions urnup againand again throughout iswork.

80 Only the work on how to deal with the rebels of the Val di Chiana had had the

benefit f retrospectivity.idolfi,p. 52.81 He also read Ovid, Tibullus, and the first f the humanists, Petrarch,but had a

profoundacquaintance with Livy. F. Gilbert, The Compositionand StructureofMachiavelli s Discorsi Journal of the History of Ideas, XIV, 1953, pp. 136-156.

82 See Titus Iivius in Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford, 1949), p. 510.








What ndicates hathe is conscious fthisdiscovery,partfromhis assertion hat cting ccording o thisviewof theworld snew, sthenature ofhis repeatedattacks n theChurch. f we put asidehissardonic efusal o discuss heChurch n The Prince,^we discov-er thatthe salienttheme n mostofMachiavelli'sworks s his anti-Papacy.He maintains hat heChurch,whichthroughtsexaltationof thepassivecontemplativeife,which t socializes ntomen,hasmade themfeeble nd unable to see themselvesxcept s objectsof

Fate,84nd thus thas

preventedmen from

mposinghemselvesn

theworld ndmaking heir wn destinies.But,forMachiavelli, irtù s not independent fnecessitynd

fortune.We may cceptde Sanctis' laimthat t is notheadlong d-venturism. irtù ntailsbeingreasonable bout prospects, rovidedwe understandhat t is not thoseprospectslone which determineourreasonableness.his givesus the nexusbetween heDiscoursesand The Prince.As a philosopher f praxis (exponento/ virtù),Machiavellirecognizes hat whatmust be done at differentimes

variesdepending n theconditions.n an Italyofprinces heappealto act politicallymustbe made bythebourgeoisie o princes;theymustbothrecognize hat to act effectivelyheymustact militarily,and toacteffectivelyheymust ely n their wnmilitia;The Princebecomes hemanifestof thetheoryf theDiscourses. ut forMachi-avellimen solved heir roblemsn action.He laid downno giganticblueprintsorworldhistory,ndgaveno recipes or uresuccess, orthiswasthe error ftheChurchhedetested.85t iswillfuldistortion

ofGramsci omaintain hathe claimedthatMachiavelliproposeddemocracyr thathe wrote handbookforrepublicans.Gramsci'sMachiavellimerelywished to have Italians make their tateswhatFrancewas- he fixedno label on thetype fgovernment,ut he did

propose hefirstteps n a process fremaking heirworld n thatdirection.

83 // rincipe, n Bonfantini, p. 36-39.

84 Machiavelli,Discorsi,I, 12, II, 2, in Bonfantini,pp.

127-8, 227-8, 391, 417; Art ofWar in Gilbert,The ChiefWorks, I, p. 623.

85 The Mandragola must be read as an expressionof Machiavelli's contemptfor theChurch.Put togetherwith his letters bout Savonarola and the Popes, we can onlysee him as no respecter f religionwhatever ts forms.








Granisci nd MachiavellianScholarshipGarin'sclaim 86 t the 1958 Conference f Gramscian tudies

that Granisciwas in some ways carrying n the traditions f deSanctis,Croce and Russo with this interpretationf Machiavellishouldbe understoodnly nthe ense hat ikethemhesawMachia-velli in historicisterms, or1) he specifically ejectedthenotion,whichCroceadvanced, hatMachiavelli stablishedheautonomy fpolitical cience;87) he didnot believewithde Sanctis hatMachia-

velli thought hat man's mission n this ife,and his first uty spatriotism oward the glory,greatness nd libertyof the father-land ;88 nd3) inhis considerationf Russo'sProlegomeni Machia-velli he showedmarked eservationsboutRusso'sclaim thatMachi-avelliwasconcerned nlywith whatwas and not whatoughttobe. 8»

If he is onlypartlyn the traditionGarin ascribes o him,heis certainly n opponentof those interpretationsf Machiavelliwhichmakehima political cientist;90hosewho seehim as a moral-

ist;91nd thoseforwhomhe isa republican.92As a philosopher fpraxis, Gramsci'sMachiavelli s only n-terestedn suchproblems ontingently.is object is to changetheworld, nd theanalysishe makes nd themorality e preaches,ndthe nterest eshowsnthemasses' ole npolitics,reall subordinateto his purposeof makingmen realize thattheycan changetheirworld.

Monash UniversityClayton,Victoria,Australia

86 E. Garin, Graniscinella cultura taliana, Studigramsciani, . 413.87 BenedettoCroce, Machiavelli and Vico, in C. Spriggeed., Philosophy,Poetry,His-

tory:An Anthologyof Essays by Benedetto Croce (London, 1966), p. 655ff.;Mach,pp. 11-13.

88 F. de Sanctis,Storiadella letteraturataliani (Milan, 1956), I, p. 116;Mach, p. 86.89 L. Russo,Prolegomeni Machiavelli (Florence,1931); Mach, pp. 39-40.90 L. Olschki,op. cit.; E. Cassirer,The Myth of the State (New Haven, 1946).yi Apart rromPole, and Foseólo, whom Granisci knew of or had read, there is L.

Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli (Glencoe, 1958); contra, D. Germino, Second

Thoughts on Leo Strauss'sMachiavelli, Journal of Politics Q966V od. 794-817.92 J.J.Rousseau, The Social Contract London, 1968),p. 118.

davidson machiavelligramsci 1973

Documents