But though formally an agent, the executive is usually much stronger than that because his job is not as easy as its harmless title promises. Still, when we think about it, the executive remains an agent. And in contemporary American speech one can hear: “The Bears really executed on that play.” The verb here is intransitive, and in the appreciation of perfection one loses the sense of reference to something outside the agent. We sometimes forget this fact and cover it up when we speak of “the executive,” simply, without specifying of what. Used with permission of the University of Chicago Press.Įxecutive power is power exercised in the name of someone or something else-God or the people or the law. How can it be that Machiavelli’s ideas escape his apparent dismissal of the power of ideas? How, again, given his understanding of an author’s virtue, can this author consider himself a prince?įrom MACHIAVELLI’S VIRTUE by Harvey Mansfield.Ĭopyright © 1996 by University of Chicago Press. He does not serve princes by supplying platitudes for their speeches, like speechwriters in our day. His own writing, moreover, is as far as can be from the stale practice of rationalization. Nonetheless, in following the effectual truth, he says he departs “from the orders of others” who construct imaginary principalities and republics-surely the very ancient authors with whom he converses. In accordance with this impression, Machiavelli offers his “homage” (servitú) to Lorenzo de Medici in the dedicatory letter of The Prince, and gives the impression that he composed that work, the most famous book on politics ever written, to gain employment with a third-rate prince ruling the city of Urbino.Īgainst that impression we have the unforgettable scene described in Machiavelli’s letter of December 10, 1513, in which he enters “the ancient courts of ancient men” and feeds “on the food that is mine alone.” Here he proudly asserts the distinction between the philosophers and “the vulgar” and maintains the continuity of the tradition of philosophy from ancients to moderns. Far from being a prince himself, he seems to efface himself from politics and to leave the field to its practitioners. With such a notion of virtue, Machiavelli seems to accommodate the evil deeds of Renaissance princes.
The effectual truth of effectual truth thus seems to eliminate the power of ideas words respond to deeds, not deeds to words. Deeds are sovereign: when confronted by a necessity, Machiavelli advises, do not worry about justice, but act and the words to justify your action will come to you afterward.
The truth of words is in the result they produce or, more likely, fail to produce. His truth is the effectual truth, the truth shown in the outcome of his thought. The philosopher’s virtue is not in thought or speech apart from deeds and more perfect or more self-sufficient. Aristotle made the same point more soberly with his distinction between moral and intellectual virtue. Plato put it most starkly in the image of the cave in the Republic, in which those in society, including rulers and ruled, are contrasted with the philosophers who have access to the sun outside.
In the philosophical tradition the distinction is between the philosophical or contemplative life and the practical life. As a result, the author, self-detached, thinks of the world beyond himself the prince thinks of himself and in doing so makes everything else pertain to his advantage. One leads a soft, retired life thinking of intangibles and invisibles-as sheltered an existence as he can make it the other lives through heat and cold, luxury and privation, dealing with facts, appearance, and realities.
How can an author be a prince? How can the author of The Prince be considered one among the many princes he describes? An author and a prince seem quite distinct.
0 kommentar(er)
