Wang 1 Alice Wang Regan HA 62 16 November 2013 Machiavelli, Castiglione, and Courtly Conduct The turmoil, strife, and

political intrigue of 16th century Italy birthed two iconic and intensely popular texts, Niccolo Machiavellis The Prince and Baldassare Castigliones The Book of the Courtier. Coldly pragmatic and deliberately calculating, The Prince discusses the means, both fair and foul, through which a sovereign can maintain his hold on his rule and his state. Among the books motivating ideas is the concept that a successful ruler must commit bad deeds along with the good and that he too should be prepared to act as fortune dictates without being hindered by an established moral code. The more idealistic Book of the Courtier lists the many criteria through which a courtier can distinguish himself in the eyes of his prince. Seemingly unconcerned with the weighty topics of governance and war and void of the politics The Prince examines, The Book of the Courtier places the knowledge of letters and arms, and sprezzatura, or seemingly effortless grace, at the pinnacle of courtly manners and accomplishments. Though the political contrast drawn between The Prince and The Book of the Courtier seems uncompromisingly stark, the two authors share a desire for greater power and influence at court, albeit in different capacities, that unmistakably colors their presentation of their archetypical figures and their values. Machiavellis prince is no ideal; he manipulates public perception by seeking a balance between vice and virtue, all with the ultimate goal of assuring the stability of his own position and of his state. In his view, a leader does not have the luxury of holding himself to the conventional ethical standard indeed, a man who strives to make a show of correct comportment in every circumstance can only come to ruin among so many who have other designs (Machiavelli 72). Parsimony is good and

Wang 2 generosity bad, with deliberate cruelty better than indiscriminate mercy. Far better off feared than loved, the prince must also prioritize developing his strength and skill at arms because he who has good arms will always have good friends (Machiavelli 86). Also clearly recognizing that some rulers have a claim to power through military strength rather than by noble birth, Machiavelli describes the options available for nonhereditary as well as dynastic prince. Last but certainly not least, a prince must be as changeable as his own luck. Only through abandoning his natural restraint and allowing himself to be swept along into a dance where he follows Fortune step for step and arm in arm, will she let herself be wooed and won (Machiavelli 118). Castigliones corresponding portrait of a prince, meanwhile, could not be more different. Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, the ruler that Castiglione so admires, is the very antithesis of what Machiavelli stands for. Although the duke inherits the many merits of his illustrious father, he is stricken with gout, rendering him unable to participate in the many activities at court. He is painted as a resolute leader standing firm and unchanging against Fortune, his implacable enemy although he was very wise in counsel and undaunted in spirit, it seemed that whatever he undertook always succeeded ill with him whether in arms or in anything, great or small; all of which is attested by his many and diverse calamities, which he always bore with such strength of spirit that his virtue was never overcome by Fortune (Castiglione 11). The bulk of The Book of the Courtier, however, is caught up in the discussion of courtesy and the diverse and sometimes trivial courtly graces that a gentleman of the court ought to cultivate. For instance, noble birth is the perfect courtiers first perquisite, followed by excellence in arms, comprehensive knowledge of the humanities and the fine arts, and command of the art of conversation. Chief among the courtiers graces, however, is sprezzatura, the easy elegance that permeates his every action and that can inspire the admiration of his social superiors and his equals. In light of the politically charged atmosphere in which it was published and the highly connected nobility for which it was intended, The Book of the Courtier is almost glaringly neutral, standing in clear

Wang 3 contrast to The Prince. Its advice is delivered in the guise of a game that takes place one evening with a lady as its mistress of ceremonies, while the head of the court sleeps, hidden away in his rooms. Even the texts main topic is chosen seemingly by chance, giving off the impression that had the players been differently inclined or had a courtier with a better proposal gone first, the book might not have existed at well. Rather than talking diplomacy, the courtiers consider the merits of painting, music, language, and command of the humanities. Castiglione not only steers the subject matter away from affairs of state, but is also careful to avoid overt opining. Indeed, many of the views given in the book are presented not as Castigliones own, but as those of the players, as they were reported to him upon his return from England. In some cases, the characters debates are left unresolved, leaving the reader in doubt of Castigliones personal leanings. The same, meanwhile, cannot be said for The Prince. From the beginning, there can be no doubt that Machiavelli is completely convinced of the prudence and truth of his words. Though he relies upon accounts of the successes and failures from the ancient past as evidence, his opinions are unmistakable and clearly his own. Nor does he shy away from examining the consequences of kindness and of cruelty and the benefits that a reputation for violence can reap. He not only expresses his own viewpoints, but is time and time again prepared to defend them. While Machiavelli and Castiglione seem to be irreconcilably divided by their civics (or their lack), their similar political motivations and ambition connect their ideas and values. Machiavelli wanted to be closer to a seat of power, a place at the right hand of a strong prince that could bring unity to Italy and restore its sovereignty. In The Prince, he clearly makes an effort to make his qualifications and strengths as visible as possible. As an advisor, sticking to his convictions could well be a mark in his favor sycophancy or excessive delicacy might well cause his master to question his ability to make difficult decisions during times of crisis. The enormous breadth of material that his text covers is meant to demonstrate his sweeping command of the intricacies of both governance and moral philosophy.

Wang 4 Castiglione also sought to make himself indispensable to his duke, as a courtier within a social pyramid where power was capricious and relationships were fragile. Though noncommittal, the neutrality in the structure and the conversations of The Book of the Courtier are nevertheless still a political gambit. As a gentleman of the court, Castigliones subtlety, knowledge, and grasp of the social graces would be among his strongest qualifications. By committing to as little as possible and by speaking much while saying nothing, his gains are twofold he has left himself an escape route where he can easily distance himself from an unpopular opinion, and he has demonstrated to his peers and his superiors his social agility and his deep understanding of court dynamics. In furthering his own political agenda, he employs the sprezzatura that he so admires he is able to present himself both as an authority on manners and a savvy courtier well versed in the virtues that he preaches, all without ever seeming to speak a word in his own favor. Indeed, when asked about the proper way to praise oneself, the Count answers that the whole art consists in saying things in such a way that they do not appear to be spoken to that end, but are so very apropos that one cannot help saying them; and to seem always to avoid praising ones self, yet do so (Castiglione 26). Machiavelli and Castigliones political motivations also affect the treatment of their imagined paragons. The concept that there is no ideal prince is a recurring theme in Machiavellis text. Though he assembles scores of famous kings and generals, both good and bad, from classical history while qualifying his opinions, at no point does he hold up a single figure as an all-encompassing exemplar of everything a prince should be. Despite clearly recognizing the greatness of men such as Caesar and Alexander, Machiavelli in many cases inevitably follows his chain of logic to the point where each individual encounters failure as a result of a personal flaw. If even Alexander the Great could not hold up to Machiavellis exacting standards, what contemporary prince could hope to? With no historical figure having yet risen to that lofty pinnacle, Machiavellis interpretation of fortune implies that there can never be an ideal because that pinnacle does not exist. Due to the capriciousness of chance and

Wang 5 circumstance, the qualities that make a successful prince are different from person to person and constantly in flux thus blindly following the example of classical sources might just as easily result in a Pyrrhus as a Caesar. Having encountered a failure of humanism and discarding the past as a mirror of the future, Machiavelli has come to the realization that a head of state cannot rely on the classics, on the humanists of his day, or even on The Prince, which chance might also have rendered obsolete the moment it left the press. The princes best hope for an advisor, therefore, is an adaptable pragmatist who, though conversant with the classics, will consider only the past and the future while making decisions in other words, Machiavelli. Meanwhile, Castigliones ambitions at court have led to an enormously different model of conduct. In a rare show of agreement from the books cast of characters, the ideal courtier does exist in the mind of each participant, though the form he takes differs slightly from person to person. While it may be not possible in all the world to find a vessel large enough to contain all the things [one] would have be in the Courtier, the players nonetheless believe that an individual can approach that perfection (Castiglione 55). By announcing and describing the perfect courtier, Castiglione furthers his own political agenda and augments his prestige and his visibility. He simultaneously moves himself higher up in the system (with his role as a tastemaker capable of leading by example) and also places himself outside of the hierarchy as the creator of the social standards that are the backbone of the court. He also recognizes that through forming such a courtier, he is doing his ruler a tremendous service as any prince worthy of being served by [this courtier], even though he have but small dominion, may still be called a very great lord (Castiglione 10). The two courtly models presented by The Prince and The Book of the Courtier each prioritize certain qualities and virtues, some of which overlap. For instance, both texts emphasize the importance of the reputation and skill at arms as well as the command (but not necessarily the reliance) on letters and classical knowledge. On a deeper level, however, the foundations of each texts perceptions of

Wang 6 virtue are the moral frameworks of each author, which are again tinged with political motivations. Although a cursory reading might leave the reader with the impression that Machiavellis prince is a moral vacuum wholly consumed by self-interest, the text is still inlaid with an unconventional but strong ethical standpoint. Machiavelli wanted Italy returned to the Italian people, and he fully recognized the need for a strong and sometimes ruthless ruler to unite the warring factions and to drive out the invaders. Although much of his advice is cast as in the best interest of the prince, he often also mentions how the whole benefits. For instance, when he discusses the kindness of being cruel, he says that: A prince, therefore, must not fear being reproached for cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal, because with a few exemplary executions he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow the kind of disorder to spread that gives rise to plunder and murder. This harms the whole community, while an execution ordered by a prince harms only a single individual. (Machiavelli 7) In other cases, for example, where he exhorts the prince to break his promises when it benefits him, he rationalizes it as a necessary evil to the preserve the stability of the state and the peace and livelihoods of many. On the other hand, while choosing to discuss courtesy and manners might invoke the impression that Castiglione is concerned for the order and stability of the court, he often takes a narrow and individualistic perspective in his analysis. In one passage, while he might describe the value of gentlemanly behavior, the scope of his examination is limited to how the individual courtier can set himself apart from the rest and increase his own power at a cost to that of others, a focus that Castiglione himself embodies through his political goal of bettering his position at court. Ultimately, the political beliefs and ambitions of Machiavelli and Castiglione place a strong slant on their discussions of the archetypical prince and the ideal courtier. Through his efforts to prove his qualifications as an advisor, Machiavelli argues his way into a rhetorical corner, which he narrowly

Wang 7 escapes, but only after voiding the future usefulness of his master work as the comprehensive guide for the prince. Upon Machiavellis conclusion that the unpredictability of fortune makes a dependence on the past irrelevant in present decision-making, even the model of a successful leader in The Prince cannot stand for long. Meanwhile, The Book of the Courtier, though appearing to be empty of any political message at all, is nevertheless a vehicle for Castigliones courtly aspirations and his attempt to curry favor with his social superiors. In contrast to Machiavellis stance, Castiglione expresses a belief in the existence of an ideal courtier, with the added benefit of praising himself as its originator without appearing to. In light of the sincerity of Machiavellis struggle with the inevitable conclusion of his rhetoric, juxtaposed against the slipperiness and the deceptive nonchalance of Castigliones approach, the adjective Machiavellian, as it is used today, might in some cases be more characteristic of Castiglione than its namesake.