Relationship between Niccolo Machiavelli and the powerful Medici family

The powerful Medici family had a profound impact on a great many lives, but few to the extent of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). As a leading political thinker Machiavelli personally dealt with the Medici, and as a writer their influence was all the weightier, exemplified especially in The Prince and The History of Florence (Hereafter Istorie); both works in which Machiavelli paid considerable attention to the way the Medici would envisage his work. The relationship between Machiavelli and the Medici is particularly queer, for the Medici were Machiavelli’s imagined rescuers from internal exile, yet at the same time his reason for discontent.

This relationship is especially important because Machiavelli’s work has been given a great deal of credit for the path politics would traverse after his death. This being the case, it is necessary to understand Machiavelli’s relationship with the Medici and his views of the Medici family’s machine government. As John Najemy quite befittingly wrote, “a long, complex relationship – personal, political, and intellectual – had linked Machiavelli to the Medici.” The importance of the link that Najemy speaks of has been echoed by other scholars such as Mary Dietz and Marcia Colish.

Perhaps this link so closely tied Machiavelli to the Medici that his place in history would be lost had the Medici failed to rise to power. With this possibility, one must examine Medicean influence over Machiavelli to uncover his true feelings in regards to their rule. Machiavelli was not pro-Medici, nor would he have wanted to be perceived as such, but due to the circumstances that weighed upon Machiavelli while he was in exile, he was required to write of the Medici in either a magnanimous manner, not at all, or with certain doom were he to defy them. Clearly, he wrote of them how they would wish to be perceived in the Istorie, but leaves traces of his true anti-Medici feelings barely noticeable without considerable toil scattered throughout the work. Other works that this essay will examine such as The Prince and his Discourses on Livy hold a less gracious place for the Medici, especially the Discourses which can be viewed as a resounding slap in the face of Medicean rule.

It will then be the intent of this work to lay out and explain this complex relationship, drawing on a number of primary and secondary sources. In addition, this work will show the context the Medici has been immortalized in through an examination of Machiavelli’s historical writing. As Felix Gilbert correctly points out in his book “Machiavelli and Guicciardini”, Machiavelli’s Istoire was written in a way that would not offend the Medici, but by concentrating specifically on certain instances (such as the Ciompi revolt) more than others, it is subtly able to convey lessons to a broad audience. An in depth look at the relationship between Machiavelli and the Medici will follow by examining Machiavelli’s purposes for writing The Prince, The Art of War, The History of Florence, and the Discourses on Livy. Through new interpretations drawn from age old arguments, perhaps Niccolo Machiavelli, the politician, historian, and the man can be better understood while posing the question that Machiavelli’s fame was solely tied to that of the Medici.

When the Medici family returned to power in 1512, Niccolo was exiled from Florence and his political obligations were stripped from him; perhaps the dearest thing of all to Machiavelli. This banishment must be viewed in a modern context as the severest of mid-life crises, for each night Machiavelli would put on his old chancery robes and relish in the tranquility bestowed upon him. With the very meaning of his life on the brink, he set out to write The Prince , a short diatribe on ruling a princedom, to the Magnificent Lorenzo Dé Medici.

That Machiavelli’s most significant work was dedicated specifically to one Medicean ruler is consequential and obviously trumpets the importance of Medicean influence in Machiavelli’s writing, but the relationship between Machiavelli and Lorenzo must be more carefully examined to see why The Prince came to pass. To comprehend the diatribe verbatim is shocking to say the least due to its radical content, and because so many have done so, Machiavelli has been wrongly branded as a cruel and immoral man. His very name spawned the term Machiavellian, meaning unscrupulous or politically immoral. To read and pass judgment on this book, without understanding the Florence Machiavelli grew up in, or the incredibly unusual circumstance from which the book stemmed is irresponsible in its own right. These incredible circumstances led Machiavelli to write in such a radical manner that he has been viewed in an overly shrewd manner.

A quotation, typical of the thought of the time and the content of The Prince states that “the tyrant terrifies his subjects. Spying balefully on the world from his strongly fortified palace, as sensitive to approaching prey or his predators as a spider delicately balanced at the centre of a web, he dominates the life of all around him. He takes credit for the achievements of nobler men who spend their substance on civic projects, like great churches and other fine buildings. He turns the entire state into a machine for his own profit and that of a few friends. And he does not shrink from robbing wealthy men of their possessions or pure young women from their virtue”. This could easily be mistaken as an excerpt from The Prince, but it comes from a vastly different source: the Treatise of the Government of Florence of the Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola, who happened to dominate Florentine politics from 1494 to 1498, coinciding with Machiavelli’s entrance to mature life.

This example proves that Machiavelli’s political thought was far from revolutionary; rather, he was echoing what a number of political scientists had argued before, but the difference is that the Machiavelli’s Prince was written after the Medici had returned to power, and therefore great restraints were placed upon his writing. The Prince, it may be argued, was a plea to get Machiavelli his job back from the powerful Medici who alone could restore Machiavelli’s active political career. Other scholars would assert it was a plea to lift Florence to greatness, another point appealing to the Medici. As Machiavelli asserts in chapter XXVI of The Prince, “and if the Israelites had to be enslaved in Egypt for Moses to emerge as their forceful leader; if the Persians had to be oppressed by the Medes so that the greatness of Cyrus could be recognized; if the Athenians had to be scattered to demonstrate the excellence of Thesus: then, at the present time, in order to discover the worth of an Italian spirit, Italy had to be brought to her present extremity.” The previous passage can be argued in two contexts, both sides of which scholars have extensively.

Firstly, it can be seen as simple flattery so heavily blanketed with a sense of urgency that Lorenzo would simply act and recall Machiavelli from exile and begin founding his princedom. Others have argued that it is plea, and Machiavelli was merely looking out for the greater good of all Italians. It is certainly true that Machiavelli was always genuinely trying to bring Italy to prominence. However, in the context of this examination, it is the intent to show how Machiavelli’s writing was influenced by the power the Medici wielded over him, thus, the following quotation supports how heavily The Prince drew upon flattery to gain Medicean favor. “So now, left lifeless, Italy is waiting to see who can be the one to heal her wounds, put an end to the sacking of Lombardy, to extortion in the Kingdom and in Tuscany, and cleanse those sores which have now been festering for so long. See how Italy beseeches God to send someone to save her from those barbarous cruelties and outrages; see how eager and willing the country is to follow a banner, in only someone will raise it.

And at the present time it is impossible to see in what she can place more hope than your illustrious House, which, with its fortune and prowess, favoured by God and by the Church, of which it is now the head, can lead her to salvation.” The interpretation of these passages would clearly lead one to think Machiavelli was a Medicean supporter, yet he came from an anti-Medici family, and in his private letters ridiculed them; one such example taken from a personal letter from Machiavelli to Luigi Guicciardini describing a whore whom Machiavelli had occasion to ‘hump’. “Her tear ducts were full of mucus and her eye lashes plucked; her nose was twisted in a funny shape, the nostrils were full of snot, and one of them was half cut off; her mouth looked like Lorenzo dé Medici’s.”

Due to his ridicule of the Medici in his private letters, he obviously was not so truthful in his endearing diatribe that heavily praised the Medici’s ‘glorious House’. Yet The Prince contains a substantial argument that Machiavelli was a Medicean supporter, or at the very least a recognition that the Medici’s were the only ones who could lift Italy to greatness. This argument, however, can be countered from Machiavelli’s later writing. In his Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli asserts that “a principality easily becomes tyrannical,” yet that was exactly what Machiavelli was telling Lorenzo to do in The Prince, professing the importance of a ruler being feared rather than liked.

A vastly different interpretation of The Prince has gathered momentum in recent years, stating that this ‘how to’ guide of ruling a principality, if followed carefully, is political suicide, at the very least probably capable of ensuring that the Medici would never again be welcomed in Florence. Mary Dietz, a professor at the University of Minnesota, argues these anti-Medici assumptions in her article Trapping the Prince: Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception. She argues that Machiavelli’s intention was a republican one: “to undo Lorenzo Medici by giving him advice that would jeopardize his power, hasten the overthrow, and allow for the resurgence of the Florentine republic.” She believes that this act of political deception is a ploy to rid the world of Medicean rule, as she draws upon external examples and his own biography, to prove Machiavelli’s anti-Medicean sentiments and his belief in an Italian republic. She begins her article with a quotation from Machiavelli, presumably drawn from his personal letters or biography, that is quite interesting yet it fails to make certain her assertions.

She quoted Machiavelli as stating that “for some time I have never said what I believed and never believed what I have said, and if I do sometimes happen so say what I think, I always hide it among so many lies it is hard to recover.” If this is the case, then the validity of the above statement is severely damaged as well, but it does seem characteristic of a large portion of what Machiavelli has written, especially in regards to the Medici. This aspect can be interpreted from Machiavelli’s heavily blanketed Istorie, from which it’s very deepest and covered interpretations emits anti-Medicean sentiment. Dietz goes on to point out that Machiavellian authorities such as Baron, Hale, and Pocock treat The Prince as Machiavelli’s brief descent from the belief in republican government, but the lot (Dietz excluded) scrutinize Machiavelli’s purpose for the work, and they too pointed to what has most clearly pointed to his pursuit of his political restoration, whom the Medici alone could restore to him.

For good or bad, all the authorities agree that Machiavelli was deeply influenced by the Medici to write The Prince. Perhaps this most famous work would have not come to pass without the Medici government, and although some scholars argue that The Prince was written under Machiavelli’s only lose of faith in regards to Florence remaining a republic, the facts point towards the belief that the diatribe was originated to cast the downfall of the Medici. Perhaps the most impressing piece of evidence to prove that Machiavelli never lost the faith comes in his writing of the Discourses, written in tandem with The Prince. One would simply not write these works back to back and retain credibility, regardless of how well the respective cases were argued, if they genuinely believed in both republics and principalities.

The fact that the Discourses were written within a few years of the completion of The Prince, yet published ? is alarming in itself. What makes it so alarming is the fact that Machiavelli saw the work into the first stages of the publishing process but died before its release. One must then come to the conclusion that Machiavelli did this as a final act of defiance condemning the Medici machine government. Machiavelli would have certainly been executed by the Medici for writing such a work, therefore, he had to time the release of the Discourses perfectly because he knew the potential impact his words could have on destroying the Medici government and helping to re-establish Florence as a republic. Though it cannot be proven, the Discourses may be the clearest glimpse into the mind of Niccolo Machiavelli that exists, a clearly republican, and therefore anti-Medicean belief.

Regardless of where Machiavelli’s true feelings lay regarding the Medici, his most famous work exhibits the power and rule of the Medici in a magnanimous light simply through the dedication, thus, Medicean influence has been immortalized in Machiavelli’s most famous work.

Future political thought would look to The Prince for example, but it appears that Machiavelli’s reason for writing the work was personal, either hoping he might be recalled to political life, or because he was bent on casting the downfall of the Medici, the same favor they had bestowed upon him. It must then be concluded, that the Medici machine government played an incredibly important role in Machiavelli’s political writing.

A brief glance of Machiavelli’s The Art of War is now necessary to further exhibit Machiavelli’s ant-Medici sentiments, as it was a work between the two major works in question. In Marcia Colish’s article, The Art of War: A Reconsideration, she notes that Carlo Dionisotti believes Machiavelli used the voice of Fabrizio Colonna because Machiavelli knew this tactic would be seen as anti-Orsini and therefore conjunctively anti-Medici. Colish also states that in addition to Machiavelli’s “desire to criticize the Medici obliquely by choosing a condottiere interlocutor whose family had been interlocked in contention with the Orsini for centuries”, another agenda of Machiavelli’s was to criticize the papacy. The papacy by now was held by a member of the Medici family, but to criticize the Medici openly in Machiavelli’s own voice would have been personally disastrous, probably leading to his execution.

For this reason, Machiavelli chose to use the voice of Fabrizio Colonna, and by doing so was able to proffer anti-Medicean thought, furthering the case that Machiavelli himself was not in favor of Medicean rule, and moreover, showing how the Medici family affected and influenced Machiavelli’s writing. Throughout Machiavelli’s writing career he was always wary of how the Medici would perceive his work, thus, his use of Colonna was a tool merely to displace any blame that may have come about on account of his depiction of the Medici. However, Machiavelli was constantly in search of a medium, and although the Istorie was not a task Machiavelli looked forward to, it was a very good opportunity to advance his career and even his goal of denouncing Medicean rule.

The last of Machiavelli’s great works, commissioned by Pope Leo X (Giovanni dé Medici) in 1520, and presented to Pope Clement VIII (Guiliano dé Medici), came to being solely from Pope Leo’s request. Although writing the history of Florence was not a task that thrilled Machiavelli, he did so hoping that it might lead to other commissions and to gain Medicean favor. The Istoire required thorough study and long hours of writing, so not surprisingly the book took five years to write. This work more than any other of Machiavelli’s reflects the relationship between Machiavelli and the Medici, and appropriately was catered to the liking of Pope Clement who was the dedicatee of this work. The Istoire us the most visible example of how the Medici came to be reflected in a most magnanimous manner, and further exhibits just how profound an impact the Medici had on Machiavelli’s published works.

The fact hat Machiavelli considered starting the Istoire in 1434 with the return of Cosimo from exile is it itself alarming and significant. In his preface to the Istoire Machiavelli states that he will start his history before 1434 even though Bruni and Bracciolini had covered the prior history thoroughly, but because they had been silent regarding civil discord and internal hostilities, Machiavelli proclaimed the need to start from the beginning. The analysis of this point means that Bruni and Bracciolini briefly noted the rule of the Medici but not the discord that caused it. Furthermore, John Najemy points to the increasing attention Machiavelli paid to Florentine history for a better understanding of present day Florence.

Machiavelli proceeds to give a rather bland history of Florence, most prominently is the theme of the rise and fall of peoples, backed by a firm belief that history is cyclical. Some scholars look at these bland accounts as the bulk of the task Machiavelli was commissioned to do, while the rise and fall of peoples is interpreted as Machiavelli’s medium to denounce tyrannical rule. This same narrative structure appears in Machiavelli’s description of murders, especially political conspiracies, for example the attempted assassination of Guiliano and Lorenzo dé Medici, the former of whom was successfully killed but not the later. In these cases, Machiavelli seems to be telling the narrative in such a bland way that he would distance any personal thought or bias on the accounts to impress upon his Medicean readers his indifference. Furthermore, it can be argued that Machiavelli does this so as not to scare, and thus, displease his honorable commissioner. Machiavelli finds himself so delimitated by these constraints that his published work has paid so great attention to factual indifference that it draws away any analysis Machiavelli may have wished to dispense upon his reader.

The aforementioned fact is openly acknowledged when Machiavelli writes “I cannot write this history when Cosimo took the state until Lorenzo’s death as I would write if I were free from all hesitation.” A close reading of the Istoire, very faintly portrays Medicean rule as tyrannical, yet Machiavelli is not asserting that the Medici overthrew a perfectly good republic; pointing out in fact that it was the faults and duplicity of the republic that gave way to Medicean authority. In a manner so subtle as not to displease his Medicean commissioners, Machiavelli clearly views a republic as the favorable form of government, and constant to his belief that history is cyclical, he believes republicanism will yet return to Florence.

Machiavelli’s transitioning thought, inspired in part to his growing appreciation for the history of Florence, finally set the stage for the work which bears its name. This work, as much if not more than any other bears the weight of Medicean influence. To be sure, Machiavelli was not thrilled about writing this work for the Medicean Popes, but it a was medium none the less, and so very subtly interpretations can be made from what Machiavelli did say or what he did not. A further example from Book III shows precisely how Machiavelli viewed the Medici, but limits his capability of expressing such displeasure. In this book he associates their reign with “terror and fear”, yet does not fathom to utter openly the Medici name itself. It is clear that by the time he wrote the Istoire, Machiavelli’s interpretation of the whole Medici experience in Florentine history was decisively negative.

The Istorie gave Machiavelli occasion to condemn the larger process of Medicean rule, while still appreciating the admirable qualities of individual Medicean rulers and their “political wisdom and efficacy of the actions.” Yet the histories transgression had led Machiavelli to un-traversed path, meaning that Machiavelli’s writing was not only influenced by the Medici’s but he had now come to a medium to display his own interpretation of their rule, a decidedly negative one. Perhaps the endless flattery Machiavelli bestows upon the Medici stemmed from his discomfort over having to criticize the Medici, thus, the dilemma Machiavelli faces is uncovered. Regardless, of his personal feeling on the task, the Istoire was greatly influenced by the Medici and as a result of his commissioner he was forced to write the history of Florence in a way less politically directed than he probably would have wished. This is to say, that Machiavelli under his own direction, would have likely wished to further analyze the relationship between the Medici and the peoples of Florence, but because he would have denigrated the Medici, this was impossible. Thus, Machiavelli’s history of Florence is as much a Medicean history of Florence due to the restraints placed upon Machiavelli.

In conclusion, The Prince, The History of Florence, The Discourses on Livy, his private letters, and some works in between show how important the Medici-Machiavelli relationship was. Although Machiavelli seems quite anti-Medici, from a close reading and interpretation of his works, the fact remains that the Medici heavily influenced what Machiavelli put to paper, and moreover, notes the dilemma Machiavelli faced in writing about the Medici. This relationship is extremely important, and because Machiavelli and many historians have noted the complexity of interpreting his true intentions, Machiavelli, for his own well being was forced to write of things in a way he might not have, had the Medici not been in power. And had the Medici not been in power, perhaps Machiavelli would not be the hot topic of dispute that he is today. Had the Medici not come to power, which of his works would have still come to life?

It is unlikely that The Prince would have been written and surely not The History of Florence, commissioned by Pope Leo X (Giovanni dé Medici). If one were to take these two paramount works from Machiavelli’s portfolio, perhaps he would be little known or read today, but because the Medici family dominated Florentine politics this is not the case, and as a result, Machiavelli has tied his legacy to that of the Medici whether he would have liked to or not. Amidst an abundance of controversy regarding Machiavelli’s work and his true intentions for writing, the fact remains that all of his work was inexplicably tied to that of the Medici government, and thus, the relationship placed upon Machiavelli was more than profound, but nearly total.