The notion of ‘Perfetto Cortegiano’ in Castiglione’s The Courtier, Book IV

                            Baldesar Castiglione’s The Book of The Courtier (1528), one of the most celebrated renaissance courtesy books, serves as a guide to perfect social manners and wit. Politically it seeks to define the position of a courtier in relation to the Prince he serves. In an attempt to offer a pragmatic understanding of courtly life and manners and the binary of power relation between the Prince and his courtiers, Castiglione lays down the qualities that must characterise his “Perfetto Cortegiano” (perfect courtier). Divided into four books, it describes a series of conversations held among the courtiers and the ladies of the Court of Urbino in the presence of the Duchess, Eleanora Gonzaga. The game, proposed by Federico Fregoso whereby “one of this company be chosen and given the task of forming in words a perfect Courtier, setting forth all the conditions and particular qualities that are required of anyone who deserves this name” when consented by the Duchess in Book I, provided the perfect opportunity for all the notable courtiers to speculate on the qualities that a courtier must possess. However, Castiglione’s dedicatory letter to Signor Don Michel de Silva, Bishop of Viseu reveals that “the greater part of those persons who are introduced in the conversations were already dead”. The text, as a “record of the vanished world” as David Rosand says, employs historical characters to improve a period of political decadence into a more fruitful one by outlining the qualities that a perfect Courtier must possess. Castiglione modelled his book on Cicero’s De Oratore, but he is more concerned with literary and stylistic imitation than following the political lessons of Cicero.

                            The first three books articulates three central concepts; namely, “grazia”, “mediocrita” and “sprezzatura”; which are proposed as central to the character of the courtier. The fourth Book set on the fourth evening, records for the most part Ottaviano Fregoso’s opinions. Ottaviano stands out as a more serious and blunt courtier who violates the verbal code of courtly manner  as he dismisses the prescriptions of such skills as “dancing, entertaining, singing and playing games”, as put forward in the first three books, as “vain and frivolous” which serve only to make men “effeminate”. As Lawrence Ryan states, “The discussion suddenly seems to shift from concern with the ideal courtier, possessing a self-contained excellence too lofty for any function in the real world, into an attempt to establish a meaningful role for him in an actual society”. Ottaviano stresses that the most important quality of a perfect courtier must be to win the favour and the mind of the Prince to such a degree that he may be capable of speaking his mind to the Prince without the fear of displeasing him. He deplores the present situation where the Prince is blinded by ignorance and self-conceit being surrounded by flatterers who never correct him in order to win grace and favour by suggesting “things that are agreeable and diverting”. The Prince hence being unaccustomed to truth becomes incapable of obeying the call of duties, honour and justice and becomes an arrogant tyrant, whom Castiglione compares to the giant figures made in the festival of Piazza d’Agone which were stuffed with “rags and straw”. Loathing such a situation, Ottaviano considers the courtier responsible to guide the Prince along the path of virtue and truth. He says that the perfect courtier should be able to teach his Prince “continence, fortitude, justice and temperance, and enable him to relish the sweet fruit which lies under the slight bitterness first tasted by one who is struggling against his vices”. Ottaviano, however, now suggests the courtier to deploy those “vain and frivolous” skills as the means to teach the Prince some virtuous habit, while engaging him in their innocent pleasures. Thus the problematic question of deception that Gaspare had violently attacked previously when Federico had insisted that his ideal courtier is the master of deceit is now justified by Castiglione. Castiglione justifies this deception on moral grounds when he insists that the courtier should strive to use his talents to make himself and his moral lessons pleasing and ingratiating to the Prince in order to advise and educate him. The courtier should thus be: “…practising a healthy deception like a shrewd doctor who often spreads some sweet liquid on the rim of a cup when he wants a frail and sickly child to take a bitter medicine”. Importance is thus placed in pedagogic education and the courtier is entrusted to play the role of an advisor and an educator. Castiglione presents his ideal courtier as the model of active virtue and proposes reason and moral awareness as seminal in just action. His only purpose is to lead the Prince onto the virtuous path.

                         Castiglione stresses that it is of utmost importance for the courtier to have a holistic understanding of the character and interests of the Prince to win his heart and mind and thereby have access to educate and influence him onto the virtuous path of reason and justice. It is this faculty that separated the fates of Aristotle and Calisthenes. While the former with a flexibility of temper superseded the role of an educator, as Castiglione says, “Aristotle knew so well the character of Alexander and encouraged it so skilfully that Alexander loved and honoured him more than a father”, the latter being a rigid advocator of naked truth, that was unalloyed with the art of “courtiership”, only incurred infamy and death. Ottaviano further asserts that an ignorant Prince incapable of governing his people and the state is the “deadliest plague of all”. He believes that the moral and ethical education of the Prince under the guidance of the courtier will serve as a tool of empire-building. It will make him a judicious and capable administrator and this will in turn lead his state to attain the cherished peace and prosperity. Castiglione’s courtier will strive to guide his Prince to become a perfect “governor” who would adroitly govern his state and the citizens justly and also act as a peacemaker to bind the citizens together by “marriage ties”. The perfect courtier with his noble qualities attains a grand stature and is equated to those Greek leaders who emerged from the Trojan horse. Thus Ottaviano anticipates the rebirth of the utopian Golden age as he sought to redefine the character of the courtier.

                            In this context, Castiglione also seems to draw our attention to the interdependent power relationship that exists between the Prince and the courtier. The courtier cannot exist without the court or the Prince. He is both politically and economically dependent on the Prince. But the Prince, too, is dependent on the advice of the courtier, for as Ottaviano said that virtues lie rooted in our soul but develops into its full form only when education nurtures them.This process of ethical growth is fostered under the care of the “Perfetto Cortegiano” who like a farmer will cultivate his faculties by guiding him to abide by reason and truth. Castiglione’s text displays a tendency to corrupt absolute power by making the Prince as much dependent on the courtier as the courtier is on the Prince and the court.

                                Though most of the courtiers express their doubts over the possibility of undertaking such a difficult role, yet Ottaviano is hopeful and so is Castiglione. The ultimate goal of Castiglione’s “Perfetto Cortegiano” is to “become his Prince’s instructor”. Castiglione ingenuously transformed the knight whose prime objective was to adopt the courtly codes of social conduct and to serve his lady, into a dutiful pure spirit whose sole purpose is to serve his Prince as an advisor.

Machiavelli on Cesare Borgia

Machiavelli, in The Prince, considers Cesare Borgia to be a compelling example for princes to follow if they wish to know how to strengthen their principalities. Borgia, for Machiavelli, is a prince who lost what he had because of adverse fortune just as he gained his principalities through the good fortune attending on his father, Pope Alexander VI.

Cesare Borgia, known to his people as Duke Valentino, managed to conquer the Romagna using the armies of the Orsini and the French king Louis XII while defeating the Colonna family. Borgia however did not wish to rely on these forces as they did not seem loyal. He managed to weaken the Orsini and Colonna factions in Rome by winning over noblemen loyal to them by bestowing favours and titles on them. He then destroyed the Orsini family by setting a trap for them. He strengthened his hold on the Romagna by appointing Ramiro de Lorqua to bring peace and unity to the region, which had previously been troubled by the weak princes ruling it. However, Borgia had de Lorqua executed in a brutal, public spectacle to appease the citizens who might have felt de Lorqua to be too harsh.

Borgia also attempted to strengthen his foundations in Rome to prevent any attacks by a future Pope. He extinguished the bloodlines of all those noblemen whom he had dispossessed. He won over noblemen in Rome to keep the Pope in check. He tried to gain as much influence over the College of Cardinals as he could and he tried to have as great an empire as possible before Pope Alexander's death. However his father's early death and his own near-fatal illness led to him losing a significant part of his dominion and prevented him from dictating the selection of a new Pope.

Machiavelli considers Borgia's downfall to have been the result of malign fortune. He did, according to Machiavelli, everything he could to lay a solid foundation for his realm. He contrasts Borgia with Francesco Sforza, who rose from being a private citizen to become Duke of Milan. Sforza overcame grave difficulties while establishing his principality but once it had been established he had to do very little to hold on to it. Borgia, having acquired his principality, through the arms and fortune of others had to take very decisive and powerful measures to ensure his hold over his region. Machiavelli considers this praiseworthy and says that it is essential that this be done if the principality is to be retained.

I would argue that Machiavelli considers Borgia to be an important example not just of efficacious statecraft but also of the power of fortune. Machiavelli's views on the use of violence, deception and cruelty are shaped by his pragmatic view of statecraft. Instead of presenting an ideal way of governance, Machiavelli presents a way of governance which deals with things as they are. He condones violence when he feels it is necessary to maintain the state. It is the state which is the most important entity for Machiavelli, not its people and the person of the prince is the representation of the state. Thus, if the prince has to resort to deception, violence or intrigue to maintain his position he must do it.

Machiavelli does not mention Borgia when he considers principalities acquired through evil. He considers Borgia, I would opine, to be an adept statesman and a prudent man. Borgia was not content to rest once he had acquired the Romagna but set about strengthening it, a move that Machiavelli approves of. Having acquired his principality through the fortune of his father and the help of the Orsini and Louis, it was imperative that he lay a solid foundation.

Machiavelli frequently advocates tactics similar to the ones Borgia used. These include weakening strong powers, extinguishing the bloodlines of those the prince has dispossessed, getting the populace behind him and encouraging noblemen to switch loyalties. Borgia also did not rely overlong on the armies of the Orsini and Louis, which Machiavelli approves of, having made his views of the use of auxilliary armies and mercenaries clear.

Machiavelli's advocacy of Borgia as an example should be seen as an extension of his pragmatism about the means required to fortify the state. The strengthening of the state, and by extension the prince, is paramount and Borgia's calculated steps towards this aim were quite Machiavellian. Machiavelli finds only one reason to reproach Borgia and that is with regard to his choice of a new Pope. Borgia allowed the cardinal of San Piero ad Vincula to become Pope Julius II. This, according to Machiavelli, was a mistake since Borgia had harmed San Piero ad Vincula and should never have agreed to the election of a Pope who had reason to hate him. His ideal choice for Pope should have been either a spaniard or Rouen. This mistake on Borgia's part was responsible for his ultimate downfall, according to Machiavelli.

Thus Machiavelli uses the example of Cesare Borgia to illustrate the need for unpleasant measures when consolidating one's principality. However, these measures should not alienate the people and when they do so, counter-measures (like Borgia's execution of de Lorqua) must be adopted. One must also be careful of powerful enemies and weaken their standing while being careful to prepare for future problems. However, even if one does adopt prudent, necessary measures the vagaries of fortune might still deprive the prince of his principality and this seems to be the most important lesson to learn from the example of Cesare Borgia.

Fashioning a Prince

In Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare, Stephen Greenblatt refers to a dinner party at Cardinal Wolsey’s, at which Sir Thomas More was present. We are told that a “performance” of sorts was being played out in which the guests were trying to outdo each other in praising the Cardinal. Both parties took part in this game of satisfaction of self-love knowing fully well that it is all an elaborate pretence. What this represents for More is the power of the Cardinal: “power, whose quintessential sign is the ability to impose one’s fictions upon the world: the more outrageous the fiction, the more impressive the manifestation of power.” Greenblatt distinguishes this from the kind of pretence Machiavelli deals with in The Prince, for whom he says “the prince engages in deceptions for one very clear reason: to survive.”

For Machiavelli all actions of aspiring and newly established princes should be directed towards survival as the Prince. The goal is to make himself acceptable, in the very least, to his people, for “the best fortress that exists is to avoid being hated by the people”. In chapter IX Machiavelli says that it is safe to build power on the people if the Prince is one who can “command and is a man of courage, who does not despair in adversity, who does not fail to take precautions, and who wins general allegiance by his personal qualities and the institutions he establishes.” Yet this can be achieved neither by paying too much heed to popular opinion, nor by appearing as one is. In many cases this involves the use of deception and dissimulation: fashioning of the prince in a particular manner.

Let us begin by looking at the reputation of the Prince, as discussed in chapters XV to XIX. Machiavelli begins by saying that while it is good for a Prince to be virtuous he may not be able to observe these virtues completely because of conditions in the world. For Machiavelli it is better to ensure one’s security by resorting to vices than to fall attempting to be virtuous. Likewise, it is better to have a reputation for parsimony than to be renowned for generosity, for good and sincere generosity goes unnoticed, and to sustain a reputation for generosity one has to be “ostentatiously lavish”. It is better to be reputed for cruelty than for compassion, to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both at the same time. “A prince…must watch that he does not come to be afraid of his own shadow.” An interesting distinction appears here. While the Prince is not “to be afraid of his own shadow”, there exist situations in which it is possible for him to create his own ‘shadow’. Indeed, one might go so far as to say that this ‘shadow’-making is one of the most important tools in the hands of the Prince. He solidifies his position when he is a new prince by creating a ‘shadow’ for himself, and as an established prince, maintains his position using it.

In chapter XVII where Machiavelli speaks of Cruelty and Compassion, he remarks that the bond of love is an insecure one, for men, “wretched creatures that they are, break it when it is to their advantage to do so.” Fear, on the other hand, is prompted by the dread of punishment. It appears that Machiavelli relies more on a response that can be aroused and regulated by the agency of the prince, i.e. fear, rather than on one which is relatively harder to control, i.e. love. He speaks of Hannibal’s huge army, where “there was never any dissension” because of Hannibal’s inhuman cruelty. However he says that “without such a reputation (for cruelty), no army was ever kept united and disciplined.” (Italics are mine.) Does this, then, imply that it suffices to have a reputation, by whatever means, for cruelty even if the Prince is not in fact cruel? He gives the example of Cesare Borgia earlier in the chapter, who was accounted cruel, when according to Machiavelli, was more compassionate than the Florentines who “allowed Pistoia to be devastated”. He says that “by making an example or two he will prove more compassionate than those who, being to compassionate, allow disorders which lead to murder or rapine.” While Machiavelli appreciates Borgia’s ‘compassion’, Borgia is “accounted cruel” by the people, and yet he succeeds in keeping his principality united. However, it is interesting to note that even Borgia tries to fashion himself as anti-violence and to mold his subjects when he has Remirro killed brutally. Having achieved unity he kills Remirro, attempting not only to distance himself from cruelty, but also to establish himself as a man who has put an end to cruelty. “The brutality of the spectacle kept the people of the Romagna at once appeased and stupefied”: the effect of wonder, which Machiavelli speaks of with respect Ferdinand of Aragon, in chapter XXI, is achieved .

The importance of controlling one’s appearance is demonstrated further through the example of Alexander VI. Machiavelli writes, “Alexander VI never did anything, or thought of anything, other than deceiving men; and he always found victims for his deceptions. There was never a man capable of such convincing asseverations, or so ready to swear to the truth of something, who would honour his word less.” Even earlier, he praises Julius II for having forged a reputation for being generous in order to win over the papacy. Machiavelli considers Alexander VI and his methods worthy of respect, as evident from chapter VII. He claims in chapter XVIII that while it is important for a Prince to appear as a man of “compassion, a man of good faith, a man of integrity, a kind and religious man”, it is essential, above all, that he appear religious. “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.”

Machiavelli’s ideas about religion deserve at least a separate essay. Yet, since religion, or a Prince’s appearance of being religious play an important part in his statecraft, it cannot be ignored. Religion can be used ruthlessly to control the populace. In The Discourses Machiavelli asserts that “the religion introduced by Numa was among the primary causes of Rome’s success” (1.11). Superstitions were also used to by the authorities, as in the case of the siege of the city of Veii. We are told of the year “the Alban lake had risen in an extraordinary way”, and the troops who were tired of the long siege were desirous of returning to Rome. It was then that the authorities discovered that certain oracles had prophesied that “Veii would be taken in the year in which Lake Alba overflowed” (1.13) The soldiers captured the town. Machiavelli says that even his contemporary Florentines were vulnerable to such myths, as illustrated in the case of Savonarola, who claimed that he had converse with God. In chapter XXI of The Prince Machiavelli tells us of Ferdinand of Aragon who used Church funding to sustain his armies, and gradually lay good foundations for his standing army. He undertook even greater campaigns, “still making use of religion”, “chased out the Moriscos”, and “under the same cloak of religion he assaulted Africa”. Machiavelli says later in that same chapter that “at suitable times of the year he (the Prince) should entertain the people with shows and festivities”: the shows of power Greenblatt speaks of in his chapter on More.

It becomes evident that Machiavelli does not so much place a great deal of importance on a virtuous prince. He warns time and again that it is good for a Prince to be virtuous, but he must also prepare himself for carrying out vices. “A prince, therefore, need not necessarily have all the good qualities I mentioned above, but he should certainly appear to have them.” Again, in chapter XIX, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of appearance. A reputation of being “fickle, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, irresolute” is to be avoided like the plague He must “strive to demonstrate in his actions grandeur, courage, sobriety, strength.” The Prince who has newly acquired a principality, must imitate great and outstanding men. “If his prowess fails to compare with theirs, at least it has an air of greatness about it.” The appearance of a Prince becomes, then, one of the most important aspects of the aspiring Prince. Much of the aspirant’s chances of coming to power,and holding on to it, depend on his ability to fashion himself in a certain way.

It will perhaps be fitting to close the essay by considering whether Machiavelli himself, in his attempt to win favour with “Lorenzo de Medici”, tries to re-fashion his own image. It appears that he was working simultaneously on The Discourses, and although in terms of methodology the two works do not contradict each other greatly, they are very different in their perspectives. Machiavelli closes his work by himself attempting to create a larger-than-life image of his own patron, placing him in the rich lineage of Moses, Cyrus and Theseus: deliverers of their peoples.

An Essay on Prince and Tyrant: Erasmus's The Education of a Christian Prince

            Erasmus wrote this advice book in a time which was politically unstable owing to the frequent missions of various European powers to expand their territories. He wrote this work in order to teach how to build a head of the state who will be a ‘true Christian prince’. In this endeavour of his, he makes a comparative study between a prince and a tyrant so that a prince in the making is able to distinguish between the role he should adopt and that he should abhor.

            Seneca is of the view that a prince and a tyrant are not distinguished in terms of their titles but in terms of their actions. Action after all makes a man who he is. Tyranny must be avoided. A prince must always act for the good of his state and not for his personal gains. A prince is equally adept in managing both personal and public matters while a tyrant tries to convert communal welfare to personal benefit. Erasmus says that a prince is like a father who constantly thinks of his children while a tyrant is like a cruel master who is more interested in meeting his selfish needs. A good prince can be likened to God who only makes us feel His presence through his benevolence and goodness but a tyrant makes his presence felt through the misfortune of his people. Erasmus refers to the tyrant as “the Prince of Darkness’ who is loved by none but hated by all, has only wicked men in his support and not the entire community.

            A Prince must be such that individuals willingly respect and love him as their king instead of being coerced out of fear to regard him as their prince. A Christian prince ought to make himself loved by serving his people. One who becomes the prince suddenly has access to power. But he should not misuse this power to become an impulsive tyrant. Erasmus pragmatically advises that a good prince must be a philosopher, because a philosopher cannot become a tyrant.

             Erasmus opines that a good tutor is very necessary for the upbringing of a true prince. This tutor should be able to portray model of a good prince as well as that of a monstrous tyrant so that his student despises the “loathsome beast” named tyrant. He should be made to realize that a tyrant is a menace whose removal will also be accompanied by destruction, he having the armed forces in his control. Tyrants like Caligula, Claudius, etc are hated by the entire human race. On the other hand a true prince is revered and looked up to by people. He has a godlike presence and is chiefly concerned in maintaining peace in his state. He can even risk his own life for this end. Also, his people always remain ready to lay down their lives in return for their prince. While good and virtuous men are rewarded by him, the wicked are not punished but forgiven if they promise to mend their ways.

            A true prince is not whimsical like a tyrant. He governs through wisdom, integrity and goodwill where as a tyrant rules by deceit and by threatening people.  A tyrant is always anxious about his safety and keeps guards around him. He also remains anxious about internal revolts since he keeps his people in oppression. He issues edicts and establishes laws for this purpose too. The prince on the other hand knows that he is loved and imparts freedom to his people. A tyrant is happy in waging wars and in arousing internal conflicts and party disputes in order to make his subjects weak by not allowing them to gain strength through unity. But the prince aims at promoting harmony, peace and co-operation realizing that war is the source of all misfortunes and that his strength lies in the strength of his people.  The tyrant strives to concentrate the wealth of his subjects in the hands of a few, unlike the prince for whom the wealth of his subjects is his own. Besides, a prince’s greatest wealth lies not in property but in the honour and love that he receives from his countrymen. Those members of the state who should be valued for their advice, moral quality and judgement are not trusted by the tyrant as he fears that they may overthrow him from power. But the prince regards them as true advisers and does not give importance to flatterers because he knows that a true friend will be a good critic and a false friend will only be flatterer.

            A tyrant does not realize the fact that through oppression he can own only bodies of his subjects, not their spirits, where as a prince and his people are bound by Christian charity. The honour that a tyrant acquires by inducing fear in his people is not honour or obedience but servitude or flattery. His authority ensues out of his arrogance where as a prince’s authority ensues out of his concern for the well being of his people. A true prince should have a sense of belonging for his people. If one cannot develop this feeling, Erasmus feels, one should not take responsibility of being a prince in the very first place. Being a true Christian prince is a tough job, but being a tyrant is tougher. It is difficult to maintain simulation and deception that a tyrant takes aid of. A tyrant cannot rule for long by keeping his people threatened but a prince’s realm will be long lasting. A tyrant can keep his contemporary people mum, but he cannot prevent posterity from abhorring him.    

            Erasmus goes on to draw analogies among animals, tyrants and princes. He says that a tyrant should be compared to predatory animals that live by plundering and killing. He even points out that a tyrant is far more savage that an animal because animals do not kill animals of their own kind but a tyrant does immense harm to his fellow men.  But a prince should be compared to an animal like King Bee who remains at the center but constantly strives for the welfare of his fellow men. It does not have a sting like other bees since nature does not want a prince to be vengeful.

            Erasmus further advises about the virtues that should be present in a Christian prince, also alluding in the process to pagan princes. For pagans, kingship is analogous to tyranny. But it is not the case for Christians. Pagan princes rule barbarously where as a Christian prince is expected to rule with benevolence, keeping in mind the fact that Christ himself is also addressed as the Prince.

            Erasmus compares the role of a prince in a state to that of the heart in a human body; both give life to the whole that they are a part of. He also refers to Homer who calls the prince the shepherd of the people, a pastor and the tyrant a predator.

            Julius Pollox while teaching his student Emperor Commodus, enlisted some adjectives appropriate for a prince like far sighted, perceptive, not at the mercy of his emotions, cautious, accessible, one who knows how to keep balance between being a commander and a prince, etc and some apt for a tyrant like rapacious, proud, bad tempered, unapproachable, a slave to his desires, stormy, stupid, immoral, ruled by emotions instead of reason, intolerant of criticism, unbearable, etc. A tyrant is dictated by his desire, ambition, anger, greed and foolishness, a prince by reason.

            Erasmus in his work initially refers to monarchy as the best form of government but then adds that monarchy should be combined with aristocracy and democracy in order to prevent monarchy from breaking out into tyranny.

            Samuel, Nero, Solomon, Aristotle (in Politics) also hold views some of which are similar to those of Erasmus.

            It becomes evident that the greatest curse to humanity comes in the form of a tyrant, but a true prince is seen as boon from God who is loved by all. However, in saying that the energies used by a tyrant in furthering his ambition can be redirected in maintaining the welfare of people if one becomes sincerely dedicated to the cause of his fellow countrymen, giving up the course of tyranny, Erasmus gives resonances of optimism.

            Thus, The Education of a Christian Prince proves to be an indispensable work for the upbringing of a true Christian Prince.

Koyel Ghosh

Roll No. 68

PG-II

Courtier as an Adviser

Baldassare Castiglione wrote Il Cortegiano beginning it in 1508 somewhat after the Platonic model like Republic. In 1561, Sir Thomas Hoby translated it into English as The Book of the Courtier. The book provides some prescriptive ways that make an ideal or a perfect courtier. As one of the seminal courtesy books of the Renaissance, it is made up of a series of dialogues, debates on various topics of interest to the courtiers who wish to act in the best possible manner. The fictional conversation is made to occur over the course of four evenings amongst the courtiers of the Duke of Urbino in 1507 (where Castiglione himself was part of the Duke’s court), it defines and appropriates the role of the courtier as an adviser. A courtier is said to be the royal adviser of the prince and his court. An ideal courtier is to blend in the characteristics of being graceful, unassuming and courageous individual. He must be committed to justice, truth, wise counsel and never boast of his accomplishments and hanker after rewards. Along with these dispositions, he is expected to have a warrior spirit, be athletic and having knowledge of humanities and fine arts. He is to be equally skilled in music and dancing.

A courtier plays an infinitely delicate role in the court. Though the concept of an ideal courtier is unusual, yet he is to be effortlessly discreet along with the qualities of temperance, fortitude, liberality and all the virtues that foster the peace of mind. He will never enrage the prince and must ensure that the ruler or prince does not make decisions opposed to the welfare of his state and the people. If he knows that his prince is of an evil intention, he should dare to oppose him in a gentle manner and bring him onto the path of virtue. By the supremeness of power, or being flattered by friends and obsessed with pleasure-seeking and amusements, the prince cannot accept anyone else’s advice or opinion. “They believe that it is easy to know how to rule and that successful governance requires no art or training other than brute force” (p.286, The Fourth Book of the Courtier) .They think true happiness lies in what they want to do. Some of them hate reason and justice believing these as hindrance to their desires and these reduce them to servitude. Their irrationality makes them ignorant of themselves and the world around them. This dark veil of ignorance is the cause of all human errors. The only way to remove this is to enlighten human souls through virtues, skillful practice and reasons. A good, rational prince is always advantageous to the mankind. As an adviser, the chief function of a courtier is to make his prince virtuous through which he can relish the innocent pleasures. Virtue helps people to distinguish between true and false knowledge. A man who lacks true knowledge easily falls to vice. Like Machiavelli, Castiglione is not speaking of the prescribed Christian ‘virtues’ but of ‘virtue’ as a state of being. He is not overtly disturbed by the presence of vice in the court. He explains that virtue can not exist without vice nor justice without injustice. So he considers the truly competent courtier as a stabilising force among these binary oppositions.

A courtier will encourage the ruler to learn from a master whom he qualifies as someone of deservedly superior knowledge than someone who speaks in the name of authority. It is the superior God or Nature who endows men with the noble qualities. In the Fourth Book of the Courtier, Castiglione points out that it is difficult to learn the qualities instructed by the courtiers to their lords unless Nature herself provides these to human beings. Since these qualities are natural, it is even shameful to be lacking. The potentiality for these virtues is rooted within the human soul and education enhances these faculties. So, the duty of the courtier as an adviser is to motivate the prince to develop his faculties of noble qualities.

There are two ways of exercising the power of rule: domination of some masters over their slaves or the way the soul commands the body and the way some princes rule their citizen through laws or the way reason commands human desires. True freedom lies in living under the good laws. To build a prosperous nation with an assurance of providing its people the true freedom; a true, benevolent ruler is inevitable and necessary. An ideal courtier is capable of making such good princes. So a good prince is inseparably related to an ideal courtier. Contrary to it, if a dishonest courtier misleads a prince, he must be punished. The courtier whose instruction is to make the prince so excellent must be of more excellent than the prince himself. It is really important to make an honest courtier for the sake of a greater interest of a nation. The courtier must remember his real tasks: to guide the undecided, perplexed prince towards firm and realistic path and inspire him to build an approachable relationship with his subjects. “The ruler is good when his people are good, because the prince’s life acts as a model and guide for the citizen, and the way he behaves necessarily governs the behaviour of all the others” (Courtier, p.300).

‘Sprezzatura’, one of the important rhetorical devices, is required to be an ideal courtier. The author defines the Italian word in his book as ‘nonchalance’, ‘careful negligence’ and ‘effortless and ease’. The ideal courtier is someone who “ conceals art and presents what is done and said as if it was done without effort and virtually without thought”(Courtier,31). ‘Grazia’ or grace, not presented here with its religious overtones, but as a quality tempered by ‘gravitas’ or dignity-these two qualities assure a courtier that his speech does not seem affected or forced. The grazia can be achieved through sprezzatura. A courtier must remain unnoticeable in the art of presenting his personality. Castiglione’s emphasis on creating ‘natural impression’ of the courtier reiterates the notion of Ovid who advised the young men of the court to cultivate casual look of neglect in order to exude self-confidence. With a disciplined and benevolent intent, the courtier can manage to speak consistently the truth that would allow him to become a trusted and useful adviser in the court. He must express himself in an appropriate manner which is to have worthwhile effect. If his thoughts expressed by words are not witty, fine, acute, elegant and solemn, it would have little or no significance.

The ideal Renaissance courtier recognises himself as bound by codes of deference towards whomever he is serving. Yet at the same time, he remains loyal to his own sense of right and wrong. He must respect his own values during his interactions with his equals and superiors. The Book of the Courtier is not only a treatise on the behaviour of an ideal courtier as adviser but a meditation on the meaning of a graceful life. Castiglione advises the noble of Italy how to position themselves in a new social situation where advancement comes only by pleasing the princes. The way of pleasing the princes is to aid them in ruling. A perfect courtier can contribute in the development of the state by advising them .The book thus has a worth that transcends the time it was written for.

Prince and Tyrant

The Education of a Christian Prince was published by the Frozen Press in Basel, in May 1516 by Desideratum Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) and was dedicated to Prince Charles on the occasion of his accession to the throne of Aragon and who was later to become Habsburg Emperor Charles V. The book was written only three years after Niccole Machiavelli (1469-1527) had written Prince (1513) though it was not published until 1532. Both of them responded to the political instability of the times but chose totally opposite poles, were from different schools of thought in humanism, pragmatism in composing their treatises on how to groom the ruler or good Christian prince for effective governance. These two thinkers discussed the same thing in strikingly different methods.

The education for the Christian prince is presented through a series of precepts or aphorisms addressed to the ruler. At the beginning of the book following the Greek political philosopher Xenophon, Erasmus proposes that ‘There is something beyond human nature, something wholly divine, in absolute rule over free and willing subjects’. The formal consent of the subject entitles the prince to exercise authority over the people. The subjects will submit themselves to the prince relying upon the prince’s disposition that all his action will be taken only for the communal good. On the other hand, tyranny is ruthlessly the authoritarian rule without the consent of the ruled and is the extreme form of governance against which the entire book is directed at.

Erasmus creates a binary relationship between the prince and the tyrant. The tyrant is the flipside of a prince.

According to Erasmus ‘ancestry’ or lineage is not a criterion to be a prince; he must be elected based on his wisdom, sense of justice, personal restraint, foresight and concern for the public well being. He says that the custom was prevalent among the barbarians and also in his own time. So, if a prince is not elected but born to rule, then proper upbringing will compensate for the supreme qualities of an elected prince. Thus the role of an educator or a teacher becomes important whose duty is to inculcate healthy thoughts and morality in prince from the age of his infancy. A prince can become a tyrant with his sudden access of power , refuse to accept any advise or giving attention to someone who is not worthy of and can be mislead . So the education is must for the prince who is born to rule, to govern justly and benevolently. The educator cultivates morals, ethics and the necessary qualities required for a prince so that the prince’s rule never degenerates into oppression or tyranny. This education ought to start from the birth. Erasmus says “One of the duties of the Christian prince is to educate his heir.” The people may not be able to choose their prince but at least they are in a position to make sure that he will rule justly being trained by great tutor, parents and nurse.

The Prince should not accept common people’s choice without evaluation. Erasmus says that the prince should avoid the degrading opinion and interest of common people as they are never pleased by the best thing. There is no option for a prince to gain wisdom by experience. This sort of wisdom is devastating for the state. So the prince has to depend on theoretical knowledge and as well as on older men for the knowledge the latter had gained by experience. Erasmus comments: “What is a mistake in other people is a crime in the prince.” The prince should be his own critic not paying any heed to the flatterer; on the other hand, a tyrant loves to be bestowed by flatterer. Distinguishing true praise from the flattery is also a princely act. The prince must avoid the charge of tyranny. To do so he must avoid all acts of aggression, and consistently act for the communal good, rather than for personal gain. War always brings misery to a prince’s subjects. When war becomes inevitable, it should be conducted in an economically and expeditiously in a limited way. Regarding taxation, Erasmus concludes that taxation can be done away with only if the prince curbs the expense of his personal lifestyle.

Erasmus notes that Christian theology attributes three principal qualities to God: total power, total wisdom and total goodness. He says that power without goodness is unmitigated tyranny and without wisdom it is destruction not governance. He mentions many tyrants like Palmaris, Mezentius, Dionysius , Nero, Caligula, Domitian, and so on. Mentioning Seneca, Erasmus says that difference between a tyrant and a king is in their action, not in their title. Tyrants only dream to satisfy their own ambitions, they give free citizens a lower status than what the common folk gives to the cattle they buy.

Erasmus repeatedly uses the analogy between the father’s conduct as head of the family and the prince as the head of the state. He goes on to say that no wild beast is more harmful than a tyrant. He adds that history shows no tyrant had been so well defended to stay in power for very long and whenever a state’s governance degenerated into tyranny, it soon meets its downfall. He makes another kind of analogy in which the prince is the heart within the organic body of the body politic. Within this analogy of the state as body politic, warfare and insurrection are said and identified with typical diseases and disintegrations of the body.

He points out that Christ himself distinguished between Christian and the pagan princes. Erasmus explains that ‘dominion’, ‘imperial authority’, ‘kingdom’, ‘majesty’, and ‘power’ are pagan terms. The ‘imperial authority’ of Christians is nothing other than administration, benefaction, and guardianship. In the body of the text, the precedents on which Erasmus bases his arguments are drawn from pagan and Christian sources, political writing of antiquity and also citing from memories. But he does not forget to mention the mastery of Christianity over other religions. For example, he says: “If Aristotle, who was a pagan and a philosopher too (and not as holy as he was learned even by their standards), painted such a picture, how much more is it necessary for one who is Christ’s representative to do so?” Again he says: “If a Hebrew king is instructed to learn a body of the law which provided only sketches and images of justice, how much more is it appropriate for a Christian prince to observe and follow the teaching of gospel?”

Erasmus was a life-long pacifist . He was naturally cautious and non-confrontational . Initially he was sympathetic with the points of Martin Luther’s criticism but soon he distanced himself from the Lutheran movement, though he never spoke out against it in a convincing manner. The Education of a Christian Prince includes a fervent plea for ‘universal peace’ , achieving peace at any cost.

Erasmus creates the image of the ideal ruler who would be contributing to the welfare and betterment of the society. He emphasizes that there is no redeeming features for a tyrant . He shows that prince is the ultimate source of sustenance . His representation of prince is very idealistic. As a political teacher he is very deficient. He is indeed a moral or ethical philosopher and in many cases not so practical as well.

A-natural Correction: ‘Institutio principis Christiani’

‘[E]very defect of the mind may have a special receipt.’ --

This concluded Francis Bacon’s optimistic presentation ‘of Studies’. This conclusion is more encouraging than St. Augustine’s centuries-old damnation (later taken up by Martin Luther) that we are all by nature helplessly sinful. Erasmus, however, like Francis Bacon, is more hopeful about humanity in general. Erasmus and Bacon might have agreed that human nature is improvable; indeed, that man has some power to improve himself. However, Augustine’s theology was too deeply a part of Christian tradition to have no influence on Erasmus’s own thought: While Erasmus himself had been accused of the Pelagian Heresy (by none other than Martin Luther), there were notable differences between the two. Erasmus did not contend after Pelagius that we were sinful by imitation. On the contrary, Erasmus posits after Augustine that ‘the nature of man inclines towards evil.’ However, this is only a tendency in man and can be restrained. Unlike Luther, who maintained that man qua man is sinful, and that nothing could uplift man but divine justification sola fide and God’s Grace, Erasmus maintained that it is possible for man to improve his own estate. By practicing right moral behaviour with right ethics that may be arrived at through appropriate teaching (or study or experience), it is possible to live the good life, as it were. Moreover, Erasmus also maintained that no human was by nature ‘so blessed’ that he could not be ‘corrupted by perverse training’. Pedagogy becomes the functional word in the human condition. Without good training, man will do evil. Regardless of man’s inherent nature, whether he tends to less evil or more evil, he can be taught to do good. Indeed, because of the tendency to evil, it is important that the regular man is taught goodness well.

The prince (king-to-be), however, is exceptional and exemplary. The king is envisioned as the solitary source of temporal power, and descriptions such as fountainhead, paterfamilias and ship-captain are afforded him. The king is responsible for the large mass of his subjects who tend to imitate him. While the actions of the ordinary man affect only his immediate environs, the actions of the prince resound throughout his kingdom. Consequently, while the ordinary man should be taught how to do good, it is critical that the prince, more than anybody else, is trained well in right thought and action. Being the ‘public fountain’ from which everybody drinks, it will be the ruin of many if the prince’s mind is seeded with perverted ideas. Moreover, as the prince does not have the scope to learn by experience or by experiment, whatever wisdom and ability for goodness he is to acquire, he is to acquire through the pedagogical training overseen by a good teacher.

This training programme can not be instituted for a prince who is elected, or who has seized power through force (with whom Machiavelli is concerned). Only the prince who is born to office is eligible for this training; this is truly pedagogy – guidance of the young. The training is unsurprisingly congruent with the humanist programme. It is essentially a guided reading programme with special emphasis on the Classics. The acutores to be studied include Aristotle, Isocrates, Cicero, Seneca and so on. These readings, additionally reinforced by Christian teachings will guarantee morality and wisdom. This is important because the king, who is pure power, can not truly be a king without wisdom and morals:

‘Power without goodness is unmitigated tyranny, and without wisdom it is destruction, not government’.

Erasmus argues after Plato for the institution of a philosopher-king, one who will moreover possess the Aristotelian virtues of justice, wisdom, courage and moderation. Now, Erasmus gives the philosopher-king argument a Christian twist. The true philosopher is one who undauntedly seeks out and follows what is true and good. Christ is true and good. God is true and good. The philosopher, in practice, seeks out Christ. In practice, being a philosopher is the same as being a Christian, ‘only the terminology is different’. Such a Christian king will do what is right and good for his people.

Further, it is remembered that the king and his subjects are all God’s people. Indeed, it is the duty of the king to safeguard the people of God. There is another ‘natural’ duty proposed here: correct kingship. All Christians are servants of God, including the king. Moreover, all men were created free. Classically: ‘man is a godlike animal, free twice over: by nature and by law.’ To enslave free men, then, and to rule by force is unnatural, and wrong: it is unchristian.       

Thus, we are presented with two seemingly opposite natures. On the one hand, all people tend to evil. On the other hand, it is unnatural for the king to do evil and become tyrannical. The king is likened to the heart & mind of the living body of the state, and Erasmus proposes how unnatural it is for harmful vices to spread from the mind to the body, and similarly, from the prince to his people. How is this contradiction to be resolved?

This contradiction points to an inherent problem with the conceptualisation of kingship within Christianity. Writes Erasmus: ‘“kingdom”, “majesty”…are pagan terms, not Christian; the “imperial authority” of Christians is nothing other than administration, benefaction and guardianship.’ Yet, there is a space for kingship. Erasmus remembers Jesus’s words: ‘Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, unto God what is God’s.’ But it is a contested site, and in mediaeval Europe entire wars are fought between the papacy and the empire. Interestingly, Erasmus does not mention the Church at all.  

Additionally, this contradiction also points to the paradoxical condition of post-lapsarian man. Post-lapsarian man’s fallenness makes him susceptible to wickedness, but as Christian, he must withhold himself from wicked actions and not allow himself to be led into temptation. It is a test of faith.  

In Erasmus’s encapsulation: ‘a Christian prince…should be as different from even the noble pagan princes as a Christian is from a pagan.’ Moreover, ‘it is up to a true Christian to keep well away from all depravity, and it is the province of a prince to surpass all in blameless character and wisdom.’ In true humanist fashion, this can best be done by (guided) studies. The bulwark against man’s natural tendency to evil is education. It becomes a Christian responsibility to be educated in order to avoid evil and to do good. The prince, being doubly exceptional, first as a prince and then as a Christian (or the other way around), is to be taught doubly well. His education is the closest we can come to attempting the establishment on Earth of the city of God. 

Given the centrality of pedagogy in such an endeavour, if the prince or the people fail, it is the teacher’s fault.

Defence of Cruelty: Violence in Machiavelli’s The Prince

Machiavelli bases his advice about violence in The Prince primarily on his understanding of human weakness. He states that the way to effectively dominate a population without being threatened by them is to intimidate them. The prince can rule with a firm hand and mete out justice when necessary, but Machiavelli also advocates the application of moderated violence as a tool to ensure subservience.

In chapter XVII of The Prince, titled ‘Cruelty and compassion; and whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse’ Machiavelli addresses the question of whether it is better for the prince to be loved or feared by his people. He offers the advice that the prince should ensure that if he cannot be loved, he manages to avoid being hated, since it is admittedly difficult for a ruler to induce both love and fear in his subjects. He makes a clear distinction between the forms of cruelty a prince can inflict. While he endorses a single exemplary act, or a series of acts necessary for the assuming power or the strengthening of political position, any underhanded, self-serving act of violence is labelled ‘crime’. Machiavelli does not advocate amorality on the part of the prince. He repeatedly states that it is not acceptable for the prince to commit random acts of violence, “to kill fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, irreligious.” (Chap. VIII: ‘Those who come to power by crime’)

However, Machiavelli observes that vice and virtue are defined by conventions. In chapter XV of The Prince titled ‘The things for which men, and especially princes are praised or blamed’, he observes “he (the prince) will find that some of the things that appear to be virtues, will, if he practices them, ruin him, and some of the things that appear to be vices will bring him security and prosperity.” At the same time, it is important for the prince to keep up appearances. He must therefore appear virtuous, whether or not he is so in practice. That there is an element of deception involved here, does not seem to be a concern, since like everything else he prescribes, this too has the very a specific aim, that of improving the status of the prince by arousing public goodwill.

The duality of appearance and reality is very important in Machiavelli. Though he agrees that it is conventionally admirable for the prince to possess all the qualities human society holds to be good, he also understands that what is ‘good’ is not always beneficial. What he advocates is pragmatism over normative virtue. If the generosity or leniency of a prince does not strengthen his political position, or result in any direct benefits to him, then it is quite unnecessary, and unwise. His emphasis is on statecraft rather than a humane approach. It is in this same note that he argues in favour of violence as a powerful tool.
Machiavelli makes a distinction between cruelty used well and cruelty used badly. In the translation of The Prince by George Bull, the words ‘cruelty’ and ‘violence’ are used interchangeably, but both are qualified as good or bad according to the method of use. Like virtue, cruelty can be used in favour of the prince, or can bring about his downfall.

Walter Benjamin in his essay ‘Critique of Violence’ refers to law-making and law-preserving violence, implying that human society is dominated by the dynamics of power relations that are asserted by violence, either latent or manifest. Machiavelli’s definition of violence, although more specific, seems to be referring to this form of law-making violence used when the prince establishes a new order, or enforces an old one, with the aid of violence. It is not ruthlessness that Machiavelli advocates, but a very well calculated, moderated, and carefully meted out violence. The debate about whether the end justifies otherwise unacceptable means that occurs in Benjamin’s essay, largely applies to Machiavelli’s argument. To him the end does justify seemingly unethical means. Machiavelli redefines the ethics of statecraft in a radical way. His statements in this respect are dramatic and grandiose, sometimes overtly so. He appears to be trying to invest greatness in otherwise despicable human actions, on the basis of their efficacy.

What Machiavelli seems to be proposing is an impersonal, premeditated brand of violence that does not have anything to do with human conscience or compassion. It has an orchestrated, almost synthetic quality about it which lacks the passion that is associated with violence in human psychology. This dispassionate form of violence is not triggered by any personal vendetta or sense of righteousness, or even a taste for brutality, but is initiated for the simple and practical purpose of effective statecraft.

There is a certain economy in the violence Machiavelli suggests; the actions are precise and carefully aimed. This course of action might actually serve to reduce the amount of violence at work in the social dynamics of a principality. It can become a means to prevent rebellion, regicide and delinquencies. Violence here is a disciplining tool, as it is in the case of institutions of law enforcement. The cruelty of the monarch is merely an extension of the monopoly over legitimate violence the state exercises as a political body and social instrument.

There is an element of exhibition in the form of violence advocated in this discourse. There is an obvious distancing of the act of violence and the ruler by having agents carry it out, as if to demonstrate that though he has the power to command a massacre if he so willed, the prince prefers to maintain peace and harmony in his kingdom, only resorting to violence when absolutely essential. Perhaps this is an effort to make the persona of the prince larger than life and very admirable to his people, ensuring that it isn’t only fear, but also awe that makes them loyal subjects.

Machiavelli’s unorthodox views on the use of violence have gathered criticism and infamy over the centuries, and have come to be viewed in an extremely negative light. However, in context, his advice can be considered not only practical but also a radical way of conceptualising violence and its constructive capacity.

Nilanjana Chakraborty
PG II

Castiglione: The courtier as Adviser

The humanist belief that the close relation between good education and good governance led to the writing of educational treatises that explained the type of training in the studia humanitatis that was to be imparted to prospective princes.notable amongst these were “On Education” by Juan Luis Vives and “The Right Education of Boys” by Jacopo Sadoleto.Later,Roger Ascham,the tutor to the future Queen Elizabeth,wrote his celebrated “The Scholemaster” that established a pattern of instruction and ideal of conduct.These books paved the way for a new genre,that saw the humanists addressing not only the princes,but also their courtiers,nobles and councillors.Book two of the “Dial of Princes” by Antonio de Guevara clearly states that his advice is intended for the great lords as well as the princes.The other notable book of this type was named ‘The Governor” by Sir Thomas Elyot.Both these books show their indebtdedness to the seminal text named “The Book of the Courtier” by Baldassare Castiglione.

Drafted between 1513 and 1518,and published ten year later,the book is influenced by Ciceros “De Oratore” due to its form and gives us the classic formulation of the definition of the perfect courtier.Although not on the exact same theme,Stefano Guazzo’s “Civil Conversations” resembles it due to its dialogic form spread over four books.

Castiglione writes about the world he knew, speaking in the name of his own acquaintances, and expressing the ideals that inspired his own career, both as humanist and as diplomat.He provides for his dialogues,a specific historical setting-the palace of the Duke of Urbino,and the spekers were prominent personalities of his times.The discussions held on the fourth evening gives the framework of the formation of the perfect courtier.

Signor Ottaviano Fregoso,in the beginning of his speech,describes the courtier to be good and virtuous,not “simply in himself,but in regard to the end to which he is directed”.It is this “end” that Ottaviano goes on to speak about in detail-the sole vocation of the courtier is to win the “mind and favour” of the prince,thereby creating the premise of telling him the truth about matters expediently,without managing to displease him.For Ottaviano,and Castiglione,the perfect courtier must be the one who can oppose the prince if he chooses the path of evil and bring him to the path of virtue.

In order to drive home their views,courtiers must be charming,quick witted,prudent and scholarly,thus successfully imparting the ideal of justice,liberality and magnanimity in the prince.Curiously,though Ottaviano speaks disparagingly about singing,dancing and playing games,terming these as “vain and frivolous”,he later goes on to approve of festivities as “the flower of courtiership”only if it secures the “virtuous end” for the prince.

As the evening discussions unfold,Ottaviano astutely recognizes ignorance and conceit as the primary pitfalls of princes.He wants no flatterer,liar or slanderer in the kings entourage.Ottaviano is specially mindful of what is distinctly identified in Elyot’s “The governor” as “the mortal poison of flattery”.Ottaviano wants the savant courtier to “tell them(the princes) the truth and remind them of what is right”.The true courtier must not be averse to offering a trenchant criticism of the prince,unlike his friends who refrain from doing so fearing the princes wrath.In this context,Bacon too,reveals his reservations about “friends” in his advice to the Earl of Rutland-“your lordship hath many friends who have more leisure to think and more sufficiency to counsel than myself;yet doth my love to you dedicate these few free hours to study of you and your intended course;in which study if I find out nothing but that which you have from others,yet I shall perhaps confirm the opinion of wiser than myself”.

Ottaviano gives a sinister picture of the state deprived of the sage advice of the courtier-the prince,unaccustomed to hearing the truth,would wield unrestrained power,simultaneously retiring to pleasure seeking and amusements,thereby making the cardinal mistake of “believing that it is very easy to know how to rule and that successful government require no art or training”.This ignorance gives rise to serious lacunae in governance,causing so much destruction and ruination that it may be called “the deadliest plague of all”.

It is here,that the courtier’s role assumes its somber significance.He must teach the prince the values of continence,fortitude,justice and temperance.But the process of educating the prince is a shrewd art-the courtier must be ready offer a bitter pill under a “cloak of pleasure” to ensure that his stern diktat is followed by the recalcitrant prince.

This art becomes important if we keep in mind More’s “Utopia” where Raphael hythlodaeus speaks of the men,who,offering beneficial measures to the king found themselves “banished or treated with ridicule”. The predicament recurs in Starkey’s “Dialogue” where men speaking for the good of the state were “put to cruel and shameful death”.

In this difficult task,the three qualities that serve the courtier in good stead are- grazia,mediocrita and sprezzatura.Grazia,or innate grace and grace of action ensures that the courtier remains the dominant personality in the court.Mediocrita,or the ability to take the moderate path is of primary importance in the political agenda of the state.However,it is sprezzatura,or the ability of the courtier to display “an easy facility in accomplishing difficult actions which hides the conscious effort that went into them” ,that is perhaps the most important of his art.

It is Ottaviano’s faith in the courtier and his guidance of the prince that makes him declare that the single rule of a good prince is the noblest form of government.This idea is echoed by Guevara in his “Dial of Princes”,whre he states that the ruler furnished with sound advice ensures that the common wealth is ruled not merely by just laws,but also by a just king.Ottaviano goes on to say that such a prince would acquire the “heroic virtue that will raise him above human limitations” : the vir virtutis-the end that is reached with generous help from the courtier.

Towards the end of the discourse.Ottaviano answers various questions from his audience.Signor Gaspare asks about the mode of instruction of the prince by the courtier,to which Ottaviano replies that he prefers practice,followed by intellectual exercise,conforming with the renaissance thought of the idea of praxis.Magnifico Giuliano finds it unacceptable,that “the courtier whose instruction is to make the prince so excellent,must be more excellent than the prince himself”.To this Ottaviano replies that “although the courtier teaches the prince,it can not be said to follow that he is of greater dignity than the prince”.Ottaviano goes on to compare the courtier to a whetstone which “is used to sharpen iron,though it cuts nothing itself”.The Magnifico Giuliano also wonders whether any difference in the age of the prince and the courtier,could spoil the otherwise excellent arrangement but Ottaviano rejects the apprehension. He also does not mind Cesare Gonzaga’s claim that the venerable courtier that he has constructed should be called a schoolmaster,and ranks him with the likes of Phoenix,Aristotle and Plato.

To conclude,one may consider the life of Castiglione to find that the Perfect Courtier was Castiglione himself-his life made memorable with splendid events and momentous issues. He was a close friend of Raphael and Bembo,served great princes, two Dukes of Urbino, the Marquis of Mantua and Clement VII. He visited England on a mission to the Order of the Garter,was trusted and well beloved by Charles V and he ended his life in Spain as Papal nuncio.“The Book of the Courtier” is remarkable for its treatment of moral, ethical and political issues with use of metaphors and references.The importance of the book far outstrips the context of time and place as Spenser is said to have been influenced by it.In English literature,one finds the Earl of Kent to be a stock character,a well meaning subject in ‘King Lear” and in “Edward the second”,whose advice is ignored by the respective kings,who go on to suffer in the end. Indian history too, tells us about the formidable Chanakya, whose formulations on political,social and military affairs as well as the economy of the state secured for Chandragupta a large and prosperous empire.One understands,that the courtier’s art-of grazia,mediocrita and sprezzatura,will continue to intrigue modern day courtiers-bureaucrats and diplomats,alike;even in the wake of the changing face of world politics.

Shiladitya Banerjee.

Castiglione-The Courtier as the Adviser

"On the steps of the Apennines, almost in the centre of Italy towards the Adriatic, is situated, as everyone knows, the little city of Urbino." It is in this Urbino that the author of these words, Baldesar Castiglione, learned in humanist scholarship, spent many years of his life, first in the service of Guidobaldo of Montefeltro, Duke of Urbino, and after his death, in the service of Francesco Maria della Rovere. And it is in the Court of Urbino that provides the setting for his work The Book of the Courtier. It has been recorded by Castiglione himself that the idea for writing the book came to him during his time at the Court, when Fracesco was the Duke.

Four separate books make up the entire work. It recounts conversations at the Court of Urbino. Opinions expressed by the members of the Court- men and women alike. On the one hand, then, the book tries to present to its reader, a number of political ideas that surfaced during the Renaissance in the fifteenth century. On the other hand, it is a book that tries, through the discussions, to convey the idea of the perfect courtier, and in the process of doing so, also discusses, quite extensively in fact, the nature and duties of the good prince and the role of the courtier as an adviser to the prince. In the fourth book, Ottaviano points out that the greatest faults in a ruler are ignorance and conceit and the root of these two evils is falsehood. The prince may be led astray by false advice and it is the duty of the courtier to point him down the correct path. Is virtue natural or can it be taught? Which is better- a republic or the princely state? Should the courtier be formal or informal when he instructs the prince? These are some of the key issues that are discussed by the courtiers in the fourth book.

Castiglione's work had a long lasting and far reaching influence in Europe, especially in England. As a compendium of some of the political ideas of the Renaissance, it serves its purpose. But as George Bull points out in his introduction, the work had several flaws including glossing over or ignoring facts about the courtiers and distorting history. As an advice book (which it to a certain extent is) it is a part of a long standing tradition of such books in Europe. What is it then that makes Castiglione's work significant? In order to answer this question and place the book in context of the Renaissance, we must travel further back into the past and try and look at the way in which the Court, and along with that the role of the humanist, had developed and changed.

Quentin Skinner, in the first volume of The Foundations of Modern Political Thought notes that when the signori came to power in Italy, it helped in bringing about certain changes in Renaissance political thought. Of these, one of the most important changes was a shift in the notion of the role of the humanist. Hans Baron, in his book The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance, distinguishes between two forms of humanism, of which he terms one 'civic humanism'. Who was the civic humanist and what was his role? The civic humanist was one who would lead an active political life. Skinner notes that for writers like Leonardo Bruni and his successors, involvement in civic affairs was thought of as the representation of the highest condition of human life. But when the signori come to power and socio-political dynamics begin to change, there is also a noticeable shift in the role of the humanist. In the republican state, the civic humanist concerned himself with the whole body of citizens. Their advice was directed at everyone. In this later period, in the princely state, the humanist now focuses completely on the more powerful and more influential figure of the prince, overlooking the figure of the individual citizen.

Castiglione's The Book of the Courtier embodies this shift in the role of the humanist. In this work, the ideal courtier is not one who actively takes part in the affairs of the state. Instead, his only concern is the ruler, the prince. His only duty is to win the favour of the prince and give him good advice so that he follows the right path and can inculcate within him the right virtues. This is the reason why Castiglione's work acquires significance. Not because it is a book of courtesy, not because it brings together different contemporary political ideas, not because it is, to a certain extent, a part of the tradition of advice books written for princes, but because it is an evidence of this important shift in the role of the humanist as the courtier that took place in the fifteenth century in what Skinner calls 'The Age of Princes.' Ottaviano, in the fourth book, says, "...a man who strives to ensure that his prince is not deceived by anyone, does not listen to flatterers or slanderers or liars, and distinguishes between good and evil, loving the one and detesting the other, aims at the best end of all."

Legal Supremacy: Marsilius of Padua’s Defensor Pacis

Most legal words are derived from the Latin word lex, meaning “law” or “statute”. Interestingly, the word lex itself seems to be related to the Latin legere which means “to read”. Etymologically, legal things are readable. This idea may be linked with Marsilius of Padua’s belief that law must be written because the spoken law of the monarch is not adequate for society. With writing and codification, law is distinguished from and raised above the mere customs or practices of a given society. Aristotle (whose works are quoted through the great extent of Defensor Pacis) provides a simple explanation of law in terms of two distinct categories: particular law and universal law. Universal law is “the law of nature” whereas particular law refers to a set of rules which is laid down by the members of a community.

Marsilius of Padua had deeply imbibed Aristotle’s Politics, and his own understanding of city-states was strengthened by his knowledge of the institutions of Lombard city-republics. He wrote about the “perfect” form of government intended by Nature through the gradual growth of human communities. Such communities would include various classes of men including the priesthood, Principans, the executive, and the legislator.

In Defensor Pacis, Marsilius explains that there can be several meanings of the word “law” but among its various implications the most significant meaning is “a natural inclination of the senses towards some action or passion”. He explores the importance of the government of a perfect community by a set of laws or customs, and what such laws actually mean, and the application of laws by various agents.

“Law has coercive power, being speech for a certain prudence and understanding” (Nicomachean Ethics X, 1180a21–2). Marsilius refers to this understanding of law in Aristotle when he describes law as a command or “coercive power” applied by someone who is guided by his sense of observation of what is right and just. The understanding of this “coercive power” which is relevant for maintaining peace in a community is what makes Marsilius’ understanding of law distinctive from others. Thomas Aquinas, for example, asks “Can anybody’s reason make law?” (Summa theologiae IaIIae q. 90 a. 3) because he does not entirely believe that law is guided by reason. For him, the idea of coercive power is linked rather with the idea of giving penalties to a wrongdoer because reasoning with a criminal may not be enough for the larger community.

The primary necessity of law, according to Marsilius, lies in civil justice and common advantage. Law also ensures the security of the position of the prince and their long principate. In order for a community to function properly laws are necessary and it is equally important for the law to be appropriated by someone who can judge rightly. When the laws are written down for a community, and thus made objective, it is not possible for even a corrupt prince to let his own intemperance affect judgment. The written law is universal and independent of external influence. Drawing upon Aristotle, Marsilius asks “whether it is better for a polity to be ruled by the best man without law, or by the best law”.

Aristotle had emphasized the importance of the politician as an able lawgiver (nomothetês), as one who frames the laws, customs and institutions of the city state. But Marsilius recognizes that it is not always possible for a single lawgiver to be just and right at all times. In discussing this, he comes to the conclusion that the best judgment can be passed when the element of passion is absent. But this is not entirely possible because personal feelings often come into effect while giving a verdict. Moreover, ignorance can result in wrong judgment. Marsilius provides a solution for the appropriation of law in the right way – it has to be written and made accessible to all so that it is easier to refer back to it whenever the need arises. For Marsilius, the purpose of law is to “exclude malice and error from the civil judgments or sentences of judges.” Important to Marsilius’ discourse is the role of the legislator, the lawmaker.

Although he quotes extensively from Aristotle’s work, Marsilius also seems to be influenced by Plato’s Nomoi or Laws. Plato emphasizes the importance of a legal order which is passed democratically by an assembly of people, and mentions that government should be subject to the rule of law. In this dialogue Plato also explores the important question of who lays down the laws. This very question is taken up by Marsilius while trying to establish how a body of people is relevant for passing laws. For him, the human legislator is ideally a community of people, not a single person. When Marsilius was writing about the human legislator he was aware of the tension between populo grasso and populo minuto in the Italian cities. Marsilius carefully treads a middle path while exploring whether the whole multitude should rule or just some people. It is important to understand who can speak in legal matters of the community because women, children, and slaves are entirely excluded from this process. The ‘collective’ is important because according to Marsilius the “whole” is more reliable than the “part”. When a community or a collective passes a law it is more likely that everyone’s interests will be taken into account. It is important to remember here that medieval canonists also maintained that acts need to be authorized by major et saniors partes (“greater and sounder parts”) of the community.

Marsilius also notes that people do not necessarily need to use their collective legislative powers, and instead can entrust it to a ruler who can act as a representative of the larger community. This is how the installation of the ruler is relevant, but again this can only be done by popular consent. Marsilius was radical not only in his idea of state and law but even more so in his conception of the Church. He felt that in all types of appointments, and functions of the priesthood is responsible to the legislator and its deputy, the principan.

In the wake of Plato and Aristotle, Romans believed that all men had, by nature, an instinctive knowledge of what was right and what was wrong and they also believed that it was possible to frame laws in accordance with nature. To them, law was Ius Gentium – of all people. Propelled by this universalism they found it difficult to understand how Barbarians had different laws and how the Barbarians could claim that their own laws were peculiar to them. These laws were not founded on nature or reason but on the dictates of their own ‘divine ancestors’. The Barbarians, who subsequently felled the Roman Empire in 476 A.D., accepted Christianity as the state religion and brought about the ‘Medieval Age’ in Europe. This presented the first break with classical Graeco-Roman thought with regard to laws. Medieval Europe was encompassed by the Christian Church and theological laws overshadowed natural law, rational law, and even local customs. Marsilius of Padua challenged the Church’s authority to frame laws on behalf of civil society except in spiritual matters, and revived Aristotelian understandings of law. As a scholastic, Marsilius tried to harmonize classical theories of law with the views of medieval theologians.

Marsilius’ idea that law is sovereign, and above the human legislators who instituted it, remains powerful today. Indeed, it may even be said to be the essence of our modern democracy.

- Shreya Sarkar (PG II); Roll no. 30