In this essay we can approach the aspect of the courtier and advising from two levels. Firstly by determining the way in which the courtier performs the duty of the adviser, what style and rhetorical strategy does he employ or should employ according to Castiglione.( as we can consider the book as an advisory guide on how to advise).Secondly, it can also be viewed as a work of comparison on what distinguishes the courtier and his form of advising from an ordinary adviser. These approaches are closely interlinked and reaches a common ground. The first thing that strikes the reader is the amiably minimalistic style the author employs while elaborating upon the art of advising. A style that is not austere, Yet its neither too rigid in its application nor severe in its argument. That is a primary quality that a good adviser should posses. Another is the knowledge of past and history. Because Castiglione is not exactly readable for the originality of his thought. Rather it’s a work of documentation of classical ideals already propagated by humanists like Plato and Cicero. An attempt that is termed as “bold plagiarism “by George Bull in his introduction of the translated work (The Book Of The Courtier, p-13) .However, The adviser is certainly not bound by the condition of originality. He can advise his ruler to do exactly something that has been proved successful before, thus glorifying the past greats.Not necessarily by naming them, and if the prince is ignorant (which he often is) then the source of the advise does not matter (I will come back to this issue of the ignorance of the ruler and how the courtier can rectify it). What matters is the formulation of a tried and tested method and presenting it to the prince in a way as refined as possible. History teaches not to repeat us our mistakes so wisdom based on a strong knowledge of past can scarcely go wrong. The courtier needs to build this wisdom within him to be a credible adviser. Add to this the qualities of grace and charm. He is bound by the “anxiety of pleasing” but what the author seems to suggest is that he can minimize the disagreement by being charming and graceful while advising. That does two things. It increases the plausibility of the suggestion and it adds conviction to the argument. Note that here too the flexibility in the primary suggestion (if it somewhat limits the plausibility of the idea) has been made up by more aesthetic and refined tropes such as intellectual capacity speech, oration, rhetoric and posture. The rationality of thought and reasoning with inner humaneness and goodness of the soul have been accorded the supreme importance in Nicomachean Ethics in the shaping of a complete individual. An approach that is inward looking. But when you are in a more public realm, when you are convincing, influencing and shaping how others should think, the external manifestations need equal emphasis. Thus advising is seen by Castiglione not normative but more as a performative quality. Being a good adviser falls into the same bracket as excelling in dance, music and athleticism. In Book I during the games there is a firm politeness with which the courtiers advise which is related to this performative approach. As if there is a game of calculation is going on between the duchess and them on how much space should be given to each other. To the courtier it is a test of timing .He cannot ‘rightly refuse to obey “her (p-45), madam’s wish and her priority come first. Yet it does not deter him from advising or expressing deferred judgement or disagreement. Restraint and the timing of restraint is equated with the balance and harmony of thought. Diplomacy is as much about when and how to stay silent, and observe restraint as it is about the timing of speaking. The diplomatic aspect of advising seems to be the most intriguing part. He strongly argues that flattery is absolutely unacceptable, when the prince is doing something wrong the courtier should dare to oppose him. But in my opinion, here Castiglione’s argument does not stand on a firm ground. Because there is an underlying moral tone in his suggestions for a good adviser which is coterminous with the didactic and nonchalant (“sprezzatura” or “studied carelessness”) tone applied in most of the book. But not when he highlights this diplomatic side of disagreement between the ruler and his courtier. Notably this is also the part where he explains the exact role of the adviser in the most cleared fashion. He says good deed consists in truly virtuous end for our intentions. But it also lies in the knowledge of “how to find convenient and suitable means for its attainment” (Courtier,p-285).The adviser should ensure that his prince finds it as smoothly as possible. Advising for the sole purpose of winning favour is strictly prohibited. But Castiglione here indulges in a sort of morality play and gives his courtier a moral high ground which is not backed by logic. He claims the sincerity of the courtier is a virtue, but it rather comes across as a conceit. I think the courtier’s primary concern is not for his ruler but for the state itself. Because politics may fail, but in order to keep the state functioning bureaucracy must function too. Often the adviser can use the prince as his tool. Then flattery becomes unacceptable not because of its immorality But it is counterproductive to the running of the state. But Courtier’s disagreement is not of a conscientious Objector but of a clever diplomat. There is also a subtle hint of assuming authority or becoming the more pro active if the ruler fails to perform, without risking his displeasure. It is notable to find how “suggestion” and “advise” later get replaced with “instruction”. What Castiglione terms as Sincerity works as conceit. Conceit that is praiseworthy but not a moral virtue. Ignorance of the ruler is evil, so is falsehood employed by his courtier. But on the one hand, where good advising skills are seen as part of decorum, which he in turn reflects a perfect courtly gentleman representing the true spirit of Renaissance. On the other hand, he uses falsehood to convince his ruler. The contradiction does not lie in the falsehood being a good quality of adviser, moral vacuity can co exist with diplomatic acumen quite harmoniously. Contradiction is in Castiglione giving his courtier a position of higher moral ground where he can lead his prince into “paths of virtue”. Indeed he can lead him, but he can also manipulate him, exploit him and misguide him. That notion is surprisingly absent. The notion which says in spite of having “pure” and “true “knowledge of evil the courtier can deliberately misguide his ruler. It is absent because perhaps that does not present an ideal courtier to us. The idealisation Castiglione offers revolves around individuals i.e. the ruler, not the state itself .But the idea structure of power is only complete when the Governor is wiser than the governed but the adviser to the governor is even wiser than him. The Courtier may operate in a leisurely courtly atmosphere but his mind should always be prepared for a state of war. This is why administrative experience is crucial, the author himself is a good example. Even if the ruler is ignorant the state can run by his advisers, but the courtier simply cannot be ignorant. In diplomacy falsehood can be a virtue, ignorance is always a liability. Another contradiction is in how Castiglione opposing brute force of power but in return replacing it with another form of brute force. One is anarchical, there is no central authority. Another can be well calculated and administered but a brute force nonetheless. In many ways the courtier can encroach the sovereign space of the ruler.However,the sovereignty of the state can never be compromised. The courtier as adviser has virtues that are acquired, including nobility. It minimises, if not dismisses the role of fortune and destiny. But the ruler posses’ virtues that are natural. The adviser should nurture Those virtues and instil “goodness”(something again, according to Castiglione, that can be acquired and Cultivated) in the ruler. The Book Of The Courtier is interesting to me because it in many ways lays the foundation of modern Bureaucracy. I would like to draw a parallel between the government Castiglione discusses and many modern day parliamentary democracies including India where there is often a notion put forward that in spite of an inept political leadership the state can function if there is a strong bureaucratic setup (Where judiciary and armed forces are extended forms of the bureaucracy). Castiglione does not specify or deal with elected forms of government in general. But the problem with this modern notion is that it highly underestimates the aspiration and expectations of the electorate. Even in a state which is not democratic the aspiration of the ruled and the governed stays. And more importantly, what also stays is the moral claim of the ruler on his citizens. Castiglione captures this spirit brilliantly. So if the question arises in spite of being wiser, more quick witted, charming and graceful than the prince why the adviser cannot rule? Because he lacks natural virtues created by fortune and destiny. And he lacks the moral claim on the state. In an essay titled “My Intellectual Path” published in New York Review Of Books a decade ago Isaiah Berlin wrote “Human nature is not fixed, its common”. The Book Of The Courtier offers remarkable Insights into the aspects of advising and courtiership,offering many similarities between Renaissance courtly environment and modern diplomacy .But I think it remains somewhat limited in its prospect because Castiglione lays too much emphasis on the fixity of human nature and too little on its commonality. Firm and articulate as though these advise are, sometimes their short-sightedness is too obvious to deny.
Work Cited
Castiglione,Baldesar. The Book Of The Courtier.Translated by George Bull.Harmondsworth:Penguin Books.1976.
Somak Mukherjee
PG-I
Roll No-45
No comments:
Post a Comment