The Courtier as Advisor: Castiglione's The Book Of Courtiers

“In my opinion, therefore, the end of the perfect courtier is. . .to win for himself the mind and favour of the prince he serves that he can and always will tell him the truth about all he needs to know, without fear or risk of displeasing him.” – thus gives Baldassare Castiglione his thesis, through the voice of a nonchalant courtier Ottaviano, portraying sprezzatura, on the role of an ideal courtier in his The Book Of The Courtier published in 1528. The work can be taken as a fictionalized depiction of Castiglione’s own experience at the court of Duke Guidobaldo da Montefeltro of Urbino, narrated in the form of series of conversations between few fictional courtiers. Here, taking Count Lodovico and Frederico as “the perfect courtier”, the spirit of renaissance humanism is reflected in Castiglione’s emphasis on the development of the character of a prince as guided, advised and channelized by a courtier who must have the qualities of a good wit, charm, prudence and scholarliness.

The principle goal of an ideal courtier is to instill into the prince the seeds of virtue that befits a ruler, like justice, liberality, munificence and nobility, through constant encouragement and deterrence from the path of evil. As the merit of any good deed has two elements, i.e. choosing a virtuous end for intentions, and the knowledge of finding a convenient and suitable way for its achievement, thus for the prince to achieve the ultimate goal of establishing a good state he needs to be protected from temptations, liars, flatterers, slanderers, etc. by the ability of the courtier.

The root vice in any human is falsehood, and it is the cause of the formation of ignorance and conceit in those princes who are drunk in their own power. If any prince is surrounded by unscrupulous men who prefers to let him live wickedly to win his favours as flatterers and thus to gain materialistically from the intimacy, or maybe are simply too afraid to criticize the falseness of the prince, this fosters ignorance in his mind of the world and of himself which in turn makes him hate reason and justice. By letting themselves get carried away by self-conceit, evil princes result in the decadence of themselves and of the states. It is here that the vital element of a true courtier is missed the most, one who would “tell them the truth and remind them of what is right.” Castiglione gives few examples from the annals of history of bad rulers like Cimon being censured for being attracted to wind, Scipio for loving sleep and Lucullus for loving banquets. But even these men took meticulous counsel from wise. Thus the princes need critical assistance of philosophers and courtiers to show the path to virtue, good governance and a prosperous state.

A courtier must win over the prince’s mind, be intimate, to gradually plant the inception of a virtuous journey with continence, fortitude, justice and temperance. To bring back a corrupted prince, to “enable him to relish the sweet fruit which lies under the slight bitterness first tasted by one who is struggling against his vices” is the job of the courtier through inspiration, education and advice. But this exercise must be moderated by the introduction of different entertainments like music, arms, horses, verse, conversation of love, etc to keep the prince absorbed and to give a holistic education, thus making the advice-making much more organic in texture and spirit.

As an answer to the query of the Duchess, signore Ottaviano gives an extensive and intensive catalogue of advices that an ideal courtier is to give to his prince. A prince has bipartite nature of his life, one that of clear insight and judgment and the other that of lawful commands and proper manner, thus a dialectic synthesis of reason of thought and humaneness of soul somewhat reflecting Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics; thus the prince must not only give enduring laws and ordinances to the people, but also ensure their execution and himself perform them. A courtier must advice the prince not to be always warlike but to strive for the attainment of peace and thereafter make the best use of the blissful leisure without drowning into malevolent opulence and decadence. He must also sow the seeds of practical virtues of fortitude, steadfastness, patience, resolution, etc. which are needed in the time of war to get the moral virtues in the time of peace which includes justice, continence, temperance, charity, etc.

A prince must be strong-willed enough to punish the wicked, but must use the element of punishment not as vindictive, but as reformative. This is essentially because the rule of the prince over his subjects must not be that of a master over slaves, but that of a father over his sons, thus forwarding the idea of 'pater familias'.

“For if I knew how to teach my prince and instruct him in all the virtuous ways. . .I would think nothing more was needed for me to have achieved well enough for the purposes of a good courtier.” – shows the primary importance of teaching of virtue in the role of a courtier. Here a question arises as whether to teach the prince virtues through theoretical argument or day-to-day practice, and Castiglione answers it as “as intellectual virtue is perfected by teaching, so moral virtue is perfected by practice.” A prince’s education should be advised to start with practice, as practice enables to govern the instincts not yet under the control of reason and thus commanding a discipline to reach a worthy end. It is then that intellect, fostered through arguments, should mould it to achieve perfection.

An interesting thing to note here is that Castiglione also expresses his own political theory of an ideal governmental structure in a state. This he does through the speech of Ottaviano where he tells the Duchess that he would advice a prince to form the state as a well balanced symmetry between three forms of governance, i.e. rule by the prince, rule by the best and rule by the common people, thus a monarchy with the active elements of oligarchy and sort of democracy.

A courtier must show the prince his responsibilities and guide him in their implementation. The principle duties being justice, appointment of the wise and judicious men of probity in varied posts, distribute honours and medals according to merit, issuing strict laws and obeying the laws himself. A prince, very importantly, must be religious in the true sense of the term and be free from any shards of superstition; as to revere Lord God means being in the happy side of good fortune and also maintaining an ideal figure to his subjects. A prince must rule his nation neither too oppressively, lest causing a rebellion, nor too tolerantly, lest resulting in the general decadence of the nation into corruption, but he should follow a middle path to be loved, adored, revered, respected and followed by the subjects. To quench the intrinsic restlessness of the public, which is fostered by neglect, cowardice and worthlessness of bad prince, a good prince must follow the courtier’s advice to set up a strong and just rule.

Another courtier, Cesare Gonzaga critisises Ottaviano as, with the effect of so many instructions, the courtier will become less of a courtier and more of a schoolmaster, and the prince more of a governor; and he adds the need of a monarch to live primarily a life of luxury and conquest. To this signore Ottaviano replies that for a true prince no more a relevant praise is there than to be a good governor as he should primarily govern his nation than spend more and more in the name of kingly opulence and engage in excessive warfare.

“So it follows that the courtier, whose instruction is to make the prince excellent, must be more excellent than the prince himself.” – opines Magnifico Giuliano, echoing a similar assertion by the Duchess that if an ideal courtier is truly an accumulation of all the aforesaid virtues that he teaches the prince, then he ought to be a great and better prince himself. It’s quite interesting to see Ottaviano’s superb rhetorical defense in this verbal ensnarement. He first retorts diplomatically by saying that a courtier knows better how to speak than to act, thus highlighting the role of a courtier as an adviser, then points to the argument that a courtier’s advices and instructions are not the sole cause of what the prince is to be, as the latter must be “naturally inclined and suited to his role”, or else the courtiers efforts will bear no fruit. Here one is immediately reminded the problem between ‘nature and nurture’ found in Erasmus’ The Education of a Christian Prince and even see the shadow of Pico Della Mirandola’s Oration on the Dignity of Man where one finds a treatise on the ideals of human capacity, assertion, self-fashioning, etc.

Just like farming on sterile land is futile and fruitful in fertile land – “The farmer is not by himself responsible for the harvest, but without him all the other things would be of little or no use.” – so is the role of the courtier like a whetstone which sharpens iron, but cuts nothing itself. Here Castiglione almost pre-echoes the modern bureaucratic diplomacy through the balanced use of subjective meaning of a thesis and the externalized performative use of rhetoric in its argument.

One may point out drawbacks in the book regarding Castiglione’s use of differentiating human character into clichéd conventions or in his lack of flexibility in political ideology, but still The Book Of The Courtier remains an important courtesy book and renaissance treatise on political thought.

Thus to habituate the prince in the virtues gradually through a holistic education, safeguard him the deceiving traps of flatterers, prevent him from getting infected from self-conceit and thus to ensue prosperity of the state is what an ideal courtier is ought to do, or in Castiglione’s own words – “…just as the aim of a doctor should be to make men healthy, so the aim of the courtier is to make his prince virtuous.”

Shubhankar Das@PG1
Roll - 10

Internal contradiction regarding Flattery in Machiavelli's The Prince

In Chapter XXIII of The Prince titled “How to Avoid Flatterers”, Machiavelli discusses how flatterers must be shunned by the prince to avoid being misled. He accepts the fact that it is natural for powerful men to become self-absorbed. Flatterers prove to be a hurdle in the way of their wisdom and rational thought because their flattery could cause him to avoid wise counsel in favor of rash action. He says that the best way to defend oneself against such people is to convince them that he is not offended by the truth and encourage them to put forward their honest opinions without fear of causing personal offense to the prince. However, truth, as we know, is never ultimate. It is always objective and changes with perspective. So, if everyone is enabled to criticize or oppose the decision of the prince or present differing opinions to that of the prince without any fear, then the prince will eventually lose respect.

Machiavelli’s proposed solution to this was that the prince should allow only wise advisers to speak with him, and only when he specifically requests their advice. This way, the prince will be able to demonstrate his willingness to listen to men who do not flatter him, and at the same time be in no danger of losing the respect of the rest of his people. A prince should not listen to anyone else and should be firm in his decisions. Vacillation in terms of sticking to decisions will again lead to a loss of respect. Machiavelli gives a negative example in Emperor Maximilian I, who was secretive, never consulted others, but once he ordered his plans and met dissent, he immediately changed them.

However, according to Machiavelli, avoiding all advice, flattery or otherwise, was equally bad. A prince must seek advice on a frequent basis. But he must seek it only when he wants it, not when others thrust it upon him. A prince must also be skeptical about the advice he receives, constantly questioning and probing into the logic behind each decision. If he ever discovers that someone is concealing the truth from him, he must punish that person severely. In the end, no matter how intelligent a prince’s advisers might be, a prince is doomed if he lacks intelligence of his own. He should have enough foresight and wisdom to discern good advice from bad. Wise princes should be honored for good actions proceeding from good advice.

Having discussed the specified chapter, it is very interesting to note how Machiavelli contradicts himself regarding flattery in his dedication of The Prince. Machiavelli’s dedication of The Prince, with the heading “Niccolò Machiavelli to the Magnificent Lorenzo de’ Medici”, is a letter to Lorenzo de’ Medici, who became duke of Urbino in1516. Machiavelli offers his book with customary humility, commenting that it is stylistically simple and unworthy of his audience. Machiavelli describes his book as a summary of his “understanding of the deeds of great men,” intended to help Lorenzo de’ Medici achieve eminence as a prince. He reminds the young prince that greatness awaits him because he is endowed with both fortune and admirable qualities. He declares that courtiers who wish to earn a prince’s favor do so by presenting the prince with valuables like gold, jewels, horses, etc. Machiavelli tells Lorenzo that, after racking his brain for an appropriately valuable gift, he decided that what he felt was most precious was his knowledge of great men, knowledge gained from history books, as well as from current events. Machiavelli claims to worry a bit about whether Lorenzo will be pleased with such a gift, but then reminds himself that any prince would be glad to receive, in short handbook form, knowledge which the author has taken years to acquire. Machiavelli promises that his will be a “small volume,” written in the language of common men which was the Italian vernacular (popularized by Dante’s Divine Comedy), as opposed to the pretentious academic style of writing in Latin. He then excuses himself for having presumed to write about princes at all, since he is simply an ordinary man. However, Machiavelli actually suggests that being a commoner is actually an advantage to one who wishes to write about princes, since the distance of rank gives the commoner a perspective that princes themselves lack. Machiavelli, then, is an outsider looking in. He is offering deliberately common-sense explanations for how particular men are able to become and remain great.

Though The Prince was clearly intended as a gift to earn Lorenzo’s favor, this preface concludes with a specific, pointed request. Machiavelli gently suggests that if his noble recipient likes the gift of this book then he might show his appreciation by helping the author return to court from his current position of exile and disgrace. Rather than considering this simply a work of political theory written for its own sake, it should be realized that Machiavelli had some very practical reasons for writing this book and dedicating it to Lorenzo in a very flattering way. It is known from his personal correspondence that it was written during 1513, the year after the Medici took control of Florence, and a few months after Machiavelli's arrest, torture, and banishment by the in-coming Medici regime. It is also interesting to note that the book was originally intended to be dedicated to Lorenzo’s uncle Giuliano di Lorenzo de' Medici, young Lorenzo's uncle, who however died in 1516 before the book was finished.

Machiavelli clearly contradicts himself in two major ways.

First, as mentioned in Chapter XXIII, a prince should only listen to a selected group of advisers. Machiavelli was definitely not among the chosen group of Lorenzo’s advisers that he should consider following or benefitting from any of the instructions and advices given by Machiavelli in The Prince. Furthermore, according to Machiavelli, a prince should also seek advice only when he requires it, and there have been no documented proof about Lorenzo seeking Machiavelli’s advice regarding running a principality.

Second, and most importantly, in Chapter III, Machiavelli talks about decimating any opposing resident threat after acquiring a new principality. Now, between 1503 and 1506, Machiavelli was responsible for the Florentine militia, including the city’s defense. He preferred a politically invested citizen-militia, a philosophy that bore fruit and which also made him a potential threat to any invader, even after defeat, as he had the local populace in his favour. His command of Florentine citizen-soldiers defeated Pisa in 1509. But in 1512, the Medicis, helped by Pope Julius II, used Spanish troops to defeat the Florentines. The Florentine city-state and the Republic were dissolved. Machiavelli was deprived of office in 1512 by the Medicis, arrested and imprisoned. According to Machiavelli’s philosophy, the Medicis should ideally decimate Machiavelli and his family to ensure that he never leads a rebellion later on by gaining back the support of the local populace. Hence a clear contradiction can be noted here.

This argument is strengthened by the fact that many authors, including Rousseau, have argued that the book was first and foremost, a satire ridiculing the very notion of tyrannical rule. Johnston, for example, says that the “satire” had a firm moral purpose of exposing tyranny and promoting a republican government. In his The Social Contract, the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau says that the choice of the detestable Caesar Borgia as one of the exemplary figures clearly shows Machiavelli’s hidden intentions. He also points out the contradictions between the teaching of The Prince and that of The Discourses on Livy and The History of Florence and states that the text hence had so far been only interpreted superficially. The Prince can be read as deliberately emphasizing the benefits of free republics as opposed to monarchies by the depersonalized way it is written. Differences of opinion amongst critics revolve around whether this sub-text was intended to be understood, let alone understood as deliberately satirical or comic but inspite of that, it is clear that Machiavelli contradicts his idea of shunning flattery by writing a very flattering dedication to a prince about whom he had practically very meager knowledge of as an administrator. It goes on to show how Machiavelli puts his manipulative and objective rhetoric power to practice. Machiavelli himself states that “The wish to acquire is in truth very natural and common, and men always do so when they can, and for this they will be praised not blamed; but when they cannot do so, yet wish to do so by any means, then there is folly and blame.” The fact that The Prince in reality did not succeed in receiving Lorenzo’s patronage makes this contradiction regarding his views on flattery in the treatise a folly and hence subject to blame.

Function of Rhetoric in Bruni’s ‘Funeral Oration’ and ‘Panegyric’

The classical tradition of Rhetoric was seen being incorporated into the Humanist political theory around the late fourteenth and fifteenth century. This humanist rhetoric was heavily influenced by rhetorical exercises of Cicero and Quintilian; but with more importance given to Cicero. There was an emphasis made on the art of governance through the study of these classical authors. The ‘auctores’ played an important role in causing this classical strain by extensive study of classical works on rhetoric. This was not merely about ‘ars’ but using rhetoric to defend liberality, equality and justice. The individual was no longer the central focus any more but the city state which was required to embody the individual virtues as a whole. Bruni, at this point, was responsible for creating a certain kind of civic humanism discourse. Both his ‘Funeral Oration for Nanni Strozzi’ and ‘Panegyric to the City of Florence’ are examples of the formation of civic humanism as well as a rhetorical exercise. Bruni, much like his teacher Salutatti, elaborated on the need for a republican form of government and complete political independence from tyrants; specifically speaking against the despotism of Milan under the Visconti family.

His ‘Funeral Oration for Nanni Strozzi’ is a eulogy not just to Strozzi himself but to the city of Florence as a whole. Much like Pericles’ Funeral Oration from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War; Bruni too stresses on the liberality and equality of the Florentine state which is a result of the exemplary ruling of Strozzi. He begins with the praise of his own motherland and considers it the most suitable way to pay tribute to the deceased ruler. The city of Florence is an ideal city; a model that all other cities should aspire to become. No other city in Italy can be compared to this city state; it has the best of both the Tuscan and the Roman forefathers. The Tuscans were renowned for their military prowess as well as wealth and the Roman Emperors were replete with virtue, glory, wisdom and magnanimity. Needless to say, the city of Florence remains incomparable in every which way. This funeral oration was delivered at the time when there was a centralization of power by the wealthy Medicis. To mourn the death of a great ruler like Nanni Strozzi would be belittling his accomplishments; hence Bruni enumerates his various achievements through the idealization of the city of Florence. The ideal form of government under Strozzi made certain that liberality and equality were practiced and meritorious men would always find ample opportunities to flourish. Bruni praises this ‘popular government’ which is free from the fear of tyrants (unlike the neighbouring city states) and the citizens are governed by equal laws. The election of the rulers is dependent on human grace and not on wealth. Through the use of rhetoric, Bruni constantly evokes the humanist values. The primary focus is of humans and human values. The common people are the most important and he criticizes monarchic and oligarchic forms of government that only focused on the ruler. He dismisses all false praises of monarchy and asserts the ‘popular government’ as the only legitimate form of governance in any city state. The success of this can be measured through the citizens and their accomplishments. The adequate nurturing of their talents and skills ensured not only military success but also an impressive cultural and literary output. The emergence and expansion of an industrious and commercial class that results in the multiplication of wealth in the city state is also praised. The decaying Greek Literature in Italy was brought back to its full glory by the city of Florence. Bruni ends his funeral oration by mentioning that the city is a reflection of its ruler and Strozzi will remain unmatched in everyway just like the Florentines.

This significant shift from praising monarchy to a more liberal and democratic form of government is also seen in ‘Panegyric to the City of Florence’. The panegyrics became a popular rhetorical device that eschewed the despotic rule of the signori and implemented excessive praise for the ‘popular government’. There can be no room for negative criticism in a panegyric. Bruni’s use of rhetoric in his panegyric is not only to idealize and praise the city of Florence but also instill civic pride and virtue amongst the citizens. Unlike his ‘Funeral Oration’ where the focus was on Strozzi, here he asserts the greatness of city itself. He is humbled by the opportunity to describe a city as great as Florence. The similar ideas of splendor, wealth and power are evoked as in the funeral oration but here Bruni incorporates rhetorical excesses to highlight it further. He repeatedly iterates the notion of a ‘popular government’ beginning with the description of the city and its unmatched architecture. He, then, directly takes up the Ciceronian legacy to start from the beginning and describe the Florentine citizens. The connection between the city and its people is established again and again in both the texts. Here, not only does he praise his Roman founders but also demolishes the rule of tyrants like Caesar, Tiberius and the likes who destroyed the Roman empire through their tyrannical rule. As a result, need for Republicanism rose where virtues of justice, equality and liberality could be pursued. The evils of Caligula and Caesar were banished by adopting the Republican way. The greatness of an individual is brought about only in an environment that promotes equality and the great minds of Florentine flourished. Faith was bestowed on both the weak and strong Florentine classes. The Florentines imitated the virtue of their great Roman and Tuscan forefathers and hence the city continued to remain unmatched in every other way.

The magnanimity of the city of Florence is highlighted through its foreign policies. Here is a city, unlike any other city, that gives refuge to outsiders in search for protection and shelter. Of course, there is a pragmatic motive underlying such a generosity but Bruni only mentions the generosity and charitable spirit of the Florentine state. There are a few distinctive features in this panegyric; firstly, the use of a military rhetoric aimed against the Milanese and secondly, the city is not simply constituted of common citizens but also the rising commercial as well as apolitically powerful class. Florence undertakes the responsibility to protect the weaker neighboring states and Italy as a whole. He asks whether any other city displays such magnanimity of spirit. He dismisses accumulation of private wealth; the city can only function peacefully if there is no inequality. He credits the success of Florence to the Divine by stating that whenever there had been any threat of attack, the city was saved due to this Divine intervention. This is a reference made to the sudden death of Giangaleazzo Visconti (the duke of Lombardy) who was planning to attack Florence. Bruni also points out the establishment of a penal code of law which ensures that all citizens are subjected to the same laws and treatment. The magistrates, who are given the responsibility to ensure the law is upheld, are also subjected to various provisions that keep their power in check. Indeed, the city of Florence has learnt from the history of the tyrants and intends not to repeat the same mistake. There is no concentration of power in a singular ruler. The sovereignty of the city state is upheld by the Nine Priors and the Twelve Good Men who ensure that the whole citizen body adheres to the common law.

There is obviously a discrepancy in this notion of equality. Both the panegyric and the funeral speech omit the extension of this equality amongst the women and slaves. In fact, they do not fit into the two works at all. The rhetorical excesses do evoke the notion of civic humanism but in a partial and incomplete way. The main idea is to articulate the idea of ‘civic membership’ and prescribe the role to the community. There is on one hand, the need for self formation by adopting the prescribed virtues and on the other hand, this is channeled towards the city. The goal of the self formation is for active participation in the public domain. Through the study of the classical rhetoric texts, virtue is inculcated in the individuals and society. The Augustinian notion of the sinful society is removed where there is no room for self betterment and a more positive assertion of self and the government is placed. Bruni does not talk about this directly but he does emphasize the notion of civic humanism by stating that the success of a city state lies in the hands of its citizens. The Republican form of government is the ideal and only way to rule and this is exemplified through the highly idealized city of Florence. He might depreciate his own powers of oration but does not hesitate to eloquently describe the magnificent Florentine city.
Amrita Kar
Pg-1
Roll no. 34

The Courtier as Advisor: Castiglione's The Book of the Courtier

In 'The Book Of The Courtier' Baldssare Castiglione presents the picture of an ideal court,outlining the virtues of an ideal prince. In accordance to the Renaissance spirit of humanism, Castiglione emphasizes upon the growth of individual thought, establishing the moral character of the prince aided by the courtier's advice and influence.

The role of the courtier is of immense importance in channelizing the unrestrained power of the young prince. Signor Ottaviano thus pronounces that the courtier should always be able to pronounce the truth,without the fear or anxiety of displeasing the prince. He must possess the skill to make him aware of the virtues of justice,liberality,magnanimity and gentleness that befits a ruler. It is the courtier who should deter his prince from the path of evil. This can be realized when he is venturesome enough to oppose the prince, obliterating every evil intention, to bring him back on the track of virtue.

Referring to Count Lodovico and Frederico as “the perfect courtier”, Ottaviano establishes how “falsehood” can be detrimental to the development of the prince's personality. It leads to nothing but ignorance and conceit. The courtier often manifests the tendency of flattering the prince,daring not to criticize him blatantly for the fear of being punished. They would rather have him live wickedly than correcting the follies. However the prince needs someone to offer him with the truth,pointing out the correct way. Thus, an ideal courtier is one who honestly comes up with the truth,lest fearing the prince's reproach. He must be genuinely concerned about the welfare of the prince and not merely driven by a fancy to win grace and favor.

The prince often drunk with power may fall back upon amusements and pleasure-seeking as an intrinsic part of his life-style. Blinded with false confidence,he may start believing that governance is an easy task requiring no art or training. It may take him to a point where clinging on to his personal wants and desires , he hates reason and justice. He thus gets carried away by self-conceit, becoming stern and arrogant. This ignorance of how to govern people gives way to utter discord leading to death,destruction,burning and even ruination. Some of the princes are recorded to be so exalted in rank that all eyes constantly observe their every move. Hence,not only their great but even their slightest defects are always marked. Thus it is recorded that Cimon was censured for being attracted to wind,Scipio for loving sleep and Lucullus for loving banquets. At this critical juncture what a prince requires is a strict philosopher, candidly revealing to him the face of true virtue. It is the courtier who must explain to the prince how to comport and be an ideal government.

A true courtier must be able to win over the confidence of his prince so much so that he may visit him anytime for discussing the state of affairs without any hindrance. He must gradually instill virtue in his prince's persona bestowing upon him the qualities of continence,fortitude,justice and temperance. He must impart in the prince the strength to endure the slight bitterness of struggle that lies beneath the sweet fruit of successful governance. In this way the courtier leads the prince along the rough path of virtue. Signor Gaspare opines that attributes concerning music and dance are of a lesser importance to the courtier. He must be endowed with qualities enough concerning the education of the prince. Signor Ottaviano however suggested that a prince must lead both kinds of life. On one hand he must be carrying clear insight and judgement. On the other he must possess the acumen to issue lawful commands in it's correct manner concerning things that are reasonable and within authority. Duke Fredrico thus wraps it all up by commenting that one who can command with authority is always obeyed.

An ideal ruler sets up enduring laws and ordinances for his countrymen to live a dignified life and enjoy in a worthy manner which in turn is channelized by the courtier. Here Ottaviano discusses at length the 'practical virtues' that must be inherent in the prince. Along with 'steadfastness','long suffering patience' and an indomitable spirit he emphasizes upon 'fortitude' which is specially useful during times of war. He interestingly points out that the virtues conducive to “moral excellence” are more essential in times of peace rather than during war. This is because harmonious state of affairs often tempts the prince to be misdirected by pleasures. It is essentially the role of the courtier to maneuver the prince as Ottaviano proclaims “I knew how to teach my prince and instruct him in all the virtuous ways we have outlined already...”

Signor Gaspare at this juncture, questions as to how the courtier should ideally impart “good education” to his prince . He meant to clarify whether the instructions must be conveyed casually or should they be substantiated with arguments during a verbal conflict. Ottaviano a bit vexed by this sudden digression opines to rely upon the natural instincts over reason. He pronounces that just as intellectual virtue is perfected by teaching so also “moral virtue is perfected by practice”.

Magnificio Guillano puts forward the idea that the courtier leading the prince to excellence must himself be supercilious. He portrays how the age difference between the prince and the courtier may open up different situations. The prince if elder to the courtier can be expected to be more knowledgeable. Thus the courier cannot really bestow instructions upon him. On the other hand if the courtier is old he cannot keep up with the gusto of the prince in games and merrymaking. Ottaviano counters him by establishing the importance of one's natural inclination in playing a certain a role. Thus he refutes that all the courtier's guidance would be futile if the prince doesn’t manifest a natural knack for governance. Thus the courtier cultivates and nurtures the already fertile mind of the prince. This ideal of self-fashioning may be thought to have been inspired by Pico Della Mirandola’s 'Oration on the Dignity of Man'

The book can be seen as a recreation of Castiglione's own experience at the court of Duke Guidobaldo da Montefeltro of Urbino. Organized as a series of fictional conversations that occur between the courtiers, the book discusses at length the role of the courtier in motivating the price to achieve a perfect governance.

SAYANTI MUKHERJEE

PG-I

Roll No- 06

The Concept of Virtue in Machiavelli's The Prince

In The Prince, Machiavelli's concept of virtue departs from the conventional meaning associated with the word, indicative of moral excellence. Machiavelli uses the Italian word virtù, which does not have an exact English equivalent. It seems to be closer in meaning to the Latin word virtus or manliness. Translators have difficulty in rendering virtù, often using several words referring to amoral qualities that skirt the question of evil, such as ingenuity or boldness. Virtù, simply put, is the ability of a ruler to do whatever must be done in order to achieve success.

In Chapter VI, Machiavelli praises leaders like Cyrus, Romulus and Theseus and illustrates how these men rose to be princes without being dependent on fortune. Such men may face initial difficulties establishing their governance but once they do, they attain security with ease. However, Machiavelli is quick to state that fortune brought these men the opportunity to make use of their 'powers of mind'. Romulus would not have become the King of Rome if he had not remained in Alba and been abandoned at birth. It was necessary for Cyrus to find the Persian people discontented with the government of the Medes. Theseys too, could not have shown his skill had he not found the Athenians dispersed. Thus, virtù without opportunity to use it is wasted, while opportunity is wasted without virtù.

In Chapter VII, Machiavelli considers how certain 'private citizens' become princes through good fortune, by luck or by the aid of others. Such rulers may acquire principalities with ease, but they encounter problems in maintaining their position. It is important that those who acquire states unexpectedly by fortune, are also men of great ability such as Fransesco Sforza, in order to lay a solid foundation. Cesare Borgia became a prince greatly dependent on the influence of his powerful father, Pope Alexander VI. He used force in the strategic conquest of foreign lands, established a loyal military force and developed cautious yet friendly relationships with neighbouring states. A man of great courage, Borgia radiates virtù but it is not enough to save him from an unfortunate end. The sudden death of his father and his own unexpected illness left him incapable of fully consolidating his power. It is worth noting that Machiavelli is approving of Borgia's tactics of deception and cruelty which led to a brief period of success.

From Chapter XV, Machiavelli begins a discussion of the qualities that an ideal prince should possess. In contrast to the idea of leaders upholding the highest moral standards in their daily lives, he believes that a ruler should have knowledge of what is wrong and look to necessity for its use. Vice must not be reproached if it will benefit the state as a whole and virtue must be sacrificed if it will be harmful to the prince and his state. All recommendations of virtuous action are tempered by the argument of their efficacy. They are good only if they have certain definite and desired ends. Chapter XVI focuses on the virtue of liberality or generosity and how much it is beneficial for the prince. Machiavelli warns rulers against squandering away their wealth through unnecessary lavish displays as this will adversely affect the citizens of their states. Citing the King of Spain and Pope Julius the Second as examples, he observes how new princes must appear liberal while they are securing a firm base but once they have acquired power, they should curtail their spending. The prince must get the people to expect the worst; then, virtue will appear as bringing relief in contrast. In Chapter XVII, Machiavelli tackles whether it is better for a prince to be 'loved than feared or feared than loved'. He says that a prince should inspire fear among his people in such a manner that even if he does not win love, he avoids hatred. Mercy is useless when it will bring about a situation of disorder in the state. If those who commit wrong are spared their punishment, the innocent remain at risk from the future actions of such a criminal. The way Cesar Borgia subdued the lawless Romagna region is considered praise-worthy. A pessimistic view of mankind is brought to the fore when Machiavelli states that men are 'ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely'. Although he does not advocate cruelty for cruelty's sake, Machiavelli feels that it is justified in certain cases.Taking Hannibal as an example, he observes how a combination of inhuman cruelty and bravery inspired respect and awe among his soldiers. On the other hand, too much forbearance in the case of Scipio resulted in his army rebelling against him at Spain. Chapter XVIII concludes the discussion of virtues that must be displayed by a prince. The most successful outcomes are a result of actions which may seem unscrupulous- "How praiseworthy it is for a prince to keep his word and live with integrity rather than by craftiness, everyone understands; yet we see from recent experience that those princes have accomplished most who paid little heed to keeping their promises, but who knew how to manipulate the minds of men craftily". Sebastian de Grazia in Machiavelli in Hell, refers to Machiavelli's justification of deceit as the 'Un-Golden Rule', whereby one may do unto others as he can expect they will do unto him.

The classical concept of 'civic virtue' put forward by philosophers like Aristotle as a moral code applicable to rulers and subjects alike, is critically transformed in Machiavelli's concept of virtù, which pertains to rulers of states and can be at odds with moral virtue. According to Harvey Clafin Mansfield in his book titled Machiavelli's Virtue, the phrase verita effettuale in The Prince, when applied to virtue says that virtue is what it gets one. But virtue may get "ruin rather than preservation" unless one learns "how to be able not to be good". Machiavelli's notion of virtue, which welcomes the vices, must continue to coexist with the old notion, which is repelled by them. To create the contrast between virtue and vice, the prince must practice both; this being what it means to use virtue.

- Tanuka Mukherjee

   PG II

   Roll Number: 73

Essay on Tyrants: Bartolus's Treatise on City Governement

Bartolus of Sassoferrato, the leading jurist of the fourteen century of Italy, devoted the Treaties on City Government to evaluate the ways of ruling a city. His concerns were with the law and the persons of the rulers of the city. His series of political comments were based on identifying the suitable form for his city. To argue about that, he followed the doctrines of Aristotle in Politics by unfolding the several forms of ruling a city. By defining Democratic, oligarchy, kingship and others, he tried to solve the internal weaknesses of the Italian city republic. In the filtering process, he pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of the policies of the forms of political systems. Finally he concluded, “A tyrant is the worst of all of the forms of government.” His definition included, “every bad kingship can be called in common parlance a tyranny, namely the tyranny of the people, the tyranny of certain people, and the tyranny of one person.”

Tyranny has been one of the most emphasizing points in his writing. To elaborate all the political system he used the negative approach of tyranny to highlight the actual consequences of the systems with respect to the populace of the cities. He argued in favor of kingship, senate and republic form of government in cities with largest, larger and large population respectively. He cited examples of the city of Florence, Rome, Pisa in favor of his argument. He termed the existing form of government of Rome to be the worst, where, ‘there are many tyrants in different areas, so strong that none can overcome the others.’ He also stated it to be monstrous thing. He mainly favored the republican form of government for Italy as he claimed that the city of Rome grew to greatness under republic. He reminded the distrust for Julius Caesar to illustrate the condition under supreme power of emperor and regime of tyranny.

On his Tract on Tyranny (De Tyranno), he finally explained the origin of the word and the characteristics of tyrants. These included destruction of rivals, banishment of wise men, ruin of study and education, prohibition of private associations and lawful public meetings, maintenance of informers, impoverishment of citizens to keep them supine, use of foreigners as personal bodyguard, provocation of wars abroad to weaken internal resistance at home. He also referred to instances where Pope or Emperor confirmed a tyrant's rule, as did Clement VI and Emperor Charles with the 'tyrants of Lombardy.' He classified types of tyrannies: they were open or manifesti, disguised or velati, concealed or taciti. The first were subdivided into the tyranny arising from defect of title (ex defectu tituli), as in the case of usurpation or conquest through aggression) and the tyranny arising from misconduct on the part of a legitimate ruler (ex parte exercitii).

While sorting the perfect ruler for the city, he evaluated the opinions of Aristotle and Aegidius. According to him, the ideal king must be ‘faithful, Christian, just, neither overweening nor one who burdens his people, no lover of luxury, neither greedy nor proud.’ Therefore the concept of tyrant also acted as contrasting foil. The distinction between the two ideas can be judged through the instances of Tarquin, Phalaris, Dionysius of Sicily or Saul of Jadaca. Bartolus also extracted the cases of city of Siena, Pisa, Perugia, Florence and Venice. He concluded republic form to be suitable. The history of Rome supported his view and regained the position of Cicero and Cato as the paragon of civic virtue, who tried to preserve liberty of the republic from the onrush of tyranny. He also referred to the Corpus Luris, Scriptures, Giles of Rome, Gregory I and Aquinas.

The classical definition for tyranny is therefore the regime in which the ruler aims at his own advantage over the welfare of his people. The same ideas were revised by Marsiglio of Padua, Chaucer and many others. The concept of tyranny always came as negative approach while defining ruler. The Christian concept also came side by side with it. Man is inherently sinful. The political management of this sociality thus allowed restricting interest in crime. The tension between the doctrines of kings and tyrants was in part of legacy from twelfth century. It represented the struggle between the empire and papacy. The biblical examples strengthened the assumptions. He modified the ideas of the classical scholastics by terming it as monstrous.

He also verified the possibility of the rightness of kingship with reference to Prophet Samuel’s preaching. According to the words of God, it seemed worst to be ruled by kings because they would misuse power and encourage slavery. But these qualities indicated the uprising of tyrant. Therefore Samuel predicted, “This shall be the law of the king who will rule over you.” Another preventive idea emerged as relevant, that one must be made king by another, rather than assuming the kingship on one's own authority. He elaborately described the condition of a city under the rule of tyrant as well. When virtue unites for a bad thing, the result is worse and similarly tyranny is the worst principate. The social harmony, equality and peace got hampered under monstrous regime. The welfare and progress ceased to function. Bartolus pointed out that several bad men were less harmful than a single tyrant, as in the course of action they lost their ground and turned into a one-man tyranny. At the end he concluded by affirming the rule of tyrant in a city as God’s own will as it is written: "He who makes a hypocrite to rule, for the sins of the people," Job 34.

The main focus of the rhetorical writer was to determine the range of good qualities of the ideal ruler by contrasting with the concept of tyranny. The intention was to bring out the true nobility of the ruler and their genuine devotion for general welfare. The manifestation of the idea of tyrants is advocated in both the works with great concern to emphasize the sovereignty.

ARATRIKA ROY.
PG-I, ROLL-24.

Conceit Of Sincerity:The Courtier As Adviser In The Book Of The Courtier

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