Machiavelli and Epicureanism: An Investigation into the Origins of Early Modern Political Thought

337 Pages·2012·2.52 MB·English

by  Robert J. Roecklein

Machiavelli and Epicureanism
Machiavelli and Epicureanism
An Investigation into the Origins of Early
Modern Political Thought
Robert J. Roecklein
LEXINGTON BOOKS
Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK
Published by Lexington Books A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield
Publishing Group, Inc.
4501 FORBES BOULEVARD, SUITE 200, LANHAM, MARYLAND 20706
www.rowman.com
10 THORNBURY ROAD, PLYMOUTH PL6 7PP, UNITED KINGDOM
Copyright © 2012 by Lexington Books
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any
electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems,
without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote
passages in a review.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data available
ISBN 978-0-7391-7710-5 (cloth : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-0-7391-7711-2 (electronic)
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.
Printed in the United States of America
For John Fragala, Who Shared the Burden
Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank Dr. Steve Hicks, the director of the
School of Humanities and Social Sciences here at Penn State
Erie, the Behrend College. Steve has been very supportive of
my research, and I am much appreciative. Dr. Robert Speel, the
chair of the Political Science Department, has been equally
supportive. Dr. Zachary Irwin, with his charm and wisdom, has
helped me to keep a balanced perspective about my efforts. I
feel greatly indebted to these three individuals for these
reasons and considerably more.
Dr. Juan Fernandez-Jimenez, chairman of the department of
modern languages here at Behrend College, is a great friend
and a valued colleague. We have spent a considerable number
of hours together discussing politics, philosophy, and the
current enterprise of education. He and his lovely wife Ms. Lupe
Alvear-Madrid, bring warmth, friendship and a very stimulating
culture to our school. I am very grateful for it.
My mentors and colleagues in the teaching of rhetoric at
Behrend have provided me with great friendship, support, and
wise counsel. Dr. John Champagne deserves special mention in
this regard. Dr. Mary Connerty, associate program director, has
benefited us all by her leadership. I would like to thank Dr.
Teresa Caruso and Dr. Sharon Gallagher for sharing their ideas
with me, and for being willing to entertain some of mine.
Dr. Stephen Eric Bronner, Professor II at Rutgers University,
was the first professor for whom I worked as a graduate
student. A relationship was then formed that has provided me
with countless blessings over the years. A mentor and a friend,
Steve has been there for me as I have worked on my books. His
encouragement and perspective, his help in all manner of ways,
could not be easily described. I am very grateful for my
friendship with Steve, and for the time he has taken out of a
packed schedule to work with me.
Jana Hodges-Kluck, associate editor for philosophy and the
classics at Lexington Books, has now shepherded me through
classics at Lexington Books, has now shepherded me through
the completion of two books. Writers depend on their editors.
For advice on the preparation of revisions, and for multiple kinds
of commentary on my manuscript, Ms. Hodges-Kluck has done
me inestimable services. I think there is certainly good fortune,
though not of the Machiavellian kind, that has allowed this
partnership to take place. I would also like to thank Mr. Eric
Wrona, editorial assistant at Lexington books, for the swiftness
and accuracy of his management of this book’s progress at
several important stages.
I owe a debt of considerable thanks to the anonymous
reviewer who read the manuscript for Lexington Books and who
made insightful, relevant comments and criticisms. This is a
better book for having undergone a vigorous peer review
process. I am grateful for the care with which the reviewer
analyzed my arguments and suggested improvements.
Mr. Joshua Testa, a former student of mine who is now in
graduate studies for a doctorate in political science at Kent
State University, is someone with whom I talk quite frequently.
The focus of our discussion is usually political philosophy, and
the ideas that we are both working on. Josh is a great sounding
board, and a very promising political philosopher in the making.
I am grateful to all the students at Behrend College, with
whom I have developed several of the arguments contained
herein. Jacob Bowen, Brian Forfa, Jason Kinsel, and Joshua
Snyder merit special acknowledgement. The passion and
dedication of these students did much to fire my own.
Patrick Moloney, formerly of Victoria University in New
Zealand, has been my closest friend in academia for over
twenty years. Our friendship was formed in graduate school,
because I did not know how to make a proper cup of tea. Pat
has always encouraged my work, and he has also always
reminded me of the importance of laughter. Political philosophy
needs to remember laughter, especially when it is laboring on
the darkly great work of Niccolo Machiavelli. Not that there is
much of true humor in Machiavelli. Decently bred people would
not be seen to laugh in those moments when the Florentine
would like for us to do so.
My family makes me happy, something Aristotle would
My family makes me happy, something Aristotle would
approve of. My sister Ann Marie Rice, whose great sense of
humor makes the sun shine brighter, and my brother Neil C.
Roecklein, with his quiet labor and determination, know of my
feelings for them. My brother-in-law Kevin Rice Sr. is among my
oldest friends. My nephews Christopher and Kevin Jr. are young
men starting out in life. Their lives and endeavors bring joy to all
of us.
I have dedicated this book to my best friend John Fragala. In
the day-to-day life of a political philosopher, it becomes clear,
that a man cannot bear the heavy burdens of argument all on
his own. He must have friendship which shares the purpose,
which divides the psychological strain, which keeps at least one
foot planted in the world of today. John has borne a great deal
of the weight of this project, effortlessly, generously, devotedly,
and with a kindness that is rare and valuable. It can truly be
said, that I could not have completed this book without his help.
Introduction
Machiavelli and Epicureanism: An Investigation into the Origins
of Early Modern Political Thought
Whether or not Niccolo Machiavelli is an advocate for
popular government has long been a pressing issue in political
philosophy. Some scholars point to his famous work, The Prince,
which suggests the Florentine’s devotion to a one-man rule
politically compatible with an oppressed citizenry. Other and
more numerous scholars point to Machiavelli’s Discourses on
Livy, which seems to celebrate the people as the very guardian
of freedom in a true republic. This level of discussion, however,
might not be adequate.
There is another dimension to Machiavelli’s political science
that bears upon the issue of popular participation, which
involves the history of Epicurean philosophy. An analysis of
Epicurean philosophy, and evidence for Machiavelli’s
involvement with this tradition, constitute major objectives of
this study. Epicurean philosophy does not bring before us, front
and center, the issue of political participation. Rather, what it
brings before us is the distinction between a few knowers and
the many who do not know. In Epicurean philosophy, the great
multitude of the people is regarded as oblivious to the truth of
things, right down to the truth of particular facts. To the extent
that Epicurean philosophy is indeed a part of Machiavelli’s
political science, therefore, a simple exhortation to popular
participation would hardly indicate the classically republican
model. For if the people are regarded, insofar as they
participate in politics, as unknowing ciphers whose actions must
be coerced and prefigured by a philosophical rule, the functions
of deliberation and choice would not under those circumstances
fall within the circumference of their practices.
In the view of Quentin Skinner, to take one example,
Machiavelli holds out the prospect of civic participation for all. In
Skinner’s analysis, “it is thus Machiavelli’s fundamental
conviction that a life of political involvement must not only be
made available to every citizen on equal terms, but must be
made as alluring as possible to men of the highest talents.”[1]
“Machiavelli also endorses the traditional belief in the
importance of the common good. He agrees that, unless each
citizen behaves with virtu, and in consequence places the good
of his community above all private ambition and factional
allegiances, the goal of civic grandezza can never be
attained.”[2]
Both of these ideals, of substantive deliberation and self-
denying virtue, would fall afoul of a doctrine that is actually
Epicurean in its foundations. In Epicurus’ analysis, obligation to
anything other than the pains and pleasures of the self is the de
facto definition of barbarity and stupidity. And, on behalf of the
common run of human beings, since they are thought by
Epicurean philosophy to fundamentally lack the knowledge
which would make available to them truth of fact, their
suitability for deliberation would be repudiated from the start.
The question then greatly concerns the degree to which the
foundations of Machiavelli’s political science are Epicurean;
which in turn would concern the degree to which Lucretius, the
Epicurean poet and one of Machiavelli’s favorite writers,[3]
actually exerted an influence on him.
Lucretius profoundly affected Machiavelli’s view of political
things. Lucretius, as a fervent Epicurean, locates the source of
his conflict with the common people at the most fundamental
level possible: the conception of what sensory perception
actually is and conveys to the properly trained human mind. In
the view of Epicureans such as Lucretius, perception does not
acquaint us directly with the perishable objects ordinarily
thought to exist. For the original mental actions of perception, in
Epicurean theory, take place on an atomic level.[4]
Machiavelli, to the extent that he is wedded to Lucretian
philosophy, belongs to the tradition of the philosopher
Parmenides. For Parmenides and the philosophers who stand in
his lineage (Democritus and Leucippus, Epicurus and Lucretius),