Machiavellian Rhetoric: From The Counter-Reformation To Milton

332 Pages·1994·2.425 MB·English

by  Victoria Kahn

MACHIAVELLIANRHETORIC

MACHIAVELLIAN RHETORIC
FROM THE COUNTER-REFORMATION
TO MILTON
Victoria Kahn
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
COPYRIGHT(cid:211)1994BYPRINCETONUNIVERSITYPRESS
PUBLISHEDBYPRINCETONUNIVERSITYPRESS,41WILLIAMSTREET,
PRINCETON,NEWJERSEY08540
INTHEUNITEDKINGDOM:PRINCETONUNIVERSITYPRESS,
CHICHESTER,WESTSUSSEX
ALLRIGHTSRESERVED
LIBRARYOFCONGRESSCATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATIONDATA
KAHN,VICTORIAANN.
MACHIAVELLIANRHETORIC:FROMTHECOUNTER-REFORMATIONTOMILTON/
VICTORIAKAHN.
P. CM.
INCLUDESBIBLIOGRAPHICALREFERENCESANDINDEX
ISBN:0-691-03491-5(ALK.PAPER)
1. RHETORIC—1500–1800.2. MACHIAVELLI,NICCOLn,
1469–1527—POLITICALANDSOCIALVIEWS.3. MACHIAVELLI,NICCOLn,
1469–1527—CRITICISMANDINTERPRETATION.4. POLITICS
ANDLITERATURE.I. TITLE.
PN173.K33 1994 93-45883 320.1¢092—DC20 CIP
THISBOOKHASBEENCOMPOSEDINADOBESABON
PRINCETONUNIVERSITYPRESSBOOKSAREPRINTEDONACID-FREEPAPER
ANDMEETTHEGUIDELINESFORPERMANENCEANDDURABILITYOFTHE
COMMITTEEONPRODUCTIONGUIDELINESFORBOOKLONGEVITYOFTHE
COUNCILONLIBRARYRESOURCES
PRINTEDINTHEUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
FOR
HELENE SILVERBERG
AND
NEIL SACCAMANO

CONTENTS
PREFACE ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii
ABBREVIATIONSANDNOTEONSPELLINGANDTRANSLATIONS xv
Introduction 3
PARTONE:MACHIAVELLI 13
ONE:ThePrince 18
TWO:TheDiscourses 44
THREE:RhetoricandReasonofState:Botero’s
ReadingofMachiavelli 60
PARTTWO:ENGLISHMACHIAVELLISM 85
FOUR:ReadingMachiavelli,1550–1640 93
FIVE:MachiavellianDebates,1530–1660 132
PARTTHREE:MILTON 167
SIX:ARhetoricofIndifference 171
SEVEN:VirtueandVirtùinComus 185
EIGHT:MachiavellianRhetoricinParadiseLost 209
CODA:RhetoricandtheCritiqueofIdeology 237
APPENDIX:ABriefNoteonRhetoricandRepublicanismin
theHistoriographyoftheItalianRenaissance 243
NOTES 249
INDEX 311

PREFACE
T
HIS BOOK is about how Machiavelli was read in the Renais-
sance, what Machiavelli came to symbolize in Renaissance cul-
ture,andwhy.IarguethatMachiavelliofferedRenaissancewrit-
ers a rhetoric for thinking about politics, and that once we recover the
ways Machiavelli was read, wegain adeeperunderstanding of howRe-
naissancethinkersconceptualizedandrespondedtocontemporarycrises
of political and religious authority. Machiavelli was reviled, approved,
misrepresented, and appropriated precisely because his work spoke to
manyofthecentralconcernsoftheage:thelegitimacyofdefactopolitical
power, the role of persuasion in acquiring and maintaining that power,
therelationship of forcetoethics,andof dispassionate politicalanalysis
to criticism of the status quo. In a justly famous book, J.G.A. Pocock
defined “the Machiavellian moment” of early modern political thought
as the moment when the secular political agent confronts the difficulties
of actingin timeandtherepublicconfronts itsown“temporalfinitude”
(MM,viii).IcontendthattheMachiavellianmomentofRenaissancecul-
ture is a rhetorical moment rather than a moment of specifically secular
self-consciousness, and that this insight has implications for the way we
thinkaboutRenaissancepoliticalthoughtandcultureingeneral.Inpar-
ticular, it requires us to revise many of the usual assumptions regarding
theincompatibilityofhumanistrhetoricandseriouspoliticalanalysis,the
secularism of Renaissancerepublicanism, andtheirrelevanceoftheMa-
chiaveltothehistoryofRenaissancepoliticalandreligiousthought.
This book is the counterpart to my earlier work, Rhetoric, Prudence,
andSkepticismintheRenaissance.InthatbookIwasconcernedwiththe
humanists’ reception of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and with the
ways in which the humanists’ deliberative rhetoric (argument in utram-
quepartem,oronbothsidesofaquestion)wasdesignedtoreflectandto
educatethe reader’sprudential judgmentor practicalreason. Describing
whatInowunderstandasmerelyonestrainofRenaissancehumanism,I
argued that dialogue andargument on bothsides of aquestion wereas-
sumed to fostersocialandpoliticalconsensus. Thus whileCicerorecog-
nized that such argument in utramque partem could take the form of
ironyifbothsidesorpointsofviewweremaintainedatthesametime,for
many humanists the ambiguity of irony was held in check by rhetorical
andsocialconstraints.Forexample,GiovanniPontano,animportanthu-
manistatthecourtofNaplesinthefifteenthcentury,sawSocrates’ironic
indirection notasaninstanceofrhetoricthatthreatensthepossibilityof
community,ofsharedmeaningandaction,butratherasarhetoricalinvi-