After a seven-league boots overview of five chapters that limn the central figure of The Prince, & after a straightforward exposition of Machiavelli’s subtlety & subversion in Chapter One, it’s time to tackle the Big Boys in Chapter Six. In other words, to consider Machiavelli on “the greatest examples” of princes & princely achievement. He puts it this way in the first sentence of the chapter: “Wholly new principates—those in which the prince & the state are alike new.” This is human ascent & innovation of the most dramatic & instructive sort. From them emerge immortal names, world-historical states, & lessons that convey the effectual truth of the matter. The matter is at once the highest human type & the true foundations of states. Tantae molis erat…1
Therefore, when Machiavelli begins the chapter by saying that “no one should marvel” at his bringing forward “the greatest examples,” it would be prudent to take his injunction with a grain of salt. When a philosopher says that “marvel” (or wonder) is not in order, either he is betraying his vocation or alerting the reader to pay special attention. Given the subject matter, choosing the latter is preferable. The reader is rewarded for this choice later in the chapter, when Machiavelli reverses himself & pairs & envelops “wonder” with “consideration”: “Let us consider Cyrus & the others who have acquired or founded kingdoms: You will find them all wonderful; & if their particular actions & orders are considered, they seem not discrepant from those of Moses, who had so great a preceptor.”
The last phrase prompts further wonder & consideration. Since the pagan princes are thoroughly comparable to Moses, he loses his unique status, he becomes “one of the Boys.” Likewise, God’s precepts can be gleaned from the “actions & orders” of Cyrus, Theseus, & Romulus. Despite protestations from Machiavelli that he will not “reason” about so august an instance, he lets the reader see his way of thinking about Moses. The Biblical instance is placed in a category that reduces it. Naturalization—or more precisely, politicization—is the effectual truth of Scripture. This reductionism will provide a template for subsequent philosophers from Spinoza to Kant. Tantae molis erat…
Chapter Six is entitled De Principatibus Novis Qui Armis Propriis et Virtute Acquirantur. “Of New Principates which by One’s Own Arms & Virtue are Acquired.” An old verbal friend from Chapter One, acquirantur, shows up in the exact same place in this title, doing what it always does, driving things. This time it has new principates in mind, as well as a certain type of individual. The title characterizes him. He possesses “virtue” & he has his “own arms.” Machiavelli will take up each in turn. Pairs in fact structure the discussion of the highest princely examples. Machiavelli begins by pairing, then separating, “fortune” & “virtue” as means of acquisition. Then, however, he reunites them. From this, one learns that one cannot take first words as final words. Machiavelli has a more dialectical way of proceeding. One must pay attention to the twists-&-turns.
I say, then, that in wholly new principates where there is a new prince, one finds them more or less difficult to keep according to whether the one who has acquired them is more or less virtuous. & because this event of a private man becoming a prince presupposes either virtue or fortune, it seems that the one or the other of these things mitigates, in part, many difficulties; nevertheless, he who stands less on fortune better maintains himself.2
Therefore, in this chapter he will discourse on “those who have become princes by their own virtue & not by fortune.” Indeed, he will speak of “the most excellent” of those who have done so: “Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, & the [unnamed] like.”3
However, Machiavelli doesn’t stick to his word. Shortly after the foregoing declaration, he speaks of a certain “necessity” to which these virtuous princes were subject. “It was necessary, then, for Moses to find the people of Israel in Egypt, enslaved & oppressed by the Egyptians, so that they, in order to escape their servitude, would be disposed to follow him.” This necessity is fortune’s gift or “occasion.”
In examining their actions & life, one sees that fortune provided them with nothing other than the occasion which gave them the matter into which they could introduce whatever form they pleased; without that occasion the virtue of their mind would have been extinguished, & without that virtue the occasion would have come in vain.
So virtue is in need of fortune (& vice versa). Otherwise, “full many a [princely] flower is born to blush unseen, & waste its sweetness on the desert air.” What was initially separated is reunited in a most fruitful union. “These occasions, therefore, made these men happy, & their excellent virtue made the occasion known; whence their fatherland was ennobled & became most happy.” Win-win-win. Not surprisingly, this passage is at the center of the chapter. Before we leave it, however, & move forward in the next installment to look at Machiavelli’s treatment of “arms” & the virtuous prince—a theme that bears on the Anton essay that occasioned our reflections—we need to return to the passage before it.
For this important passage tells us what the virtuous aspiring prince does with what fortune affords him. He seizes at once “the opportunity” & “the matter” it provides, & into that matter, he “introduces whatever form he pleases.” Once again, Aristotelian categories are invoked & repurposed. Here, Machiavelli emphasizes the sovereign character of this princely “in-form-ation”: He introduces “whatever form he pleases.” This necessarily implies a characterization of the matter. In its capacity to receive any & all forms, the matter is equivalent to Aristotle’s prime matter. It appears to present no obstacles, to be wholly “formable.” It thus resembles the tohu-bohu of Genesis 1 as well.
All this, no doubt, sounds rather theoretical & far-fetched, until one recalls that in speaking of “the matter” Machiavelli is speaking of “human matter,” that is, of human beings & of human populations in dire straits. What attitude or perspective characterizes them in this way? Machiavelli’s, to be sure. But the attitude of the historical or legendary agents that he invokes? For the reader who knows the classical & biblical texts, Machiavelli’s characterization is more than a little dubious.4 As we said in our first installment, this is the origin of the attitude of “social engineering.” It is also a presupposition of ideologies & totalitarianisms of various sorts, that man is a blank slate upon which one can write as one pleases (cue Chairman Mao). Therefore, when one reads the stirring words that “their fatherland was ennobled & became most happy,” one should pause & consider the anthropology that undergirds it. Tantae molis erat…
Tantae molis erat, Romanam condere gentem. Of such a great weighty heap (moles) was it, to bring together & found the Roman people. Aeneid 1, 33.
While I did not track it here, one should note the pair “acquiring” & “keeping” or “maintaining.” Following the template of “fortune” & “virtue,” one would expect Machiavelli to distinguish the two initially, then bring them back together. To maintain, then, would require further acquisition.
Halfway through the chapter, Machiavelli reminds the reader of the unnamed virtuous princes. “These men, & those like them, who become princes by virtuous ways…”
For penetrating exegesis & reflections on this, & many other Moses-related topics, the reader should consult Leon Kass, Founding God’s Nation: Reading Exodus (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2021).
Paul's making a mountain out of molehill.
That’s quite witty, Carl.