2015

Machiavelli’s notion on freedom

A.HADDOU
2521751
THIJS BOGERS
VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT AMSTERDAM, MAY 2015
HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam | [Company address]

This paper is about Niccolo Machiavelli and his view on freedom (liberty). According to
Machiavelli, how can true freedom be attained and how can it thereafter be guaranteed? This is
the main question of this paper. There have been many controversial political thinkers in history
and Machiavelli is definitely one of them. The primary text that will be used for this essay is the
following; Skinner, Q. (2002). Visions of politics (Vol. 2).

According to Colish (1971) his political writing have frequently been made an arena for the clash
of political ideologies that have been originated in later times. However some scholars have
made the point that there needs to be a new approach, which tries to gain a better understanding
of Machiavelli’s ideas trough a specific textual and contextual analysis of the use of language in
his works. (Colish, 1971). A close reading of the work of Machiavelli shows according to Colish
(1971) that Machiavelli has many definitions for freedom and that many of them are quite
precise in their meaning and content. It is therefore very useful to look at the common use of
liberty in the work of Machiavelli before we look at what freedom means in the exact context of
his work (Colish, 1971).

In a Machiavellian context it may also mean the freedom of political action enjoyed by a ruler
whose country’s laws and institutions place him above criticism. As example Machiavelli gives
us the kingdom of France, according to him:

France is a free monarchy because the Parliament serves as a target both for the
impudence and ambition of the powerful and for the fear and hatred of the masses, thus
neutralizing the impact of political dissimilitude and permitting the king to follow his policies
unobstructed by the criticism of either group. (Colish, 1971, p. 323-324)

Bellamy and Ross (1996) state that liberty is in a republican way of Machiavelli a
collective good. So the best way for a state to become independent is to have citizens who can
arm themselves. (Bellamy and Ross, 1996) Since this involves citizens collectively defending
their freedom. This notion of freedom is a quite different than the one given by Colish (1971)
who says that the most frequent definition of freedom used in the work of Machiavelli is that
from physical captivity( Colish, 1971).

Fierce critics have come from King Frederick II of Prussia, he says that Machiavelli is too bend
on sacrificing individual liberty for the overall power of the State. Thus liberty in the general

1
sense is more important for Machiavelli and this is what King Frederick was opposing. This
notion of freedom is quite comparable with that of Bellamy and Ross (1996); citizens together
defending their collective freedom or liberty (Bellamy and Ross, 1996).

In Machiavelli’s work freedom is mentioned on a number of occasions in a very broad

and not necessarily political context. Freedom might be used to describe someone’s financial
position. According to Colish (1971) freedom in the work of Machiavelli is also a mental or
psychological state, as for example the freedom from fear and freedom from distraction. These
examples show us, according to Colish (1971), that there is a level of thought of Machiavelli
where freedom functions as a general term, without the specific meanings imposed upon it by a
particular political theory. He further elaborates on this idea that man expresses his free will in
the face off fortuna, by the exercise of virtu (Colish, 1971).

Although he does not expound his doctrine of free will in detail, According to Colish (1971)
Machiavelli thus clearly places himself within the line of thinkers who see in man's free will the
sign of human independence, the ground of ethically meaningful choices, and the guarantee that
man will not be reduced to the status of a play thing in a world ruled by divine forces. At the
same time according to Colish (1971) Machiavelli does not see free will as a mental faculty, he
also does not see it as a random power (Colish, 1971). Colish (1971) also states that Machiavelli
mentions that to succeed in the contest of virtu against fortuna is to impose one's aligning will
upon the realities of the historical time in which one lives. Machiavelli goes beyond his humanist
predecessors. Not merely does’ll Principe de-emphasize the internalizing inclination of classical
and Christian free will theories, he also eliminates their transcendental focus. For Machiavelli it
is always the whole man who acts in the exercise of free will (Colish, 1971).

Colish (1971) also mentions that the subject's aim is not only to form his own mind and
character but, by forming it in the mode of virtu, to impose his will on external events. He is for
sure limited by Fortune by the necessity it brings by the range of certain sets of circumstances,
and by the general vices of human nature. These limitations, however, manifest themselves not
in the abstract realm of supernatural and ethical theory, but in the context of concrete political
practice. The goal of Machiavellian free will is not to avoid being a puppet in the hands of an
almighty God in a grim universe; it is to avoid being a marionette in the hands of other men on
the stage of history (Colish, 1971).

2
 Colish (1971) also says that when turning to Machiavelli's specifically political meanings
of the term freedom we may read that his understanding of liberty on a large number of
occasions in the sense of physical freedom. Except for his substitution of the singular freedom
for the multiple freedoms (Colish, 1971).

Harris et al (2000) state that Machiavelli argued that;

‘’liberty is dependent upon the state being free from external domination and internal
instability. If one reflects on the impact of the 2008/9 world banking crisis one can see that
internal instability puts enormous pressure on the ethics and leadership values of business figures
and politicians internationally’’. (Harris et al, 2000, p. 6)

Machiavelli argues ‘’that the first priority of the state is to secure its own liberty, so as to secure
freedom for its own citizens. To this end the state may use whatever means necessary: for when
the safety of one's country fully depends on the decision to be taken, no attention should be paid
to either justice or injustice, to kindness or cruelty, or to its being praiseworthy or dishonorable.’’
(Harris et al, 2000, p.6)

Skinner states: ‘’Machiavelli is restating, freedom is a form of public service since

devotion to public service is held to be a necessary condition of maintaining personal liberty’’
(Skinner, 2002, p.163). Thus Machiavelli has devotion to public service linked with the
condition of marinating personal liberty. ‘’The freeman must desire nothing more than freedom,
nothing more than the public good, to which he dedicated himself ‘’( Pocock 2009, p.431).
Pocock also mentions the same notion as Skinner concerning the link between freedom and the
public good that an individual must dedicate himself in order to obtain this freedom.

According to Colish (1971) Machiavelli says that cities are free when they have autonomy, when
the city lives under their own laws and not under the rules of foreign jurisdiction, so called
servitiu. This servitiu is the term Machiavelli uses for rule by foreigners is not looking at trough
which institutions they rule and also not looking at their hardness or mellowness. (Colish, 1971)
Colish (1971) also mentions that Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of military means on
securing freedom in order to maintain and preserve it. However he also points out some
situations where freedom has been defended by diplomacy. When this diplomacy does not work

3
out and this breakdown leads to a state of war where cities have to defend their liberty (Colish,
1971).

In order for corporate freedom to be maintained when one is faced with external treats,
Machiavelli places a whole lot of importance on the need of a strong military. The preservation
of liberty depends a lot on good armies, generals, and strategy in the field. This can all be easier
if citizens are trained military and prepared to defend the state from external treats when
necessary (Colish, 1971) ‘’A prince who conquers a city used to living in freedom need not
respect its inherited liberties; he can and should destroy such cities or else rule them personally’’
(Machiavelli, 1998, p 15)

So both Harris (2000) and Bellamy and Ross (1996) mention that Machiavelli’s notion on
freedom mostly concerns the collective good. ‘’The state needs to secure its own liberty as to
secure freedom for its own citizens’’. (Harris et al, 2000, p.6).

Whereas Colish (1971) talks about freedom in a sense of freedom from physical captivity.
However Machiavelli also mentions freedom as a freedom of fear etc. In other words there are
many definitions of freedom that Machiavelli writes about in his book; the Prince. In a sense true
freedom is obtained when one is free from physical captivity, however true freedom is also
obtained when man can exercise his own free will independently and not merely be submitted to
a play thing in a world ruled by a divine force, but at the same time he does not mean that one
needs to avoid being a puppet to an omnipotent god, but it is to avoid being a puppet to a fellow
human being on the stage of history.

How the freedom of the state securing its own liberty is guaranteed is by a strong leader
seeing to it that state safety comes first, a leader who conquers fortuna by the use of virtu and a
leader who defends the state ate any cost. This may mean an occasional use of force if necessary.

4
Bibliography

Bellamy, R., & Ross, A. (Eds.). (1996). A textual introduction to social and political theory.
Manchester University Press.

Colish, M. L. (1971). The idea of liberty in Machiavelli. Journal of the History of Ideas, 323-
350.

Harris, P., Lock, A., & Rees, P. (Eds.). (2000). Machiavelli, marketing, and management.
Psychology Press.

Machiavelli, N. (1998). The prince. University of Chicago Press. Translated by Harvey

Mansfield.

Pocock, J. G. A. (2009). The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the
Atlantic republican tradition. Princeton University Press.

Skinner, Q. (2002). Visions of politics (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.