47489721 machiavelli burke philosophers in conservatism

7/28/2019 47489721 Machiavelli Burke Philosophers in Conservatism

1/5

Machiavelli and Burke: Philosophers in Conservatism

Throughout history, there have been those who were opposed to dynamic, or radical, change,

either from irrational fears or to protect their interests. They were persons disposed to keep toestablished practices and well-beaten paths; they were conservatives. In political philosophy,

there were two men who sought to guard these ways and keep them fixed, and they preferredgovernments that could preserve tradition. These two men were Niccolo Machiavelli and

Edmund Burke.

Born in 1469, Machiavelli was a native of Florence, Italy, during the reign of the mighty Medici

family. Although he considered himself a republican, he understood the necessity of gaining

favor with those in power. So, in 1513, he addressed his work, The Prince, to the ruler ofFlorence, Lorenzo di Medici. Along with The Prince, Machiavelli produced two other major

works of political philosophy. In 1521, he wrote The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus

Livy[a Roman historian], in which he introduced his preference for a republican form of

government by examining the Roman one. In his later years, Machiavelli was commissioned by

Pope Clement VII to write The Florentine Histories. The forms of government may havechanged throughout these works, but the principles which allowed these various governments to

operate remained the same, because Machiavelli focuses on the means of the state, rather than itsends (Ebenstein, 284).

Throughout his works, fortune held a primary place in Machiavellis political philosophy. In The

Prince, Machiavelli devoted a whole chapter to the discussion of fortune, its role in human

affairs and how to oppose it. He began his discussion by mentioning those who believe in beingruled by chance. Machiavelli rejected this view, because in his analysis, free will had not been

altogether extinguished (120). In chapter 25, Machiavelli compared fortune to a raging river that

occasionally floods, and destroys, the earth, but when it is quiet, men might use their free will to

prepare against it, hoping to conquer her by force (125). However, men could not eliminatechange, so the prince must be adaptable to unforeseen events (34).

A significant cause of these unforeseen events was religion. In The Florentine Histories,

Machiavelli wrote, But among so many changes, change of religion was not of lesser moment,because in the struggle between the custom of the ancient faith and the miracle of the new, the

gravest tumults and discords were generated among men (Machiavelli, 15). Some of those

tumults were centered around Girolamo Savonarola, who caused quite a stir in Florence,ultimately ending in his execution. Rejecting the secularism of the Renaissance, Savonarola

became a Dominican preacher, calling the people of Florence to repentance (Grimm, 46). His

forceful preaching earned him respect in Florence, whose people began to institute his reforms.

According to Machiavelli, these reforms eventually lead to his undoing. In The Discourses, hetells a story of one of Savonarola's reforms, which involved trials for treason. The reforms

allowed those convicted of treason to appeal the judgment, but shortly after the law was passed,

five men were convicted of treason and were not allowed to appeal. Machiavelli states thatSavonarola never condemned the violation of the new law, and "Since this made it plain to all

that at heart he was ambitious and a party-man, it ruined his reputation and brought him much

reproach" (Discourses, 221). Ironically, when the people turned against him, he was convicted oftreason and executed by the very government that he had created. One of the events leading to


2/5

Savonarola's execution was his excommunication by the Catholic Church. While Machiavelli

was often quite critical of the Church and could be critical of religion in general, he recognized

the ability of religion as a controlling, calming influence upon the populace. Ruling by use ofancient religious customs, regardless of the theology, a prince could maintain good order due to

the power that those customs hold over men (Prince, 69). Machiavelli did not see religion as

personal experience between God and man, but simply as a means of keeping power and order,and the best way to do this was to maintain the traditional religious practices.

Another part of maintaining order in the Machiavellian state depended on the treatment of the

two parties which make up the state the aristocracy and the populace. In the Prince, he wrote,

Well-ordered states and wise princes have studied diligently not to drive the nobles todesperation and to satisfy the populace and keep it contented (Machiavelli, 297). To understand

how this is done, a must have known the desires of the aristocracy, as well as the desires of the

populace. In The Prince, he stated that the desire of the populace is to avoid the oppression of thearistocracy, and the desire of the aristocracy is to command the people (63). In The Discourses,

he cited a more economic reason, that the aristocracy wished to preserve what they had

established, while the populace, who had not, desired to acquire more (117). Despite theseseemingly different causes, Machiavelli's point remained the same - there was a natural conflict

between the populace and the aristocracy. When addressing the ruler directly, Machiavelli made

note of several ways in which the prince might satisfy the desires of these parties. In Chapter 17

of The Prince, he advises the ruler in this manner: "but above all he must abstain from taking theproperty of others" (90). In another place, he told the prince that the populace was easier to

please, since their aim was more honest, i.e., the desire to resist oppression (Prince, 64). Moving

away from the policies of the prince and more toward the constitution of the state, Machiavellinoted that those who created good governments recognized the existence of these two parties and

designed the mechanism of government in such a way that the clash between them would

produce legislation favorable to liberty (Discourses, 113). In this we see something of an end for

the state - that of securing liberty, but the primary role of that body was to provide the order inwhich that liberty could be enjoyed.

As has already been noted, Machiavelli conceived the role of the state to be one of providing

order, and he recommended several way of doing just that. In The Prince, he stated the chieffoundations of all states were good laws and good arms, without which a state could not hope to

exist, since it could not preserve order (72). By good laws, the state, or rather, the prince, should

be miserly, because "niggardliness is one of those vices which enable him to reign" (Prince, 87),for by spending less, he makes the state rich, whereby he can conduct wars without burdening his

people, thereby avoiding rebellion and revolt. The prince must also be a lover of merit,

rewarding those who improve their lot and that of the state, and allowing trade to proceed in a

quiet manner, whereby men shall not fear of being molested (Prince, 113). By good arms,Machiavelli meant a reliance on ones own forces, those born within the state. The loyalties of

auxillaries and mercenaries could be bought, and as such, it could be little relied on. In fact, they

might turn on you in times of peace, thereby causing instability in your state. Advising princeson whether or not they should build fortresses, Machiavelli says this, Therefore the best fortress

is to be found in the love the people, for although you may have fortresses they will not save you

from the hatred of the people (Ebenstein, 299). Through an orderly rule, the prince providesliberty, prosperity and stability - all necessary for the improvement of the state.


3/5

Born in Dublin, two centuries after Machiavelli, Edmund Burke was the product of Protestant

rule in Ireland, and he too sought the improvement of the state. At 21 years old, Burke, the son of

an attorney, left Ireland to study law in London, a study he later abandoned (Ebenstein, 506). In1756, he published his first major work entitled A Vindication of Natural Society. His purpose in

this work was to dissuade people from making rational, or scientific, inquiries into the

foundations of civil society and the state. However, it was not until 1789 that Burke began whatwas to become his defining social commentary. Unlike other Whigs, he was appalled by the

French Revolution, which began as an expression of rationalism applied to politics and religion.

So, in 1790, Burke wrote Reflections on the Revolution in France, the ultimate expression of hisconservatism.

For Burke, change was not the result of natural forces, or fortune, as it was for Machiavelli.

Instead, Burke saw it as the result of mans use of Reason and metaphysics. In his Reflections, he

remarked, It has been the misfortune[emphasis added] of this age, that everything is to bediscussed" (Ebenstein, 527). In Burkean thought, it was considered taboo to discuss and

inquire into the foundations of the state, because it would undermine the natural order. This

natural order was part of a divine plan, a divinely ordained moral essence, a spiritual union ofthe dead, the living, and those yet unborn (Kirk, 510), diametrically opposed to the chaos of

Machiavellis world. Hence, rather than use reason to oppose change, it is reason, the cause of

change, that must be opposed, because any change in the divine order would result in chaos.

Since the divine was at work in keeping order, religion played a much more important role thanit did for Machiavelli. Burke saw religion as the basis of civil society and as the source of all

good and all comfort, because man is by his constitution a religious animal (Ebenstein, 527).

As the basis of society, it could not be challenged, and while toleration could be allowed,

outright dissent was intolerable. Atheism, which was in vogue in France during the Revolution,was a source of confusion and chaos, as it was the ultimate rebellion against divine order,

because, Burke states, it was against, not only our reason, but our instincts (Ebenstein, 527).Had the British thrown off Christianity, he believed that they would have replaced it with someuncouth superstititon (Ebenstein, 527). Therefore, in order to protect the divine order, Burke

authorized the use of an established religion to keep men within the proper bounds. This religion

was the Christian religion, which has hitherto been our boast and comfort, and one great sourceof civilization amongst us and amongst many other nations (Ebenstein, 527). And unlike

Machiavelli, Burke required that the church have control over the minds of the rulers that all

persons possessing any portion of power ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an ideathat they act in trust (Ebenstein, 528). One of Burke's quarrels with the French Revolution was

that the National Assembly reversed this necessary construction with the "Civil Constitution of

the Clergy" by which the assemblymen took over church lands and made the clergy employees

of the state. No longer did the church in France hold sway over its rulers, but was now subject tothem, but perhaps the worst of the situation was the confiscation of church property by the lesser

party.

Whereas Machiavelli simply recognized that two parties existed within the state, Burke

adamantly maintained that an established inequality was necessary for the preservation of order.For Burke, this inequality was natural and extended to an individuals ability to rule. For

example, in his Reflections, Burke wrote that if those engaged in such servile occupations as


4/5

hair-dressing and tallow-chandlering were allowed to rule, the state would be oppressed

(Ebenstein, 518). In France, the Third Estate, or commoners, dominated the National Assembly

at the expense of the aristocracy and the clergy. To Burke, this was intolerable, as they were menwho had not been taught to respect themselves (Ebenstein, 517). However, wisdom and talent

could be found in any state, but if you were combating this prejudice - that commoners, in

general, should not rule - then you were at war with nature (Ebenstein, 518). Allowing that virtueand wisdom could exist in any state, Burke saw it as necessary to create a mixed government,

which would allow for the preservation of property and an outlet for the ability of the common

people. This France did not do, but rather set about leveling the aristocracy and doing away withthe old feudal ties. On August the 4th, the nobility gave up their feudal rights in a symbolic

gesture to appease the French people, who had been vandalizing the homes of the aristocracy and

destroying all evidence of feudal ties, during the summer of 1789. Burke was horrified by this

aspect of the Revolution, saying to the French, "But you, who began with refusing to submit tothe most modest restraints, have ended by establishing an unheard-of despotism" (Ebenstein,

520), by which he meant that the people of France had been forced to give up all vestiges of

property. In Burke's eyes, the French had undermined the very purpose for which government

existed.

The role of the state, its primary function, was to protect the right of property, particularly the

right of perpetuating that property. For Burke, "The power of perpetuating our property in

families [was] one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and thatwhich tends the most to the perpetuation of society itself" (Ebenstein, 519). This perpetuation of

property tended to the perpetuation of society, because society was a contract and partnership,

but not a partnership that existed for transitory things, and as such it could not be achieved overthe span of a few years. Instead, it [became] a partnership not only between those who are

living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those whoa re to be born

(Ebenstein, 528). For this reason, those who held the most property, the nobility, had to be secure

it in, as they were not in France. According to Burke, because they had this power in greatestabundance, and as the fate of society was essentially in their hands, "Nobility [was] a graceful

ornament to the civil order. It [was] the Corinthian capital of polished society" (Ebenstein, 519).

In order for these men to be secure in their property, they had to be able to protect against anencroaching populace, who might wish to redistribute it, thereby undermining society itself. To

protect this property, they must maintain that unequal representation that is fundamental to the

British constitution, which France had abolished in their own country, declaring all men to beequal.

Why were Machiavelli and Burke conservatives? First, both saw progress as a precarious

situation, in which innovation could lead to collapse. In The Prince, Machiavelli says this about

innovation: But men with their lack of prudence initiate novelties and, finding the first tastegood, do not notice the poison within (79). Burke, while advocating some progress, required

that all changes be made in a slow and deliberate manner (Ebenstein, 530). They also looked to

the past for guidance, rather than to the future for hope of better things. Machiavelli exalted theexample of the Romans as one which all constitutions should follow, and Burke called upon

British history and tradition for proof of the excellence of his thesis. They also saw men as an

inherently passionate being. According to Machiavelli, men were lazy and devoted to pleasure,particularly those of the present: For men are much more taken by present than by past things,


5/5

and when they find themselves well off in the present, they enjoy it and seek nothing more

(Prince, 118). Burke stated his position much more simply: You see, Sir, that in this enlightened

age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings (Ebenstein,526). When Machiavelli and Burke looked men, they did not always see that passionate

individual, but the group of individuals. For Machiavelli, this group was the aristocracy and the

populace (Discourses, 109). For Burke, there was the propertied class and the laborers(Ebenstein, 520). And finally, both men believed that a strong government was necessary to

restrain the passionate attitudes of men, and these governments must be created with the

particular people in mind, so that it can be conformed to their traditions and habits.

Both Machiavelli and Burke desired a well-ordered state, but sought opposing means to achievethis end. Machiavelli allowed for any means necessary. Burke, on the other hand, required means

which fit into the divine order of nature. In keeping with their means, they have been applauded

and harangued for decades.

1. Butterfield, Herbert. The Statecraft of Machiavelli. Collier Books: New York, NY. 1962.

2. Ebenstein, William and Alan. Great Political Thinkers: Plato to the Present. 6th edition.Harcourt College Publishers: New York, NY. 2000. Pp. 283-290, 504-532.

3. Grimm, Harold J. The Reformation Era. The MacMillan Company: New York, NY. 19734. Kirk, Russell. Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered. Arlington House: New Rochelle, NY.

1967.

5. Machiavelli, Niccolo. Discourses on Livy. Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY. 1997.6. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Mentor Books: New York, NY. 1980

7. Macpherson, C. B. Burke. Hill and Wang: New York, NY. 1980.

8. Stanlis, Peter J.,ed. Edmund Burke: Selected Writings and Speeches. Anchor Books: Garden

City, NY. 1963

47489721 machiavelli burke philosophers in conservatism

Documents