Machiavelli\'s Literary Message, Katherine Phillipakis

Machiavelli's Literary Message, Katherine Phillipakis argues that Machiavelli is not, as widely perceived, the embodiment of masculinity, but rather, an impotent philosopher emasculated by politics.

Phillipakis begins by describing Machiavelli's own view of virtue, that of "…manliness, courage, and cunning…" and contrasting it to the Greek conception of virtue as "…stoic and graceful submission to the caprices of Fortune's ever-spinning wheel. According to Machiavelli, the "…virtuous man must know how to acquire power, money, fame, and love in order to succeed." (Phillipakis, 2011, p.1). Phillipakis notes that "Some have argued that Machiavelli himself is the prince of princes -- the real vir -- who truly conquers Fortune by providing a steady stream of young men to wrestle her to her knees." (Phillipakis, 2011, p. 1).

It is this view of Machiavelli that Phillipakis challenges in her article. She questions whether Machiavelli actually measured up to the model of masculinity he represented in The Prince. She attempts to prove that Machiavelli's other writings, such as The Mandragola and Clizia, read together, prove Machiavelli's own political impotence and unmanliness.

The Mandragola is the story of prince Callimaco who, possessing manly courage but no prudence, impregnates the wife of the impotent Prince Meser Nicia. (Phillipakis, 2011, p. 3). He only succeeds in this deed with the help of the cunning, despicable advisor Ligurio. (Phillipakis, 2011, p. 3). This Ligurio is generally thought to represent Machiavelli himself.

Many scholars have argued that Ligurio, in fact, is the virtuous protagonist of the story because it is through his actions that the royal line is continued and the kingdom preserved. However, Phillipakis disagrees with this view, arguing that if Ligurio was so powerful, Ligurio himself would have impregnated the wife of Meser Nicia. (Phillipakis, 2011, p. 9). Phillipakis concludes that the philosopher is less powerful than commonly thought. (Phillipakis, 2011, p. 10)

Phillipakis supports her view of the impotent philosopher by examining, a story of an old man who attempts to acquire a young woman and fails. (Phillipakis, 2011, p. 11). In Clizia, the old man, Nicomaco, and his son, Cleandro, vie for the hand of Nicomaco's adopted daughter Clizia. The cunning Nicomaco succeeds in having Clizia marry his servant in order to make Clizia available to Nicomaco. (Phillipakis, 2011, p. 11). However, he is eventually outwitted by his wife, who substitutes a male servant in disguise at the wedding ceremony and Clizia marries his son Cleandro instead. (Phillipakis, 2011, p. 9).

Phillipakis interprets Clizia's Nicomaco as Machiavelli's ironic interpretation of himself. She compares the relationship between Nicomaco and his son Cleandro as that of advisor and prince. Cleandro has learned everything from Nicomaco, but is not grateful enough to share the prize with Nicomaco. (Phillipakis, 2011, p. 13). According to Phillipakis, "…they are competitors for a prize that cannot be shared. Fortune is a kingdom 'safeliest when with one man manned.'" (Phillipakis, 2011, p. 13)

Phillipakis concludes that Machiavelli "must remain the philosopher who generates thoughts but not deeds," simply "…because he cannot be anything more." (Phillipakis, 2011, p. 13).

Critique

Phillipakis appears to have something against philosophers and bookish men in general. Men who are thinkers, rather than doers. Or perhaps only against bookish men who presume to be manly men, such as Machiavelli.

Phillipakis' rage seems to stem from certain passages in Machiavelli's The Prince that could be perceived as misogynistic. She appears to dwell particularly on Machiavelli's comments about raping "Fortuna," the female characterization of fortune. Machiavelli is, of course, speaking metaphorically here. Though the language is undoubtedly disturbing, it is more likely that Machiavelli was having fun with the Greek characterization of fortune as feminine.

Another weak area of Phillipakis' article is the analysis. The analysis of Machiavelli is overly speculative. She performs a complete psychoanalysis of Machiavelli through a study of two of his lesser works. Furthermore, these works are from his plays, a genre which Machiavelli is not known for. His celebrated works, The Prince and the Republic, are all in the genre of philosophical treatise. Her analysis could have benefited by incorporating more examples from Machiavelli's philosophical treatises.