Why do you say (wrongly) that Machiavelli was Machiavellian? | EUROtoday

On Jun 5, 2025

Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.

Lhe Grail, for an mental, is undoubtedly that his identify varieties a neologism. For Nietzsche, Marx or Freud, it is fairly flattering. But for poor Niccolo Machiavelli, his actual identify, it’s fairly an injustice. Little Robert offers this definition of Machiavellianism: “Attitude of an individual who makes use of crafty and dangerous religion to attain his ends. »Synonyms? Perfidie, crafty.

Difficult to have worse fame. “The reputation is the sum of the misunderstandings that we accumulate on his account,” typically repeats Michel Onfray. And Machiavelli accumulates them. Particularly in France. Charles Benoist, advisable diplomat, underlines that there are a minimum of 4 varieties of Machiavellianism: that of Machiavelli himself, that of his disciples (typically extra zealous than the grasp), that of his opponents (who like to blacken the image) and that of people that have by no means opened The prince (The most quite a few, let’s be sincere).

Machiavelli makes his service presents to the Medici

Between Machiavellian and “Machiavellian” thought, there’s a world. We readily think about this adviser to the prince as an obsequious man, prowling within the corridors with mischief to recommend merciless recommendation to the highly effective Italian tyrants of the sixteenth^e century. That Nenni: “He was a bon vivant! He was often found at the mess, he liked to play cards and it was undoubtedly a huge seducer, ”corrects Jérôme Roudier, professor of political science at the Catholic University of Lille and author of Machiavelli by himself * (PUF, 2025).

Read too Machiavelli, this misunderstoodIn 1513, when he was reclusive in his campaign after being driven out of power, the former senior official began to write. In his correspondence, he expressed his fears concerning Italian affairs and the importance of unifying the Italian people. Because, at the time, Italy was not a country but a complex sum of states. Like an McKinsey consultant before the hour, he offers a manual to the prince to unify and govern well.

It is also a form of demand for disguised hire. His famous book The prince is dedicated to Laurent II de Médicis. “It is a method to attempt to discover a place in Florence’s political life,” explains Jérôme Roudier. He is at a time of his life when he depressed in his campaign and would surely like to return to town, close to power. He writes The prince At a time when he wants to find a job at all costs. It is a job offer to the Medici. »»

The dedication of the book almost looks like a cover letter: “For my half, in my opinion, wishing to supply me to your magnificence with some testimony of my respectful dedication to it, I’ve discovered amongst my items nothing to what I need or that I take into account as a lot because the data of the actions of nice males, equivalent to I acquired it fashionable issues by an extended expertise and historic by a diligent studying. »»

Machiavelli the Machiavellian, “a very French question”

By Machiavellian, we hear somebody’s crafty, who arrives at his ends by all means. However, quite the opposite, the Machiavelli thinker is a center -class man who does not likely handle to impose himself. If Machiavelli is Machiavellian, it’s primarily as a result of he would have developed a merciless and cynical political idea. “But it is first of all a defender of a reasonable policy and centered on the context,” corrects Jérôme Roudier, who believes that “Machiavelli the Machiavellian is a very French question”.

The diabolical picture of the writer was tarnished by in style tradition, as a result of Machiavelli is, in some ways, the antipodes of the political imaginative and prescient of a lot of our regimes. Machiavelli is above all a practical. He observes the world as it’s, not accurately. For him, morality has no place in politics. If it’s important to do good, be. If it’s essential to harm, be.

Read too Machiavelli: the reality of the “prince” “For him, everything is detailed. You have to understand that when he writes The princeit is a manual dedicated to a new chief, who governs a new state. In these cases, indeed, exceptional means are needed. But he also specifies that, in the monarchies already established, it is generally enough to let the old order follow his course so that everything goes smoothly. No need to do evil, if it is not necessary for the maintenance of power.

This is where the rub with France. Our absolutist kings governed in the name of God (therefore good), and our revolutionaries in the name of salvation (always good). Machiavelli, he dares to write: “We must understand this: it is that a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all these things for which men are held for good, being often constrained, to maintain the state, to act against faith, against charity, against humanity, against religion. “He invents” realpolitik “: governing beyond good and evil. “Or rather, below good and evil,” laughs Jérôme Roudier.

Consciousness of evil

To conduct a realistic and fair policy, the prince must “see evil opposite”. If he has been described as “Machiavellian”, it is because he refuses an angelic vision of man. “Because men, we can generally say this: they are ungrateful, changing, simulators and concealer, enemies of blows, friends of pecunes,” he wrote. “Men, for him, are neither bad nor good by nature, but they will tend on the side of ease. So if society is structured by good laws, they will become good citizens. Otherwise, in a tyrannical and violent society without rules, they will lean towards their immediate interest, ”popularizes Jérôme Roudier.

Read too Fournel: “There is moral tension in Machiavelli” Machiavelli’s subtlety subsequently lies in his consciousness of evil. He refuses to fall right into a coverage of excellent. And historical past has taught us that the ideologies that promise the happiness of humanity have typically generated the worst totalitarian regimes. The Sage Prince should know the evil to make use of pressure sparingly, when the context requires it. There is “an art of carrying evil”. Nothing to do with a free -free tyrant: “Violence have to be all collectively, writes Machiavelli, in order that the style by persisting much less lengthy, they provide much less; While the advantages (of the prince) have to be achieved little by little in order that (the individuals) savor them higher. »»

To uncover

The kangaroo of the day

Answer

* “Machiavelli by himself”, by Jérôme Roudier, PUF, 2025.

https://www.lepoint.fr/eureka/pourquoi-dit-on-a-tort-que-machiavel-etait-machiavelique-05-06-2025-2591317_4706.php