A Renaissance of Conflicts: The Early Modern Contributions to Democratic Theory and Practice

• In Event: Poster Session: Political Thought and Philosophy I

Abstract

Between the 13th and the 17th centuries, European political thought underwent a major paradigm shift: from a language of politics as the art of ruling free republics in the pursuit of the common good to a science of politics as the knowledge of the means to preserve and enlarge domination over a people. Encapsulating these two rival accounts were, respectively, Brunetto Latini’s republicanism ("Livres dou Tresor", 1266) and Giovanni Botero’s influential "Della Ragion di Stato" (1586). This intellectual revolution coincided with the demise of the ideology of “good government”, owing extensively to the revival of Aristotle, Cicero, and Seneca and peaking in the age of Civic Humanism, and the rise of the tradition of “reason of state”, built on a radically alternative conception of both reason and virtue. This transition also juxtaposed two alternative visions of public life: on the one hand, a republic without divisions, based on harmony and concord and belonging to the citizens as a collective; on the other, a state ("stato") that thrives in the hands of its rulers through strategic exclusions, partisan networks, and the pragmatic privileging of interests.
Within this framework, my paper examines how Machiavelli pioneered a new understanding of partisanship in the orchestration of political life and the far-reaching repercussions of his innovation. He was among the first thinkers to acknowledge the role of public opinion in the rise and fall of political leaders, and to explore both the constructive and the destructive sides of political conflict in the life of a republic – as an obstacle to, or a venue for, its political freedom. In doing so, he broke new ground vis-à-vis the Humanist ideology of consensus and called for a more nuanced conceptualization of the ties that bind, or separate, a republic’s citizens amidst the factionalism that had long been plaguing Florence.
My argument is that, partly building on the terminological and conceptual innovations of some of his Florentine predecessors, Machiavelli ambitiously sought to carve out a distinctive space for conflict within the republic to escape the longstanding equation between internal adversaries and public enemies as well as the false dichotomy between civil concord and civil war. This challenging endeavor is evident in his attempts at a “technification” of political concepts and categories, which – especially in "Discourses" – often lead to puzzling oxymorons (e.g., “undivided disunity”, “non-tumultuous tumult”). Such “terminological fluctuations” (Pedullà, 2018) are not simply a question of language. They are indicative of a normative concern with the nature, scope, and potential of political conflict and, more broadly, of a vision of politics that is intrinsically partisan.
The sermons and political writings of Girolamo Savonarola set the stage for Machiavelli’s revolution in the language and theory of politics. In his early years, the palingenesis of Florence urged by the Dominican friar paved the way for a reconceptualization of partisanship at the turn of the century, against both the Scholastic and the Humanist lexicon of politics. First a self-stylized opponent of all factions in the name of friendship, concord, and peace (the moral compass of his Mendicant Orders), Savonarola turned into an apocalyptic preacher unconditionally opposing all forms of resistance to his spiritual and political reform. Marking this transition was the friar’s endorsement of the election of Francesco Valori to the rank of Standard-bearer of Justice in 1496 – an event that prompted him to reconsider the potential of partisanship in Florentine and Italian public life. In a letter to Ricciardo Becchi, written on March 9, 1498, and offering an account of Savonarola’s last sermons, Machiavelli commented extensively on the friar’s uses of the friend/enemy distinction in the political arena. As Machiavelli noted, Savonarola forged a proto-populist distinction between “his partisans” (“excellent people”) and “his opponents” (“almost villainous”), the former “soldiered under God” and the latter “under the Devil” (a distinction that Machiavelli would later rephrase in "Discourses" I.16.3 when differentiating “partisan friends” from “partisan enemies”). At the same time, on Machiavelli’s account, Savonarola skillfully “changed coats”. Adapting his partisan preaching to the rapidly evolving political situation of Florence, he no longer “unite[d] his partisans through hatred of his adversaries” but coalesced them all against his archenemy, Pope Alexander VI.
My paper examines the extent to which Savonarola’s populism influenced Machiavelli’s conflictualism. The first thinker to make enmity, rather than friendship, the center of political gravity, the future author of "Discourses" capitalized on the “Savonarolan moment” to inaugurate a language and vision of politics that would resonate powerfully in the later trajectory of Western political thought.

Author

• David Ragazzoni, New York University