![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnAnd, I mean, it doesn't have to be just 18th century characters, either!
(also, waiting for Yuletide!)
(also, waiting for Yuletide!)
cahncahn
Profile
cahn
Page Summary
Active Entries
Style Credit
- Style: by timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-07 06:02 am (UTC)Firstly, there’s a current day preface explaining how the book came to be, and that the version used for this audio is the final one, which is important because as the preface points out, the manuscript went through three stages: Fritz-written first version, Voltaire’s beta, and then, when the whole thing was already with the Dutch printer, FW dies, Fritz succeeds, some hasty addenda (and a new printer, because the old one refused this last minute stuff) for the final version. The preface doesn’t say which parts were added, but let’s just say it’s possible to make an educated guess.
On to the text proper. Contrary to its reputation, it’s actually for the most part remarkably consistant with how Fritz saw himself and his government goals later in life. With some obvious exceptions, but still, it’s a far more consistent line of thought between Crown Prince and King than people were seeing later, and makes it clear why Voltaire in his Memoirs says that while one could think publishing the Anti-Machiavell while preparing Silesia 1 is the most Machiavellian thing ever, he actually thinks Fritz meant what he wrote.
As what it claims to be, a critique of Niccolo Machiavelli’s Il Principe, it’s about as well versed in Machiavelli and Renaissance literature as De la Literature Alllemande is about German literature. (I mean, he did probably read a French translation of Il Principe, but he clearly has no idea as to who Machiavelli was and what his goals were and is reacting to the pop culture image that also shows up in Elizabethan drama, ironically enough.) As a Government program and insight into up and coming King. Fritz, it’s remarkable. Also, there’s at least one historical anecdote re: Alexander the Great he uses where I really would like to know whether this was original Fritz or beta-reader Voltaire’s addendum, but more about this later. Also, Mildred, guess whom “The Anti-Machiavell” names as the smartest, most competent contemporary monarch at the time of writing?
….drumroll…
Victor Amadeus! Our young author says that he doesn’t mean this in the sense of excusing the guy’s general morals or lack of same, but that he is undeniably the most clever and the most able prince of Europe of their time, and an A-plus example of how to conduct secret negotiations before changing political directions.
The general arguments, short version: Machiavelli is overrated and sucks because he only talks to the basest instincts and sees the governing business purely from a cynical pov in Il Principe. He doesn’t even give us the backstory of how monarchies developed, which is that people needed a supreme law giver for greater justice! To make it clear just how overrated Machiavelli is, I’ll say that as a political theorist seen from today’s political theorists,
like, for example, me,he’s like Descartes to Newton.(Selena: Yep, that’s Voltaire’s correspondant, alright.)
Also, remember how Spinoza attacked religion and wanted to disprove God, and was totally crushed by writers defending God? That’s what I want to do here to overrated Machiavelli.
(Selena: leaving aside he clearly hasn’t read Spinoza, it’s an interesting look at 1739’s Fritz state of religion. We’re definitely not yet in Deist territory. Possibly a lingering Wolff influence still?)
So, there are two kinds of Kings: Kings who actually WORK, AND ARE IN THE FIELD WITH THEIR MEN, and Kings who delegate all to their ministers. Obviously, the first type is the best type of King. It’s a King’s job to WORK WORK WORK, and be a first servant to the state. (Yes, that phrase.) He should be his own minister of foreign affairs, treasurer, and minister of the interior. Actual cabinet ministers should just be his tools. Clearly, he should lead his armies and if there’s a war be in the field with them, always. Now, I’ll concede not all kings are good generals. In this case, I’ll admit they’ll have to delegate and let a good general do the strategy stuff, but they still should be in the field with their men.
On to the second type of Kings, the lazy sort. They better hope they’ll get a good minister or several. This is a tricky business. Because let’s talk about courtiers. Courtiers are like women with make-up. You never see their true face, only a mask that makes them all look identical. You never know what they’re actually thinking. And let’s face it, bribery is more common than not. Let me side track about envoys here. Envoys are smooth and wily and hand out lots of money to work for their respective governments as spies on the King’s court they’re sent to. Never trust an envoy, though they’re fun to hang out with. Anyway, even if one finds a competent minister, there’s the danger that guy will be bribed by an envoy. (Totally not thinking of Grumbkow & Seckendorff here.) Therefore, the obvious life goal for a monarch is to work work work and have only personality less tools as ministers.
Literature, art and science: needs to be encouraged by a good monarch as a primary state goal. Let’s face it, none of us is as impressed by Louis XIV’s battles as of Racine, Moliere, Corneille, Lully. There’s a reason why Lorenzo Il Magnifico is THE TOP RENAISSANCE GUY, and it’s patronage. As for Augustus, he owes a good deal of his current reputation not to the cruel conscription lists he started with but to the poetry of Horace. If you want to be a good King, you need to support the arts and sciences and encourage and patronize artists and scientists, or all your other efforts will be in vain.
(Yes, economy is important, too. But art!)
Now, Mr. Overrated Machiavelli gives a few examples of princes in his book who are in his opinion good role models because they are successful. His primary one is FERDINAND OF ARAGON. That one. The. Catholic. One half of Ferdinand and Isabella. Clearly, that alone shows how Machiavelli gets it all wrong and sucks. Yeah, sure, Ferdinand won his wars, enlarged his realm,
locked up his daughter as insaneoutmaneouvred most of his enemies and died in bed. BUT. He used religion both as a tool of conquest and of governing. That just is the worst. If he actually was a true believer himself, he perverted his own religion by using it as as a war justification and tool of conquest. If he just faked being religious, he was a hypocrite to boot. Either way, bloody Ferdinand was the worst, and anyone who recs him as a role model therefore sucks, too.Now, I will say sometimes war is justified. Not for selfish reasons, just to gain glory, obviously. That’s a very bad thing to do. Let me tell you here a story about Alexander: the envoys from the Scythes told him he had no right to boast of having cleared his realms of robbers when he was doing nothing but robbing and plundering other realms. They were right! In your face, Alex.
HOWEVER. Here are the reasons that to me justify going to war.
1) Defending your country from invasion. Obviously.
2) Defending your country preemptively from invasion. Because sometimes, you see these dark clouds on the horizon, like for example if there is this really really large realm in Europe, and you just know they intend you no good. Gotta strike first there, protecting your people. Look, if all the various realms the Romans would conquer had teamed up against them when Rome was still not yet top dog and struck first, Rome never would have ruled the world, I’m just saying.
3) Getting something for your country which is their ancient right to have. Look, Kings have no one above them. Therefore, they can’t go to court and sue the other party to hand over the thing which is totally theirs by right. Basically, these kind of wars are lawsuits with weapons.
None of these reasons means you should do as Machiavelli says! Absolutely one should try negotiations first , and treaties, treaties are good, if they’re carefully negotiated and phrased. And you should never betray your allies, monarchs who do that just invite backstabbing themselves. You should have your allies’ back and spare yourself future wars.
And wars are bad, did I mention that yet? I’m not even talking about how bad they are for the enemy country, but for one’s own country. Taxes are raised till the population can’t bear it anymore if a country is on war footing. More and mor of the youth of one’s country, the future, die, or survive in a crippled state. Kings should be made to visit wounded soldiers and hospitals and widows regularly, so they never forget what wars do to their people, as they so easily can because they usually live in such a removed sphere from misery.
Lastly: any fellow royal reading my book: I’m writing this because I know none of my contemporaries is a Caligula or a Tiberius. Obviously good advice would never be taken by those, and I know you’re all better than that! Let’s have another golden age, boys! (Girls need not apply. Earlier in the text, I say that monarchs must never let themselves be ruled solely by their emotions, like A WOMAN.)
Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-08 06:34 am (UTC)heeee!
Victor Amadeus!
! Well, mildred, thanks for your primer on this guy, so I actually knew who he was :P
To make it clear just how overrated Machiavelli is, I’ll say that as a political theorist seen from today’s political theorists, like, for example, me, he’s like Descartes to Newton.
(Selena: Yep, that’s Voltaire’s correspondant, alright.)
Ha!
So, there are two kinds of Kings: Kings who actually WORK, AND ARE IN THE FIELD WITH THEIR MEN, and Kings who delegate all to their ministers. Obviously, the first type is the best type of King. It’s a King’s job to WORK WORK WORK, and be a first servant to the state. (Yes, that phrase.)
This is fascinating! I see what you mean about being able to see the through-line with Fritz's thinking :P
Envoys are smooth and wily and hand out lots of money to work for their respective governments as spies on the King’s court they’re sent to. Never trust an envoy, though they’re fun to hang out with.
HAHAHAHA I can't imagine where that came from :P Though I guess I hadn't thought super hard about how this would have affected him, before now. (Not that you guys weren't thinking about it :P just not me)
Because sometimes, you see these dark clouds on the horizon, like for example if there is this really really large realm in Europe, and you just know they intend you no good.
HAHAHAHAHA
well okay then
Kings should be made to visit wounded soldiers and hospitals and widows regularly, so they never forget what wars do to their people, as they so easily can because they usually live in such a removed sphere from misery.
Huh, did... Fritz do this at all once he became king?
Earlier in the text, I say that monarchs must never let themselves be ruled solely by their emotions, like A WOMAN.
Heh. There's the Fritz we know and... um , mock? :)
Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-08 07:36 am (UTC)As far as I recall, he did visit the injured while on campaign, and also he did take care to thave the best doctors available around, but I don't recall any widow and orphans visiting in peace time. The one who founded the famous Berlin hospital Charité which is still working as well as various orphanages was FW, not Fritz. Given that Heinrich personally supervising the transport of the injured from the field post battle of Prague (and a few other times later) was treated as unusual by contemporary reports, I take it Fritz didn't do that, but then he was the supreme commander (with correspondingly more to do), and Heinrich was not.
Given all Mildred has told us, young Fritz naming Victor Amadeus as the smartest and most competent monarch of their era should have caused a few alarm bells to ring right there in 1739. Mind you, it's interesting he doesn't name either Peter the Great or Charles XII, whom you might expect him to.
HAHAHAHA I can't imagine where that came from :P Though I guess I hadn't thought super hard about how this would have affected him, before now. (Not that you guys weren't thinking about it :P just not me)
Yes, he had a good memory. I'm also reminded of how Elizabeth I. (of England, not Russia) never forgot when she was Queen of how both the envoys and an increasing number of aristocrats had courted her during her sister Mary's reign, and outright said this was why she'd never name a successor out loud. (She said this to the envoy of Venice who included it in his resport home, which is how we know.)
Back to Fritz: the simile "courtiers are just like women with their make-up, wearing identical masks and you never know what they are really thinking" is also pretty telling. (And not quite as misogynistic as it sounds, though certainly some, but keep in mind 18th century make up was way, way, stronger than what we think of as make-up today, though it was worn by plenty of male aristocrats, too, Fritz!)
Because sometimes, you see these dark clouds on the horizon, like for example if there is this really really large realm in Europe, and you just know they intend you no good.
HAHAHAHAHA
well okay then
This is one of those passages - along with the "lawsuit via military means" one - that I'm pretty sure he added at the last minute for obvious reasons. :) (I don't think we know for sure, for lack of manuscripts to compare - that there were several stages we know through the Voltaire and Fritz correspondence about it.
And I really would like to know whether the Alexander story is original Fritz (and if so, in which work he came across it) or an Voltaire beta reading suggestion. I certainly haven't heard it before, but then I'm not so firm on Alexander as Mildred.
Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-08 05:34 pm (UTC)Yeah, same. He might have decided that this didn't apply to him, because
as they so easily can because they usually live in such a removed sphere from misery.
Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-08 04:40 pm (UTC)! Well, mildred, thanks for your primer on this guy, so I actually knew who he was :P
Happy to accidentally anticipate Selena's write-up with my own write-up! I certainly did not know who he was when I last read the Anti-Machiavel, some 20+ years ago. It is wonderful to be turning more and more names into people with personalities as we progress through salon.
Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-08 04:38 pm (UTC)it’s about as well versed in Machiavelli and Renaissance literature as De la Literature Alllemande is about German literature. (I mean, he did probably read a French translation of Il Principe, but he clearly has no idea as to who Machiavelli was and what his goals were and is reacting to the pop culture image
This. It's a common failure mode for Machiavelli discussions. I would love to do a Renaissance Italy salon someday, but only after I have time to resume learning Italian. Trying to go heads-down on German in January!
With some obvious exceptions, but still, it’s a far more consistent line of thought between Crown Prince and King than people were seeing later
This is what I've also heard (last time I read it was too long ago for me to have anything but hearsay to rely on). What I suspect is that people were reacting to the pop image of Machiavelli rather than doing a close reading of Fritz's Anti-Machiavel and a point-by-point comparison between the 1739 advertisement and the 1740s reality, so what they came away with was, "Fritz said he would never do anything dishonest!"
he’s like Descartes to Newton.
(Selena: Yep, that’s Voltaire’s correspondant, alright.)
Hahaha, yes, so it is.
(Selena: leaving aside he clearly hasn’t read Spinoza, it’s an interesting look at 1739’s Fritz state of religion. We’re definitely not yet in Deist territory. Possibly a lingering Wolff influence still?)
Possibly, but if we're talking specifically about disproving God (which, yes, he is operating on pop culture here again), I think a Deist would take objection to that as well.
Also, Mildred, guess whom “The Anti-Machiavell” names as the smartest, most competent contemporary monarch at the time of writing?
….drumroll…
Victor Amadeus!
Huh! I mean, on the one hand I'm not surprised that Fritz saw so much to praise in VA, since the comparisons between VA and Prussia under FW and Fritz have been drawn even by VA historians, and of course, I remind you of this VA quote:
Sovereigns are born for an active life, and not for an idle or contemplative existence. They must devote a constant, serious attention to matters of government.
which chimes well with our young author's
So, there are two kinds of Kings: Kings who actually WORK, AND ARE IN THE FIELD WITH THEIR MEN, and Kings who delegate all to their ministers. Obviously, the first type is the best type of King. It’s a King’s job to WORK WORK WORK
But like you, I'm surprised Fritz chose VA over the more famous monarchs. I wonder how contemporary is contemporary: VA died more recently than Charles, Peter, or Louis.
If he just faked being religious, he was a hypocrite to boot.
Yeah, and religious hypocrisy definitely never comes in handy when you're posing as the Protestant hero of Europe. *clears throat*
Basically, these kind of wars are lawsuits with weapons.
Thus confirming that CEO!Fritz totally ends up in a long, drawn-out lawsuit with HRE over a hostile takeover. ;)
Absolutely one should try negotiations first
MT: You mean like the extortion offer you gave me while your army was already in Silesia?
And you should never betray your allies, monarchs who do that just invite backstabbing themselves. You should have your allies’ back and spare yourself future wars.
Mme de Pompadour and Kaunitz: Not our fault if you didn't see it coming!
I’m writing this because I know none of my contemporaries is a Caligula or a Tiberius
Well...You're not wrong, I guess. Probably the most Machiavellian contemporary I can think of is only 10 years old when you started this, and you haven't married her off to the Russian heir yet, so that she can start a Russian golden age like a WOMAN. :P
As for your question about the Alexander anecdote, it's definitely not one of the better known ones. I admit to not having recognized it, but a quick google shows it's legit: Quintus Curtius (VII.viii.19).
But you, who boast that you are coming to attack robbers, are the robber of all the nations to which you have come. You have taken Lydia, you have seized Syria, you hold Persia you have the Bactriani in your power, you have aimed at India; already you are stretching your greedy and insatiable hands for our flocks.
Which I checked and was in the Sanssouci library by the end of Fritz's lifetime, so he may well have read it at Rheinsberg, or it could be a Voltaire beta suggestion.
Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-09 09:29 am (UTC)*nods* Yes. Incidentally, since I found the Anti-Machiavell far more readable, err, listenable than Fritz' poetry, I'm now wondering whether I should give his other prose works a shot, the various histories of which I know only excerpts quoted in biographies.
Yeah, and religious hypocrisy definitely never comes in handy when you're posing as the Protestant hero of Europe. *clears throat*
LOL, too true. And I would say Ferdinand of Aragon was in all likelihood more sincerely a Catholic than Fritz was ever a Protestant once his Wolff-studying phase was over.
Thank you for tracking down the Alexander anecdote! Quintus Curtius, huh. This reminds me of the essay about Fritz of Wales & Hervey which points out that in the 18th Century, Quintus Curtius was the most popular source for Alexander stories, and that this is where the image of Hephaistion as the good favourite (i.e. the competent, selflessly working for monarch and the monarchy one, "he, too, is Alexander") as opposed to greedy bad favourites which Hervey, naming himself Hephaistion, wants to evoke comes from.
Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-09 05:11 pm (UTC)I vote yes! Like Voltaire's prose, I'm planning on giving Fritz's a try when I finally move on to French and need texts to practice on. At least one of Fritz's essays on education looks interesting from the excerpts I've seen. And I'm avoiding both our antiheroes' poetry. :P
And I would say Ferdinand of Aragon was in all likelihood more sincerely a Catholic than Fritz was ever a Protestant once his Wolff-studying phase was over.
Without having read anything by or about Ferdinand, I would say yes just from my pop culture image of him!
This reminds me of the essay about Fritz of Wales & Hervey which points out that in the 18th Century, Quintus Curtius was the most popular source for Alexander stories
Oh, huh, I'd forgotten that. I should do a close reading of Quintus Curtius at some point, then. I'm pretty good about recognizing Plutarch allusions, not so much Quintus Curtius. Ironically, I had just acquired a copy and was starting to read it, back when I was doing 4th century Greek history and oratory, when salon started. :P
Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-11 06:17 am (UTC)Ha! (Also, btw, I'm going through Massie's Peter -- Peter is 22 right now -- and kind of taken aback at the state of Russian women at the time. And I thought 18th-century Western Europe was bad! Go Catherine, is what I'm saying :P and i think Massie says explicitly that it helped a ton that she wasn't Russian. But also, go Sophia whom I had a more than sneaking sympathy for :PP )
Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-11 02:31 pm (UTC)Right?
But also, go Sophia whom I had a more than sneaking sympathy for :PP
Yes! Massie got me interested (she was only a name to me before), and I would love to
have someone elseread more about her.Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-12 04:03 pm (UTC)Re Catherine, though, I should point out that she's 100 years after Sophia, and that the position of noble and royal women in Russia had changed significantly. Before Sophia, there had been no women publicly wielding power. Before Catherine, there had been not only Sophia, but Catherine I, Anna Ivanovna, Anna Leopoldovna (as regent), and Elizaveta. There was a huge amount of social change, especially at the top, in those hundred years. Not that the odds weren't still against Catherine and it wasn't impressive that she managed what she did! But Sophia really lived in a different world.
Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-09 05:00 pm (UTC)Yes, this! I mean, I've only read an abridged version so far, but it did contain the section about wars and I thought, well, this isn't half as contradictory to his actions as I thought it would be, it's actually fairly consistent. Its reputation is basically a pop culture image of Fritz's response to a pop culture image. (Possibly promoted by all the envoys etc who totally missed this. :P And it makes a good story with a Machiavellian punchline.)
most competent contemporary monarch at the time of writing?
….drumroll…
Victor Amadeus!
Ha! That's some lovely synergy, because this part wasn't in the abridged version I read and if so, I wouldn't have had any idea who the guy was.
be a first servant to the state. (Yes, that phrase.)
Yeah, that was fascinating to see this early.
Actual cabinet ministers should just be his tools.
But also: "In my opinion, a king can't reward loyalty and officiousness enough" and if he doesn't, "I don't know what's greater, his heartlessness or his stupidity". Weelll...
Oh, and I found it interesting that he actually divided people in two groups here: those who have a good heart but maybe not much genius and wit vs. those who are full of wit and genius, but possibly with a black heart. Now, clever kings have used the former for interior positions, where loyalty and honesty etc are very important, whereas people in the latter category were perfect for sending to other courts, where they can be wily, lie well, and possibly bribe people.
Because sometimes, you see these dark clouds on the horizon, like for example if there is this really really large realm in Europe, and you just know they intend you no good.
And that's hardly paraphrased! Fritz, we all know who you are talking about and I don't know how people missed it back then. Also: Act while you are still in control. "It's better to attack while you can still choose between olive branch and laurel, and not wait until everything is so desperate that a declaration of war will only delay subjugation and destruction for a short while."
His reasoning really didn't change there.
Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-09 05:39 pm (UTC)See, Peter, it's almost a compliment that he doesn't want you to be Prussia's envoy in GB. :) Also, it's a miracle and says something about Suhm that Fritz took to him as well as he did and wanted to have him at his side after his ascension to power, given his general opinion of envoys (for which, of course, he had several examples in front of him).
Otoh, what about Eichel: has no wit, heart is debatable, but is certainly some kind of administrative genius.
And that's hardly paraphrased! Fritz, we all know who you are talking about and I don't know how people missed it back then.
Yes, when I heard that passage, I thought, subtle, this is not, and how come no one paid attention in time? I mean, yes, in theory he could have been talking about large realm France and large realm Russia, but come on...
Conclusion: hardly anyone ever read the Anti-Machiavell. They just heard the title and drew assumptions about the content.
Re: The Anti-Machiavell
Date: 2022-01-09 06:09 pm (UTC)I was thinking of Suhm when I read your summary! It couldn't have hurt that FW wanted to kill Suhm. Both in the sense that Suhm was clearly bad at fake personas :P, and also that his loyalties to Fritz were clear. Also, note that Fritz was planning to keep Suhm away from power, translating Wolff and the like (still what I think would have happened to Katte).
whereas people in the latter category were perfect for sending to other courts, where they can be wily, lie well, and possibly bribe people.
See, Peter, it's almost a compliment that he doesn't want you to be Prussia's envoy in GB. :)
Ha! He did say Peter had no idea of what it was to negotiate, it's true. Take comfort, Peter. (I mean, I don't disagree with Fritz's decision. I just wish he had given me more shipping fodder.)
"A diplomat is a man sent to lie abroad for his country" is a phrase that's been popping into my head lately, especially as I read 1720s diplomacy. Remember Whitworth backdating the treaty so they could get twice as much territorial concessions out of Sweden?
Its reputation is basically a pop culture image of Fritz's response to a pop culture image.
Conclusion: hardly anyone ever read the Anti-Machiavell. They just heard the title and drew assumptions about the content.
Yep, exactly the conclusion I came to as well. Mind you, he *did* say enough things about not abandoning your allies in order to avoid future wars, and not being a hypocrite about religion, and trying negotiations before invading, that I think the outrage, if not the surprise (Victor Amadeus as A+ example of monarching, anyone?) was justified on the part of Europe.
Speaking of, I finally remembered what
Victor Amadeus! Our young author says that he doesn’t mean this in the sense of excusing the guy’s general morals or lack of same, but that he is undeniably the most clever and the most able prince of Europe of their time, and an A-plus example of how to conduct secret negotiations before changing political directions.
reminded me of: ViennaJoe on Fritz! "I'm not saying I'm glad he took Silesia, Mom, I'm just saying that he's the cleverest and most able monarch of our time!"
MT: And yet he needs someone to wash his dirty laundry...
Caroline of Ansbach: Excuse me, not all of us were fortunate enough to have your educational opportunities when we were young.
FS: Thanks for always washing my dirty laundry, Mitz.
how come no one paid attention in time? I mean, yes, in theory he could have been talking about large realm France and large realm Russia, but come on...
MT: Well, the book was only published in September 1740, and you know my dad's ministers were idiots. Then Dad died in October, and I was a bit busy. Next thing you knew, it was December and Fritz was offering to help protect our territory for the low, low price of Silesia...
FS: He seemed so nice! He sent me a salmon!