In Defense of Machiavelli

Before I begin, let me just say that the colloquium last night was incredible. Hats off to Ms Amy Wright and to Ms Kala Holt. I couldn't help but think the whole time of a quote by John F. Kennedy: "There has never been such an extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."


Now that that's over and out of the way, I wanted to elaborate on something that Dr. Talmage said in class on Tuesday. We were discussing the borderline between exegesis and eisegesis. Let me define this first. Exegesis is the critical interpretation of a text.  Eisegesis is the gross misrepresentation of a text, essentially "drawing something out of a text that wasn't there at all." 


Let's look at an example. During the abolitionist age that predated the American Civil War, many Abolitionists used the Bible to point out that Slavery was wrong. These abolitionists said that the verses to "love one another" were a direct command against slavery. After all, who could enslave a brother or sister in Christ. However, on the pro slavery sides, numerous passages in the Bible were mentioned that referenced slavery and the treatment of slaves. 


What is true about each of these sources is that while, yes, the Bible tells us to love one another it does, in fact mention slavery as well as how CHRISTIAN masters should treat their slaves. However, to look at the real meanings behind this, we need to look at outside sources. The slavery as seen in the Bible was often referred to as 'Debt Slavery' in which one person took out a loan with the promise to repay it under certain circumstances. If those circumstances were not met, then that person was the legal property of the one to whom he owed money. The first instances of this are mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi. So, it would seem that the Bible condones the Southern slaveholders.

The form of slavery in southern America seen in the 1800s is much different than that seen in the Bible. The slaves in what would become the Confederate States of America were not debt slaves. They were often descendants of African prisoners of war, or even taken captive by slave hunters in the mid 1600s on up to the early 1800s. They were by no means placed into slavery by taking out loans and failing to meet circumstances. Therefore we can conclude that the slavery of the southern states was wrong.

Now, on to my main point. A text that often falls under criticism is Nicolo Machiavelli's The Prince. We often take Machiavelli at his word that "It is better that a prince should be feared rather than loved." However, we often forget the life of the man who wrote such a work. I won't go into the details, but I will give the basics in bullet points for your convenience.

• Machiavelli was a Representative in the Florentine Congress (which stood for political freedom) during the political usurpation of the Medici family.
• When the Medici regained power, Machiavelli was put in prison for his political stances in favor of Freedom as opposed to totalitarian rule.
• After the torture ended, Machiavelli was put on house arrest until the end of his life, it was during this period that he wrote The Prince.

Now there is a movement among many nowadays that says works like The Prince and other of Machiavelli's writings were satirical. While I endorse neither side, I will say that this modern movement makes much more sense than taking Machiavelli at his word.

I will end with a quote by the French Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

"Machiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Caesar Borgia, clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays."

~Cody Martin

PS- I commented here