Quarterly Journal of Speech

ISSN: 0033-5630 (Print) 1479-5779 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rqjs20

A Machiavellian perspective on the rhetorical

criticism of political discourse

William E. Wiethoff

To cite this article: William E. Wiethoff (1991) A Machiavellian perspective on the

rhetorical criticism of political discourse, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 77:3, 309-326, DOI:
10.1080/00335639109383962

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335639109383962

Published online: 05 Jun 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rqjs20

Download by: [Central Michigan University] Date: 30 September 2015, At: 05:15
 QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH
77 (1991): 309-326

A MACHIAVELLIAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE

RHETORICAL CRITICISM OF POLITICAL
DISCOURSE
William E. Wiethoff

I n popular parlance "machiavellian" connotes a cunning and deceitful expedi-

Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

ency; the term, deriving from the advice given by Niccolo Machiavelli to leaders
who would successfully negotiate the political labyrinth of Renaissance Italy, conjures up
visions of intrigue. This popular conception, however, distorts the seminal contribution of
Machiavelli to western thought and obscures the value of a machiavellian perspective on
human action. In contrast to popular notions, serious scholars from various disciplines
have found Machiavelli's theories and ideas both provocative and useful. Political
theorists have derived a series of principles from his writings.1 Linguists and
historians have seen heuristic value in a distinctively machiavellian perspective.2
Sociologists and psychologists have developed a "Mach" scale as a tool for analyzing
interpersonal relationships.3 Although these developments suggest that Machiavel-
li's ideas might also be useful to persons interested in rhetorical processes, few
scholars have examined his works to distinguish their rhetorical perspective. More-
over, almost all examinations of his ideas focus on his best known work, The Prince.*
The purpose of this essay is to develop and defend the usefulness of a machiavel-
lian approach to the criticism of political discourse. First examining Machiavelli's
major and minor works, I reconstruct his views on issues such as audience adapta-
tion and image-making. Next, I examine his own criticism of political discourse.5
Consistency between Machiavelli's principles and criticism affirms the relative
strength of his convictions and the feasibility of criticism derived from those beliefs.
Finally, I explain why adopting a machiavellian perspective would invigorate the
criticism of political discourse. In essence, I conclude that machiavellian technique—
steeped in tradition but sensitive to changes in an uncertain world—leads critics to
appreciate the political process and simulate its dynamics in their criticism. In this
simulation critics would not issue evaluations until they have taken the viewpoint of
participants in political interaction, appreciating the dual appeal of the absolute and
the contingent to political actors.

CRITICAL PRINCIPLES

A politician and a thinker, Machiavelli was naturally concerned about the nature
of political discourse. Out of his experience and his reflection emerged two sets of critical
principles. The first set grew from his considerable interest in analyzing setting and
constituency; the second, and more notoriously, from his analysis of political reputation.

Setting and Constituency

Since the setting and constituency of political discourse may vary widely, the ideal
rhetor recognizes a corresponding range of discursive adjustments. Both domestic
 310
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH AUGUST 1991

and foreign settings must be accommodated. Moreover, within these settings, both
the natural and artificial features of constituents should be addressed.
Machiavelli observed that ingenious rhetors "think about what can bring harm" to
themselves by foreseeing the future; in other words, people "who are wise enough to
recognize the times and customs, and to adapt to them, should always enjoy good
fortune" (Letter to Piero Soderini, uncertain date; letter to Francesco Vettori, 20
June 1513). More specifically, he believed that people could be analyzed accurately
because of their common humanity: "[People] have and always have had the same
passions;" these passions consistently produce "the same results" (Discourses 3. 43).6
Since political intelligence about setting was far too valuable to be ignored, Machiav-
elli, in discussing various instances of Renaissance intrigue, outlined the need to
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

analyze both personal and physical contexts.

Whether discourse is motivated by intrigue or civil service, situation and audience
pose special problems. For example, a diplomat's assessment of a foreign govern-
ment must be especially astute. After deciding whether the foreign head of state has
obvious character traits, such as being "greedy or generous," the diplomat should
analyze political biases, relative power, tenure, and other qualities of the foreign
leader's advisors. Then the diplomat should examine how strongly the foreign
leader is supported by friends and family. Finally, "the nature of the people" should
be analyzed—especially with a view toward popular pressure for a change of
government (Memoir). On the home front, civil servants should be alert to the
conditions and people that support conspiracies against the incumbent. "It is very
necessary to anticipate everything that could arise" from political opponents, and
prepare remedies (Discourses 3. 6). Contrary to his reputation for cruelty, however,
Machiavelli advised against taking vengeance on political opponents. Instead, one
should analyze how the adverse political relations developed.
Although Machiavelli seemed to think that most people have little political
awareness, he was far less critical of public ability in other areas. In fact, his attitude
toward people in general varied from situation to situation.7 More specifically, he
implied that political rhetors should be prepared to deal with common or natural
characteristics as well as corrupted or artificially modified characteristics (Prince 17).
Effective rhetors, Machiavelli seemed to say, open audiences to persuasion by
encouraging them to see themselves as possessing tractable features. Rhetors
accomplish this goal by appealing to audiences "harmonically," that is, by address-
ing people as creatures of both idealized nature and pragmatic artifice. Common
characteristics are mindless mannerisms which people harbor by nature, while
corrupted characteristics are assorted perversions in conduct that result from
artifice. These relationships may be seen in the following diagram:

CONSTITUENTS' TRAITS

Common: Corrupted:
Discontented Ungrateful—Greedy
Shortsighted Fickle
Lazy Cowardly
Machiavelli observed that rhetors can address an ungrateful constituency (a
corrupted state) by approaching the audience as if it were merely discontented (a
common state). Because they are unable to attain everything they desire (Discourses
1. 42), people are naturally discontented and dissatisfied, but not necessarily
 311
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH WIETHOFF

ungrateful. Human appetites are insatiable because nature drives people to crave
much more than fortune allows them to possess. As a consequence, audiences blame
their discontent on present conditions, look favorably on the past, and desire the
future (Discourses 2. prologue). Indeed, effective discursive tactics emerge from a
recognition of these attitudes toward different periods. Ingratitude can be inter-
preted either as a wistful look back to a golden era or as hope for a brighter
tomorrow. In either case, a rhetor can address these popular feelings with great
effect. Political rhetors who do so easily become more successful than those who
ignore the naturalness of discontent and insist that audiences resign themselves to
the present. Machiavelli himself interpreted the historical success or failure of
Florentine leaders on the basis of their ability to recognize the discontent behind the
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

apparent ingratitude of people.8

Machiavelli saw greed as closely linked to ingratitude in audiences because both
characteristics are corrupted degrees of natural discontent. The human desire "to
acquire" is actually a "natural and ordinary" impulse (Prince 3). Therefore, the
political rhetor should interpret greed as an innate desire of people to improve their
lot in life—a praiseworthy motive. In fact, constituencies should be condemned only
when they try to increase their possessions without having the firm determination to
conclude their efforts successfully. Machiavelli himself, for example, scolded the
King of France for failing to exploit his initial gains in Italy at the end of the fifteenth
century (Prince 3).
Since human fickleness is the corrupted counterpart of a simple lack of foresight,
people may appear to be perversely fickle when they involuntarily follow their
human nature. As Machiavelli observed, lack of foresight is common because people
cannot easily "regulate" their human nature: "[A]s bitter things disturb the taste and
sweet things become tiresome, so people become annoyed with good and lament
evil" (Letter to Piero Soderini, uncertain date). The shortsightedness of constituen-
cies is a natural barrier to political success for several reasons. First, people
instinctively prefer "to live day by day" rather than paying attention to larger issues.
Second, people naturally ignore warnings or predictions because they do not believe
that "which has not happened previously could ever happen." Third, people tend to
take a "single-minded approach" to problems and thereby resist a change in their
attitudes (Letter to Francesco Vettori, 10 Aug. 1513). "People cannot resist their
natural inclinations," Machiavelli wrote, and thus they passively resist alternative
approaches to "the one way" of doing things that has brought them even modest
prosperity in the past (Discourses 3. 9). Common or natural resistance is typically
passive and is nourished by ingrained habits, skepticism, and fear of the unknown.
Faced with a typical blend of fickleness and shortsightedness, the political rhetor
can rely on difficult but not impossible tactics: "[H]ow easily people are suborned
and brought to display fundamentally different traits" (Discourses 1. 42). In simple
terms, the rhetor should address audiences as lacking foresight rather than being
fickle. Then the rhetor may exhort them to adopt an affirmative attitude toward the
whims of fortune. However, in light of Machiavelli's estimate of his own Florentines—
"(they) cannot maintain their freedom but are also unable to live as slaves"—his
suggestions for dealing with fickleness may be too optimistic. In fact, he retreated
from this position when admitting "how uncertain and deceptive are our plans"
(History of Florence 2.36 and 8.2).
To Machiavelli, cowardice was a learned trait. Although it does not belong among
 312
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH AUGUST 1991

the common elements of humanity, it restrains many constituencies from riding out
stormy times in the hope of a tranquil future. Cowardice must be dispelled with
some dispatch so, as in medicine, early treatment is the best strategy (Prince 3).
Machiavelli recognized that it was unproductive to accuse audiences of being utterly
corrupt—that it was "very rarely" wise to label them as cowards (Discourses 1. 27).
Rather, the political rhetor should first undermine those courses of action that
would seem safer, refuting less dangerous plans before urging on an audience a
proposition fraught with peril. Being naturally lazy, listeners would hope to find less
demanding ways of solving problems, so the rhetor must press upon them the
absolute necessity of his proposal. From his study of Roman military history,
Machiavelli drew the conclusion that "people do not persevere under difficult
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

conditions if they are not compelled by necessity" (History of Florence 2. 2). Accord-
ingly, the skillful rhetor will strive to counter the natural tendency to do nothing by
establishing the necessity of the more hazardous, bolder scheme he espouses.9
This final point regarding necessity requires close scrutiny because, as with other
portions of his advice, a casual reading might suggest that Machiavelli was naive. He
did not, however, merely suggest that adopting a positive attitude makes a rhetor
successful, nor did he assert simplistically that people's natural tendency toward
inactivity should be resisted. Rather, he stressed that political rhetors must treat
listeners as though they possess at least some traits that are amenable to the
application of discursive pressure. If this tactic is effective, listeners develop an
image of themselves that complements the rhetor's persuasive appeals. Essentially,
Machiavelli insisted that rhetors use the discursive means available for reaching any
political end.
Machiavelli's articulation of situational and audience analysis is not straightfor-
ward and simple, but his principles are implicitly linked to the notion that well-
conceived persuasion consists of making a quasi-physical impression on listeners'
minds. Once shaped in this manner, the mind assumes a form that favors continued
influence by the rhetor. In a larger sense, this principle compares favorably with
philosophical and aesthetic doctrines on the complementary relation between
nature and art.10 Political rhetors should adjust discursive elements of their artistry
to the natural process of self-perception, rather than brutishly attempting to
overcome constituents' nature with artifice. Moreover, rhetors should exercise the
same degree of care in projecting an attractive self-image.

Political Reputation
Together with setting and constituency, Machiavelli saw political reputation as a
powerful influence on the affairs of state. Clearly, this principle reflected a longlived
tradition stressing the power of image in speechmaking. For example, a speaker of
"good reputation" can easily redirect a surly mob back to the path of civility
(Discourses 1.58). Discussed variously as voce ("public testimony") orfama ("notoriety"),
all reputation can be extracted from three distinct sources: ancestors, associations,
and deeds. In addition, reputation can be refined—often through deceptive tac-
tics—by projecting both virtuous and vicious appearances.

Sources
Because constituents generally assume that the children of "great and valorous
people" are "similar" to their parents, ancestral reputation is especially useful in
 313
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH WIETHOFF

addressing intense discontent. Keenly aware of the power that language exerted,
Machiavelli ordered the political rhetor to make a public appearance "with great
grace and as honorably as he can, conspicuously wearing the symbols of that
inherited status he possesses" (Discourses 1. 54). The rhetor should also pay attention
to institutional image: the reputation of a community, religious sect, or kingdom.
Periodic renewal of institutional image requires reviving "that reputation it had at
the beginning" (Discourses 3. 1). For individuals, then, the maintenance of ancestral
status evokes present and future esteem. For institutions, the original identity of the
organization must also be reasserted.
Reputation may also be borrowed by openly associating with "serious people of
good habits and wise reputations" (Discourses 3. 34). Unlike relying on ancestry, the
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

political rhetor controls associative reputation by willfully choosing the people with
whom public comparisons will be made. Machiavelli also commended associative
reputation because the public assumes that a connection with "honorable" or "wise"
associates cannot be sustained unless a person is at least "somewhat similar." As
advisors show wisdom by limiting the range of their advice, political rhetors
demonstrate their ingenuity by choosing their associates carefully (Prince 22).
The third and potentially most valuable source of reputation includes "some
extraordinary and notable act of the type that, even when done privately, ends in
public honor" (Discourses 3. 34). Whereas other forms of reputation merely supply
materials for either spontaneous recognition or subjective judgment, and their
influence can easily be neutralized through inattention or misperception, this
operative reputation is stronger. Drawing on both natural and artificial materials,
operative reputation combines the force of both.
Machiavelli identified three subdivisions of operative reputation: (1) "great
achievements" in both local and distant settings; (2) demonstrations of true friend-
ship or true enmity; and (3) exhibitions of personal regard for other "ingenious"
and "excellent" persons (Prince 21). First, deeds most effectively support an image of
greatness when they are performed in the pursuit of both foreign and domestic
policy. Second, operative reputation can rest securely on either public love or public
fear, but a political rhetor must avoid bland relationships with the public: strong
reactions are preferable to none at all. Third, words of admiration for other
reputable people amount to deeds that bring credit to the rhetor.
While not innovative, these bits of advice are insightful and thorough. Common
sense, for example, dictates the hierarchy from ancestral to operative sources of
reputation. However, the structure and sequence of machiavellian thought on
reputation is particularly well-attuned to political needs. Political dynasties occur in
democracies as well as in hereditary monarchies; prestigious staff members and
lieutenants are useful in political arenas; and encouraging voters to "look at the
record" is a well-established campaign tactic. What does distinguish Machiavelli
from both earlier and later authors, however, is his explicit treatment of the role of
deception in building a reputation.

Deception

Machiavelli recognized that reputation can be deceptive as well as authentic. For

him, sixteenth-century political uses of deception were commonplace. His observa-
tion that "[y]our intentions should not be evident" (Discourses 1. 44) did not require
extensive explanation. Moreover, his evaluation of political deception identifies its
 314
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH AUGUST 1991

link with reputation. "Above all," he advised an inexperienced diplomat, "an orator
should try to acquire a reputation . . . of being generous, honest, and not greedy and
two-faced, and not a person who believes one thing and says another." However, he
continued, "If it is sometimes necessary to hide something in a speech, then it should
be done so that (deception) does not appear readily, or, if all too obvious, a defense
should be ready on the spot" (Memoir). The almost casual manner in which
Machiavelli gave his advice indicates how common political deception was at the
time as well as how clearly Machiavelli felt that deception was related to reputation.
As he remarked in another context, a prince should not be overly concerned about
being faithful to his promises "when such constancy becomes awkward and the
reasons for it are exhausted" (Prince 18).
The art of deception involved careful attention to virtuous and vicious appear-
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

ances, both types of which are useful. He placed virtuous appearances in primary
and secondary categories:

VIRTUOUS APPEARANCES
Primary: Secondary:
Religious Generous
Compassionate Spirited
Faithful Pure
Sincere Stern
Considerate Serious
To project a virtuous image, the political rhetor should appear to be religious,
compassionate, faithful, sincere, and considerate. All writing and speaking should
evince these qualities (Prince 18). Appearing to be generous, animated, pure, severe,
and serious can also gain political influence. This ranking of virtuous appearances
reflects several intuitions which Machiavelli developed during his secretarial career.
For example, he observed that "people, in general, judge more through their sight
than their touch" (Prince 18). The hierarchy of virtuous appearances corresponds to
this observation in the sense that primary virtues such as sincerity are more abstract
than secondary virtues; that is, the primary virtues are easier to see than to touch. A
virtue like religion (best understood as "formalism") is more obvious than a
secondary virtue. The evidence of secondary virtuous appearances—generosity, for
example—can be tested through tangible means. Generous people contribute
money to charitable causes in easily measured amounts. Primary virtuous appear-
ances, on the other hand, can be tested only through intangible or artificial means.
Whether people have been considerate, for example, is not readily measured on a
standard scale of height or weight, or in terms of tangible commodities. Moreover,
secondary virtues like generosity produce tangible results. Since "everyone sees
what you appear to be, few sense what you really are" (Prince 18), the important
distinction between the ranks is based on how the appearances are projected and
how they can be evaluated—naturally or artifically.
Deception is best analyzed from an harmonic perspective on nature and art.
Machiavelli, linking deceptive appearance with artifice, recognized the difficulty of
simulating desirable traits in a natural manner. While a person may feign kindness
and courtesy, only accomplished actors can simulate a spirited or dour character
with enough naturalness to forestall an audience's disbelief. Because the political
 315
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH WIETHOFF

rhetor is not required to possess exceptional theatrical skills, the appearances of

religion, compassion, fidelity, sincerity, and kindness rank highest on Machiavelli's
scale. These appearances are easily simulated and cannot be disproven as readily as
secondary virtuous appearances."
Machiavelli's canon of vicious appearances likewise implies a hierarchy of useful-
ness:

VICIOUS APPEARANCES

Primary: Secondary: Tertiary:

Arrogant Devious Miserly
Wanton Frivolous Cruel
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

Weak Lenient
Unfaithful Irreligious
When he advised "not to abandon the good but to understand (how) to appropriate
evil" (Prince 18), he was cautioning against vicious appearances that lack political
value as well as promoting whatever appearances might be useful. For example, the
primary appearances of arrogance and wantonness must always be avoided because
they always elicit contempt. Secondarily, appearing to be devious, frivolous, weak,
or unfaithful seldom aids and may occasionally destroy public trust. "Weakness" in
the rebuttal of an opponent should be avoided at all costs (Discourses 3. 37). Third,
miserly, cruel, lenient, and irreligious appearances should be avoided when they are
irrelevant to the desired reputation. Nevertheless, they occasionally aid a political
rhetor. Constituents may admire, for example, an aspiring leader who is miserly
after a period of substantial deficit spending; the same people may appreciate a
leader who is lenient after a period in which law has been administered draconically.
Understanding why Machiavelli saw utility in cruelty and irreligion (best under-
stood as "unorthodoxy") presents the greatest difficulty in making sense out of his
canon of vicious appearances. His qualified endorsement of the former has drawn
centuries of criticism from political theorists; his position on religion has prompted
an equally substantial tradition of attacks from the clergy. Since he ranked the
virtuous counterparts of compassion and religion as primary, avoiding completely
the contrary vices seems logically consistent. Apparently, however, he believed that
an irreligious or cruel image could be used in much the same way that congenial
misers evoke favorable responses in the proper circumstances. An audience of
humanists may especially admire a speaker's disregard for orthodox establishments
not founded on the pagan classics. An audience of heavily taxed merchants may
especially admire a speaker's disregard for public welfare programs. In these less
than extraordinary settings, the appearances of irreligion and cruelty—vicious as
they are—may be rhetorically useful.12
Conversely, those who engage in vicious pretense must resist deceptive flattery of
themselves: "I do not want to treat lightly an important issue and an error against
which princes defend themselves with difficulty" (Prince 23). Flattery represents a
particularly insidious trap for unwary rhetors because they want to avoid losing the
support of people by insisting on hearing only the truth. The problem of flattery can
be solved most efficiently by drawing out candid opinions only from trusted
advisors, and only on a limited range of topics. "Good counsel, from whomever it
comes, preferably results from the prince's prudence, and not the prudence from
 316
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH AUGUST 1991

good counsel" (Prince 23). In essence, by adopting a virtuously severe appearance

and restricting the flow of advice, a political rhetor guards against the vicious
appearances of weakness and frivolity.
Machiavelli articulated or implied principles for assessing political discourse that
are harmonic in the sense of drawing their efficacy from both art and nature.
Sensitive to the situation and audience, the political rhetor adopts appearances that
support a desirable reputation. Although Machiavelli's discussion of virtues and
vices has displeased many critics, his perspective is undeniably coherent. Even the
occasional moral philosopher agrees in essence with this element of the machiavel-
lian program: "[F]or any traditional virtue, we can imagine worlds at which the
virtue is of negative value overall. So, for any virtue, we can imagine a world where
having that virtue is not good, and acting in accord with that virtue is not right."13
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

Fortunately for later critics, Machiavelli also left models of how political discourse
should be assessed in accordance with his own principles.

CRITICAL MODELS

Machiavelli engaged in rhetorical criticism from his earliest writings through his
mature works. Although his earlier critiques lack the restraint imposed on later
specimens, all models reflect the two sets of principles examined above.
The earliest model of Machiavellian criticism—in a letter to Ricciardo Becchi of 9
March 1497—assesses two contemporaneous sermons by Girolamo Savonarola
(1452—1498), a politically active Dominican friar who was ultimately burned at the
stake for heresy.14 In Machiavelli's view, Savonarola exploited both associative and
operative sources of reputation, as well as projecting appearances of severity and
cruelty. In addition, the friar effectively addressed listeners as discontented rather
than ungrateful, shortsighted and not deceitful, lazy rather than cowardly.
In the year preceding his execution, Savonarola justifiably feared both the
Florentine government and the Pope. Perhaps because the friar's politics were
"revolutionary" in tone and substance, a recent election at Florence had left
Savonarola with reduced support in the city council. The Pope, who had taken
offense at the friar's activism, issued a demand for his extradition from Florence,
and threatened to invalidate Catholic offices and sacraments in the city if the
demand was not satisfied. In the face of these threats, Savonarola withdrew to Saint
Mark's church where he would be surrounded by his adherents. From this bastion
he delivered his political message under the guise of preaching.
The friar developed two main points in his first sermon. Saving his exegesis of
Exodus 1:13 for last, he initially defended his decision to seek refuge in the church.
"Prudence," he said, "is right reason in conduct." In particular, Christian prudence
demands a person work for the glory of Christ with careful attention to times and
circumstances. In his own case, he argued, he had prudently risked his life at
appropriate times but was now just as wisely yielding to his foes. As to the scriptural
text, Savonarola described himself and his followers as a Christian army that was
facing a devilish host of his political enemies. The enigmatic scriptural passage, "The
more they afflicted them the more they multiplied and grew," simply meant that
good people thrive under adverse conditions. In both spirit and numbers, that is,
with increased strength from Divine inspiration and increased alliances with those
neutral parties who see evil in his enemies, Savonarola's camp must prevail, driving
 317
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH VVIETHOFF

home the point by his vigorous depiction of "the wickedness of the wicked" and "the
righteousness of the righteous." In conclusion, he also addressed subordinate topics
of varying relevance to the scriptural passage. This latter digression, according to
Machiavelli, was customary in the friar's sermons.
The second sermon was based on Exodus 2:12. Savonarola interpreted "Moses" as
himself and the "Egyptian" as the evil establishments with which the friar con-
tended. In this interpretation, he "slew" Florentine and papal enemies by his public
sermons. Machiavelli was especially vivid in assessing Savonarola's language, suggest-
ing that the friar made such a "mash" of Florentine opposition that a dog would
have refused to eat it. In addition, the friar denigrated the Pope with language
usually reserved for the "worst scoundrel" imaginable.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

Machiavelli evidently delighted in his criticism of both sermons, addressing their

preceding and immediate contexts, the friar's apparent reputation, and his percep-
tion of the audience. Savonarola had recently delivered three sermons during the
Carnival days immediately before elections at Florence. After the elections, he
judged that over two-thirds of the new office-holders were opposed to him. Al-
though Machiavelli expressed uncertainty whether the friar's decision was "his own
or at the bidding of others," Savonarola ceased preaching at the church of Santa
Reparata and withdraw to more secure ground at Saint Mark's.
The intelligence about Savonarola's retreat was important because it suggested
that he was contemplating associative and operative sources of reputation. That is,
he was measuring his credibility against advice from his intimates and reactions to
his deeds from the electorate. Savonarola did not lack a reputation for severity and
seriousness, but his primary religious appearance was eroded when the Pope called
for his excommunication. The friar also had to be concerned about the vicious
appearance of arrogance and, in his retreat, the appearance of weakness. Cruelty,
however, in his discursive attacks on enemies seemed appropriate. Although he
"was greatly alarmed for his safety," the friar pleased Machiavelli by "taking
advantage of the moment and adapting his slanders to circumstances." Nonetheless,
Machiavelli expected his correspondent to be surprised at how boldly Savonarola
was preaching.
Machiavelli felt confident about assessing Savonarola's perceptions of the audi-
ence because of first-hand knowledge of the two sermons. From a harmonic
perspective, the friar's audience would be discontented with current developments
at Florence rather than ungrateful for the friar's past guidance. As evidence,
Machiavelli cited the audience's continued attendance at the friar's sermons. More-
over, Savonarola appeared to assess his congregation as shortsighted rather than
deceitful, lazy rather than cowardly. After all, he intended to rally his supporters
rather than scold them. He intended to say anything that would "weaken the
opposing party and strengthen his own," including sentiments that were effective
only with listeners "not trained to thinking." More specifically, Savonarola relied on
a recitation of "terrifying horrors" to win over the congregation. In Machiavelli's
view, the friar recognized and made clear in his sermons that the congregation
would also suffer if his enemies prevailed. This evidence of Savonarola's attention to
his constituency pleased Machiavelli and, although he was not in political sympathy
with Savonarola, he did not completely disparage the friar's discourse.
 318
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH AUGUST 1991

Machiavelli's early rhetorical criticism, which was blunt and pointed, reflects the
energy and daring of an observer who was as yet unbloodied by any involvement in
the political wars of Renaissance Italy. The mature critic took a far different tack in
his History of Florence. The Medici family commissioned this work and Medici
patronage influenced Machiavelli's criticism. Nonetheless, three of his assessments
deserve special mention here for their illustration of how Machiavelli judged
political discourse for the purposes of mediation, expiation, and exhortation.
He evaluated the fine art of political arbitration as it took place in Florence during
the year 1295 (History of Florence 2. 14). Again, as in his 1497 letter to Ricciardo
Becchi, Machiavelli evaluated rhetorical context, the rhetors' perceptions of the
audience, and their own reputations.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

As to context, Machiavelli recounted that Florentine nobles and commoners had

taken up arms and had assembled their respective forces at four locations in the city.
They took these menacing steps to bolster their demands for relief from two
unfavorable municipal ordinances: statutes prohibiting the nobility from serving on
the city council and providing for indictments to be issued against nobles without
formal affidavits of probable cause. The common people distrusted the resolve of
their municipal government, fearful that the city fathers would be unable to resist
aristocratic pressure. To insure that the council would hold firm, the commoners
countered with their own intimidating tactic, sending six of their number to attend
the council's deliberations.
Assessing the audience as fragmented, Machiavelli reasoned that many common-
ers were committed to battle because they believed it was inevitable. The combined
force of their discontent and shortsightedness made it unlikely that they would
appreciate alternatives to warfare in the streets of the city. On the other hand, many
nobles seemed corrupted by their station in life. Many of them would never
surrender, unless defeated in battle or unless their request was granted—possibly
because they had surrendered to greed. A third and more receptive segment of the
audience, made up of both commoners and nobles, feared open warfare more than
acceding to the nobles' request. Laziness and perhaps a little cowardice had
restricted these Florentines from resolving the conflict themselves.
Cooler heads from both factions, along with some respected clergymen, tried to
avert open warfare by endorsing alternative means of resolving the dispute. These
rhetors exploited their respective ancestries or religious associations. Machiavelli
mentioned nothing more specific about their reputations. However, he did recount
that the arbitrators addressed the nobility on issues of accountability and feasibility.
The nobles were reminded that their own arrogance—a primary vicious appear-
ance—and lack of political unity had brought about the unfavorable ordinances.
They were also cautioned about their comparative weakness in numbers, resources,
and morale for the upcoming battle. In light of its corrupted state, this segment of
the audience could be expected to respond only to a scolding. In turn, the
arbitrators addressed the commoners on issues of prudence and the vicissitudes of
warfare. The commoners were reminded that continued efforts at completely
destroying the nobles' status could backfire; the nobility could become fearless in the
face of such drastic consequences. The commoners were also advised to recognize
that battles did not always favor the larger army. In light of its natural state, this
 319
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH WIETHOFF

segment of the audience could be expected to respond to a practical, long-range

assessment of the situation.
Taking political context and constituency into account, Machiavelli recounted
that the arbitrators brought about relaxation of the municipal code. He specifically
underscored the classical "topics" of deliberative oratory—ways and means, war
and peace, national defense, domestic and foreign trade, and legislation15—present
in the arbitrating arguments. In fact, he may have used this historical case study to
promote his own bias toward "disunion" (Discourses, 110).
A third instance, Machiavelli's account of events during 1430, illustrates his
criticism of apologetic discourse (History of Florence 4. 22). Though abbreviated, the
criticism still addresses context, reputation, and audience perception.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

Rinaldo degli Albizzi had been appointed a wartime commissioner of Florence but
impressed the people more by lining his own pockets than by pressing the attack on
Lucca. In any event, the citizens of Florence openly murmured about the personal
profit he was making from the war effort, the spoils of war that he seized for himself
or bought at a discount from the soldiers. However, Rinaldo himself demonstrated
considerable anger at what he thought were slanders against his "honest and noble
spirit." He took his case directly to the Council of Ten, or executive committee of
Florentine government. He began by asserting the difficulty of his particular civil
service to Florence. "If you are victorious, no one praises you. If you make an error,
everyone criticizes you. If you lose, everyone defames you." Nonetheless, he
asserted, he had carried out his duties—especially those of benefit to the city. Now,
however, his attitude had changed and the city fathers should take notice. They
should protect future civil servants from slanderous attacks so that the city would
continue to benefit from good service. In fact, that is the least they should do.
Moreover, the Council members should remember that they too were open to
slander and might some day understand Rinaldo's indignation more personally.
Machiavelli recounted that, following Rinaldo's discourse, the Council of Ten
quickly accepted his resignation and appointed two commissioners to replace him.
The discourse itself, an imaginative paraphrase, reflects a petulant tone and a
threatening manner. Though never condemning Rinaldo, Machiavelli recounted
his language and recorded the verdict in ways that were unflattering to Rinaldo's
political reputation.
In this case, Machiavelli's principles are demonstrated in the rhetor's failure.
Rinaldo did not overcome his lack of operative reputation during the war with
Lucca. He merely claimed that his efforts benefitted Florence. He appeared vi-
ciously arrogant and wanton, and could not even muster the secondary virtuous
appearances of generosity and spirit.
In addition, he cast his speech in an unbalanced, sheerly artificial form by
addressing the councillors as corrupted. He reproached them for their ingratitude
rather than addressing their natural discontent with his record. He appealed to
their cowardice in the face of possible reproaches by the citizenry rather than
encouraging them to overcome natural laziness in supporting a fellow official.
As a final example of his critical application of his own principles, consider
Machiavelli's account of Piero de'Medici's 1469 speech to the citizens of Florence
which reflects an analysis of political exhortation (History of Florence 7. 23). In terms
of speech composition, Machiavelli wanted to make Piero's discourse attractive to his
 320
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH AUGUST 1991

Medici descendants. To this end, Machiavelli no doubt embellished the speech with
the anaphoras and antitheses, hyperbole and rhetorical questions so evident through-
out the text. In terms of critical accuracy, however, Machiavelli had to respect the
memories of those Florentines who were first-hand witnesses of the speech or who
had received appraisals of it from such witnesses. Thus, he probably crafted the
speech to reflect Piero's actual estimate of his listeners and his own reputation.
At the time of Piero's exhortation, Florence was enjoying an unusually peaceful
existence. In fact, all of the Italian states had temporarily given up armed conflict for
a Renaissance version of cold war. Florentines were ambitious people, however, and
naturally restless under the circumstances. As a result, "Florence was greatly
tormented by her citizens." Piero himself was sick. In addition, his leadership was
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

not well established in Florence because he had only recently emerged from the
shadow of his deceased father, Cosimo. Having a difficult time controlling the civil
unrest, Piero called civic leaders to his house and tried to shame them into better
conduct. Machiavelli reported that, following Piero's speech, the citizens of Florence
"replied suitably" in view of the setting and Piero's tactics. They did not, however,
change their ways, and Piero de'Medici died soon after his speech. Never having
had an opportunity to recognize Piero's "ability and goodness," the citizens of
Florence largely ignored his exhortation.
From Machiavelli's viewpoint, political discourse usually fails when it ignores the
common state of an audience. Piero confessed, for example, that he "scarcely
recognized all people's natural ambition." Worse yet, he explicitly and exclusively
identified his constituents as greedy, a corrupted characteristic: "You are not
satisfied dividing up among yourselves the spoils of war. You are not satisfied
burdening all the others with taxes while you, exempt from taxes, make huge profits
at the public expense. . . . You steal from your neighbor; you sell justice. . . . I do not
believe that there are in all of Italy as many instances of robbery and greed as there
are in this city." Moreover, Piero emphasized the corruptness of his listeners'
ingratitude: "[I]f this our native city has given us life, why do we take it away from
her? Has she made us victorious so that we can destroy her? Does she honor us so
that we can disgrace her?" Piero's exhortation was unsuccessful because he failed to
extract advantage from addressing the audience as commonly discontented rather
than corruptly ungrateful.
From Machiavelli's perspective, Piero constructed an unsophisticated public
image in his speech. Lacking the time to distinguish himself with valorous deeds and
enjoy an operative reputation, Piero had to rely solely on his ancestry. Unfortu-
nately, he also relied exclusively on secondary virtuous appearances: stern and
grave, he admonished the citizens through a series of rhetorical questions about
their sense of duty to Florence. It was politically unorthodox and perhaps a little
cruel to do so, but this tertiary vicious appearance he projected in his warnings may
have partially salvaged his reputation. The people, after all, "replied suitably" to his
appeal.
Piero de'Medici failed to achieve his end, as did Rinaldo degli Albizzi. In both
cases the rhetors had lacked operative reputations, although Piero at least projected
secondary virtuous appearances. Rinaldo projected an arrogant, wanton image—a
combination of primary vicious features that scarcely helped his cause. Just as
importantly, both rhetors failed to address audience characteristics effectively. In
 321
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH WIETHOFF

fact, they addressed their respective audiences as thoroughly corrupted by ingrati-

tude, cowardice, and greed. Conversely, the anonymous arbitrators of 1295 en-
hanced their ancestral and associative reputations by addressing the audience
harmonically, that is, as a blend of common and corrupted features. These arbitra-
tors sought a permanent reduction in class conflict by resolving a particular clash of
grievances, clearly in line with the conventional wisdom that political success is
measured one step at a time. Indeed, Machiavelli's understanding of traditional
political beliefs and values sustains the utility of his critical perspective.

SUMMARY AND APPLICATION

Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

Political discourse is an increasingly frequent object of rhetorical criticism. After

observing the rise in book-length studies of political rhetoric, the author of a recent
review calls for the additional and encompassing "assessment of the rhetor's
partisan vision, of whether key issues have been addressed, available information
taken into account, community values accommodated, crucial implications foreseen,
and better alternatives considered."16 As denned and illustrated above, a machiavel-
lian perspective on criticism offers versatile methods and an invigorating simulation
of the political process.
For better or worse, political agents have continuously followed the ancient ritual
of expounding their partisan views through speechmaking to large groups of
constituents. A machiavellian perspective clearly sustains the criticism of this tradi-
tional setting for public address. Although the electronic diffusion of political
messages now challenges traditional criticism, devices such as quasi-debates between
candidates maintain a face-to-face encounter. Clearly the machiavellian approach
remains valid.
In addition, a machiavellian critic appreciates the often indistinct boundaries
between political and religious discourse.17 Machiavelli outlined his principles only
after observing Renaissance patterns of church-state interaction. In his criticism of
Savonarola's sermons he addressed audience analysis and reputable power when
the line between affairs of church and state were blurred. Guided both in principle
and practice, machiavellian critics are prepared to evaluate the once and future role
in domestic and foreign affairs of religious spokespersons—ordained or self-
appointed, bishop or imam. Future research on this issue might examine whether
these agents—acting in the political forum—address constituents and promote
reputations in a manner more or less consistent with the religious discourse of
conversion or evangelism.
A machiavellian perspective also sustains the criticism of arbitrating discourse.
Guidelines on adapting to an audience's self-perception, and Machiavelli's related
criticism of arbitrators' conduct in Florentine history, identify the importance of this
discourse in his perspective. Often preliminary to traditional speechmaking, conflict-
resolution among patrons and advisors is at least as significant to modern political
agents as the defeat of opponents. Today, of course, critics would evaluate political
arbitration in grass roots meetings, caucuses, hearings, and related events at all
levels of the deliberative process. Whether historical or contemporary in applica-
tion, the criticism of arbitrating discourse illuminates this often ignored step in
political decision-making. Future research might examine the machiavellian perspec-
 322
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH AUGUST 1991

tive's value in promoting "a rational critique of ideology and the practical arbitra-
tion of conflicting but equally valid demands" in the political arena.18
Though versatile, a machiavellian perspective is "formal" and does not sustain the
criticism of casual conversation—much less inadvertent messages. The primary
sources yield no principles or models for assessing discourse that ignores established
rituals or lacks conscious intent. Thus, the perspective offers scant help in criticizing
impromptu press conferences or off-the-cuff comments. However, even within its
formally restricted scope, this perspective embraces a broad range of techniques for
critics to master.

Methods
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

Consistent with its scope, a machiavellian perspective embraces versatile methods

for criticizing the interaction between political rhetors and their constituencies.
Critics would examine how audiences are perceived to determine whether key
issues have been addressed. The building of reputation would be examined to
determine whether community values have been accommodated.
For a machiavellian critic, audiences are addressed effectively only when they are
encouraged to develop tractable self-perceptions. Indeed, favorable judgments of
political rhetors depend on their discursive treatment of audiences as blends of
common (i.e., natural) and corrupted (i.e., artificial) traits. Audiences respond
poorly when addressed as thoroughly despicable. That is, no constituency should be
perceived and addressed artificially as ungrateful, greedy, or fickle. Rather, political
rhetors should encourage constituents to respond to natural ambitions, acquisitive-
ness, or cravings for change.
The common traits—unlike corrupted ones—sustain discursive tactics such as
appeals to a hopeful future and exhortations to self-improvement. Rejecting coward-
ice as the only explanation for constituents' behavior, the political rhetor should
address audiences as lazy yet capable of responding dutifully to a challenge. For
example, from the political agent's point of view, constituents should not be vilified
for fickleness and cowardice in failing to get behind programs of ecological protec-
tion. Rather, a machiavellian critic would favor appeals to people as naturally
shortsighted and lazy because these appeals affirm people's capacity to respond
affirmatively at some future stage of deliberation.
Machiavellian critics also assess how political rhetors establish their reputations,
both genuinely and deceptively. Three sources of reputation are readily available.
Ancestors—whether they are personal or institutional forebears—provide an initial
source of public recognition. Reputation may also be borrowed from publicly
acclaimed associates. Lastly, but most desirably, political rhetors may draw public
attention to their meritorious deeds. For instance, political candidates should expect
the electorate to respond more favorably to evidence of personal accomplishments
than to family background or prestigious endorsements. Thus, a machiavellian critic
would be alert to the advantages enjoyed by political incumbents who can draw
attention to their record in office.
Crafting their public images from the best available sources, political rhetors may
project both virtuous and vicious appearances. Deceptively or not, rhetors may
publicize themselves as particularly virtuous or vicious—depending on their judg-
 323
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH WIETHOFF

ments of audience needs. Machiavelli identified two tiers of virtuous appearances,

with varying degrees of public credit. He also ranked vicious appearances on three
tiers, with varying degrees of public disapproval. In fact, Machiavelli suggested that
miserly, cruel, lenient, and irreligious appearances may occasionally enhance a
political rhetor's cause. Sated with political mud-slinging, for example, the public
may welcome a leader who appears to be kinder and gentler than his or her
competitors. Similarly, an unorthodox, penny-pinching leader may be attractive to
the public after traditional methods have failed to achieve fiscal health in the
government.
Fidelity to authentic methods excludes the character assessment of political agents
typical of other approaches. For example, little attention would be paid to the
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

personal morality exhibited by those who advocate or oppose significant reductions

in armament. From a machiavellian viewpoint, whether those who disfavor large
stocks of weaponry are generous or pure in their private lives is uninformative.
Critics would be more interested in the discursive appeals with which rhetors elicit a
natural craving for change in defense policy.
Critical studies would also favor neutral assessments of why political rhetors select
a certain public face. Critics would seek answers to the question of which virtues and
vices, if any, the advocates or opponents of selected issues choose to broadcast when
rallying public support. From this perspective, both advocates and opponents of
abortion might properly depict themselves as religious. Then again, one side might
suffer if charges of wantonness and infidelity go unanswered.
In assessing how a rhetor adapts to audiences and projects an image, machiavel-
lian criticism reflects its author's deference to both traditional and pragmatic values.
But a machiavellian perspective is invigorating as well as versatile and methodical.
The source of this energy lies in a distinctive impulse to simulate the deliberative
process while engaging in criticism.

Simulation
Despite his legendary pragmatism, Machiavelli cannot be acclaimed simply and
utterly as a realist.19 He observed political agents in real settings and issued practical
advice, but he also respected classical intuitions and ideals. He immersed himself in
Renaissance politics, but he eventually withdrew to a meditative position. In fact, his
career embraces what scholars have identified as both avenues of Renaissance
humanism: activism and contemplation.20 In this sense, a machiavellian perspective
bridges appeals to both the real and the ideal, the contingent and the absolute.
Never devoted exclusively to the advisable or the preferable,21 machiavellian
critics would simulate the roles of political agents and their constituents. This
role-playing would invigorate rhetorical criticism by leading critics to evaluate the
process of political deliberation rather than static artifacts of that activity. An ageless
deliberation on foreign policy illustrates how this impulse might be followed
whether ancient empires or modern states were involved.
For example, a belligerent country invades Erehwon—a docile neighbor on the
shore of a gulf. In the political assembly of a distant third country, Senator Hawk
argues that assisting another sovereign state to repel aggression would also protect
the homeland's shores. In rebuttal, Senator Dove castigates this policy of so-called
 324
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH AUGUST 1991

assistance as a cleverly disguised plan to violate the other state's sovereignty. In

various times and places, rhetorical critics have praised or blamed discursive
artifacts of exchanges similar to the debate between Senators Hawk and Dove.
However, rhetorical critics with machiavellian leanings would view the dispute
through the participants' eyes and gauge whether the discourse assumed harmonic
proportions. (Perhaps in the example, sparse public support had been drummed up
for foreign intervention after Senator Hawk accused opponents of fickleness and
cowardice, while Senator Dove addressed listeners as merely short-sighted and lazy.
By machiavellian standards, the address to constituents by Senator Dove was clearly
more harmonic.) Because of the artificial nature of their evidence—literally, the
accumulation of textual and contextual artifacts—rhetorical critics draw qualified
conclusions about causes and effects. Obeying an impulse to simulate the natural
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

roles of political rhetors and their constituents would enhance the harmonic quality
of rhetorical criticism, if not its probative force.
Critics would also simulate the deliberative process when assessing the source and
type of reputation projected by rhetors. (In the example, if an expeditionary army
was eventually launched, then a critic might sense popular reactions to discourse in
which Senator Hawk—unlike Senator Dove—pointed with pride to recent personal
accomplishments and suppressed all appearances of arrogance and wantonness. By
machiavellian standards, Senator Hawk capitalized on the sources of reputation and
avoided primary vicious appearances.) Again, obeying an impulse to simulate the
deliberative process would enhance the evidentiary base from which critics draw
conclusions about discursive causes and political effects.
Political discourse has long impressed rhetorical critics as a powerful force whose
success and failure merit scrutiny from a variety of perspectives. I have argued that
Niccolo Machiavelli articulated a distinct, invigorating perspective on rhetorical
criticism in his major and minor works. Leaving judgments on the ideal and the
absolute to philosophers and moralists, while also avoiding the philosophical and
moral quagmire of sheer pragmatism, machiavellian critics assess the process of
accommodating preferable courses of action with advisable ones. This perspective
on rhetorical criticism is both technically and esthetically significant: rhetorical
technique has traditionally been a staple of political discourse, and harmony
between art and nature is a well-established esthetic standard.

NOTES

William Wiethoff is an associate professor in (he Department of Speech Communication at Indiana

University and is indebted to his colleagues, especially James R. Andrews, for helpful criticisms of the research
reported here. An earlier version of this essay has been presented at the 1989 Speech Communication Association
convention.
1
In general, see Martin Fleisher, ed., Machiavelli and the Nature of Political Thought (New York: Athenaeum
Press, 1972). More specifically, see John G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and
the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1975).
2
See Dante Delia Terza, "The Most Recent Image of Machiavelli: The Contribution of the Linguist and the
Historian," Italian Quarterly 14 (1970): 91-113.
3
Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis, Studies in Machiavellianism (New York: Academic Press, 1970); Stanley
S. Guterman, The Machiavellians: A Social Psychological Study of Moral Character and Organizational Milieu (Lincoln:
Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1970).
4
For notable exceptions, see Eugene E. Garver, Machiavelli and the History of Prudence (Madison: Univ. of
Wisconsin Press, 1987), and John F. Tinkler, "Praise and Advice: Rhetorical Approaches in More's Utopia and
Machiavelli's The Prince," Sixteenth Century Journal 19 (1988): 187-207.
 325
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH WIETHOFF
5
I use the following abbreviations when citing my translations. From Niccolo Machiavelli, Opere, ed. Mario
Martelli (Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1971), and Niccolo Machiavelli, Opere Complete—Legazioni e Commisarie, ed.
Sergio Bertelli (Milan: Feltrinelli Editori, 1964):
Art of War (Arle delta Guerra)
Discourses (Discorsi sopra la prima Deca di Tito Livio)
History of Florence (Istorie fiorentine)
The Mandrake Root (Mandragola, a comedy)
Prince (Il Principe).
My translations of letters, both public and private, are based on Niccol6 Machiavelli, Opere, Volume 6, ed.
Franco Gaeta (Milan: Feltrinelli Editori, 1961). My translation of the Memoir (Memoriale a Raffaello Girolami) is
based on Niccolo Machiavelli, Opere, Volume 2, ed. Alessandro Montevecchi (Turin: Unione Tipografico, 1971).
My citations of classical Greek and Latin works refer to editions in the Loeb Classical Library of the Harvard
University Press.
6
Interestingly, many military analogies confirm Machiavelli's emphasis on such intelligence. See Prince 14; Art
of War 4. 347 and 5. 381.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015

7
See Fredi Chiapelli, "Machiavelli as Secretary," Italian Quarterly 14 (1970): 37; and Federico Chabod,
Machiavelli and the Renaissance, trans. David Moore (London, Bowes and Bowes, 1960) 64-65.
8
For example, in 1328, the Florentines hesitated to buy the neighboring town of Lucca because they wanted
additional towns which they could not afford to purchase; again, Florentine merchants were dissatisfied with
merely recovering certain privileges which they had lost in 1378 and wanted more; finally, during the war years
of 1422-1428, Florentine noblemen tried to increase their power because "people are never contented" (History
of Florence 2. 31; 3. 11; and 4. 14).
9
Machiavelli had access to scant classical wisdom on the traits of audiences. For example, Aristotle commented
only briefly on related issues within his extensive analysis of human emotions in Book Two of his Rhetoric. Before
his famous outline of the characters of young, middle-aged, and old men (Rhetoric 2. 12. 1388b 1. through 2. 14.
1390b 4), Aristotle remarked that most people tend toward bad conduct such as greed and cowardice (Rhetoric 2.
5. 1382b 7). Aside from these two passages, ancient works on rhetoric were largely silent on the specific types of
traits that Machiavelli categorized.
Renaissance rhetorics generally endorsed situational and audience analysis but provided little or no classifica-
tion of audience traits. For the most part, fifteenth and sixteenth-century rhetoricians such as George of
Trebizond, Giorgio Valla, Filippo Buonaccorsi, and Bartolomeo Cavalcanti simply asserted the desirability of an
analytic approach to the exordia of orations.
10
Cf. the treatments of harmony between art and nature in Rhetorica ad Herennium 3. 16. 28., De Oratore 3. 5.
19-20, and Institutio Oratoria 2. 19. 1ff.
11
Discussions of human virtue from a rhetorical perspective are as least as ancient as the treatment by Aristotle
(Rhetoric 1. 9. 1366b 5-13). Aristotle's discussion was useful because he indicated which virtues, if known to the
audience, made an orator especially attractive. However, his analysis was left unfinished. During the Renais-
sance, analyses of human virtue were fundamental to rhetorical manuals because rhetoric was often taught
under the heading of moral philosophy. See, for example, Guillaume Fichet's Rhetorica 23ff. (Paris, 1471),
George of Trebizond's Rethorica fols 82v-86v (Venice, 1476), and Filippo Buonaccorsi's Rhetorica 136 (1477; ed.
Kazimierz Feliks, Warsaw, 1950).
12
Just as ancient through Renaissance rhetoricians had catalogued virtues, they also identified vicious
counterparts. Only Giasone de Nores, however, devoted equal amounts of time to analyzing the rhetorical utility
of vices as well as virtues. For example, he examined the "forceful" and "fraudulent" species of the major vice of
"injustice," commenting that audacity and hypocrisy were especially helpful in developing an unjust character
(Breve Trattato dell'Oratore fol. 66v [Venice, 1584]).
13
Bruce W. Bower, "Virtue Concepts and Ethical Realism," Journal of Philosophy 85 (1988): 676.
14
For an overview of Savonarola's role in Italian politics, see Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the
Renaissance in Italy (New York: Harper Torchbook edition, 1958) Part VI, ch. 2. Machiavelli only briefly
summarized the two sermons delivered by the friar at Saint Mark's "because there would hardly be space for
more within a letter."
15
Aristotle, Rhetoric 1. 4. 1359b 7.
16
Robert L. Ivie, "The Complete Criticism of Political Rhetoric," Quarterly Journal of Speech 73 (1987): 106.
17
For example, see the recent exchange of notes about research into Catholic bishops' involvement in
American politics, Quarterly Journal of Speech 76 (1990): 307-14.
18
Victoria Kahn, "Habermas, Machiavelli, and the Humanist Critique of Ideology," Publications of the Modern
Language Association of America [PMLA] 105 (1990): 472.
19
After inspecting more than three thousand of the best known interpretations expressed since the sixteenth
century, Isaiah Berlin classified "over a score of leading theories of how to interpret The Prince and The
Discourses—apart from a cloud of subsidiary views and glosses" ("The Originality of Machiavelli," Studies in
Machiavelli, ed. Myron P. Gilmore [Florence: G.C. Sansoni, 1972] 150-59). Robert Hariman has observed that
the special character of Machiavelli's contribution to the history of ideas "has been the subject of an astonishingly
diverse and dense history of interpretation," and more specifically that twentieth-century scholarship has
 326
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH AUGUST 1991

overemphasized realism in analyzing Machiavelli's thought ("Composing Modernity in Machiavelli's Prince,"

Journal of the History of Ideas 50 [1989]: 3-29). Indeed, Federico Chabod interpreted Machiavelli's passion for
politics as clouding his view of reality (82), and Vittorio de Capraiis characterized Machiavelli as a visionary
(Rivista Storica Italiana 60 [1948]: 287-89, a review of Augustin Renaudet, Machiavel: Etude d'histoire des doctrines
politiques [Paris, 1942]).
20
Various analysts have questioned whether humanism favored meditation or action, or whether the humanist
priority shifted from time to time. See, respectively, Lauro Martines, The Social World of the Florentine Humanists
1390-1460 (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1968); Jerrold Siegel, Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance
Humanism (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1968); and Pocock.
21
I accept the following observation as a relevant and justifiable complaint: "Modern political rhetoric, which is
still (or again) polarized around the axes of idealism and realism, suggests that we have not yet bridged the gap
between the praiseworthy and the advisable" (Tinkler 207).
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 05:15 30 September 2015