“Machiavelli on Exodus 32:

Moses and the combat of

envy”
Envy and the problem of founding
“[N]othing is more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, nor
more dangerous to manage, than to put oneself at the head of
introducing new orders” (Prince, 6).
Only when the founders had “eliminated those who had envied them”,
they can "remain powerful, secure, honored, and happy” (The Prince,
6, italics are mine).
“[W]hoever reads the Bible judiciously [sensatamente] will see that
since he wished his laws and his orders to go forward, Moses was
forced to kill infinite men who, moved by nothing other than envy, were
opposed to his plans” (Discourses, III, 30, italics are mine).
Emotions and politics
For Machiavelli, emotions (envy, hatred, love, fear, contempt,
ingratitude) have political significance
Hatred received a lot of attention in The Prince (chaps. 7, 17, 20)
The prince “should contrive to avoid hatred” (17)
On the virtue of liberality, he concludes that the prince should not
worry about being considered stingy
“[H]e comes to use liberality with all those from whom he does not
take, who are infinite, and meannes with those to whom he dos not
give, who are few” (Prince, 20).
Envy and “the few”
Distinction between “the many” (people) and “the few” (grandi)
“[S]ince the prince cannot fail to be hated by someone, they are at first
forced not to be hated by the people” (P, 19, italics are mine).
The prince “has only to combat the ambition of the few which may be
checked in many modes and with ease” (P, 19, italics are mine).
As far as “invidia” is concerned the opposite is true: envy is an
aristocratic affect
Defining envy
Envy is a negative emotion related with the advantages or goods
possessed by others
Involves a subject (the envious), a rival (the one who is envied) and a
good that the latter possesses
It may involve the subject´s desire to achieve this good (emulation) as
well as the desire that the rival does not have it, even when this does
not make the first better off
It is when identified with the second that envy is something that
threatens the permanence of a political order
Defining envy
Aristotle (Rhetoric) offers a definition of envy that adds a fourth
element to the three already mentioned, namely, the equality or
proximity between the subject and the rival
“[E]nvy also is indeed [like indignation] a disturbing pain and directed
against good fortune, but not that of one who does not deserve it, but
of one who is our equal and like” (II.9.1386b, italics are mine)
Envy has a discriminatory or “non-universal” character
Machiavelli on Exodus 32
The golden calf episode is a story about the sin of idolatry, not envy
The events described seem to have been motivated not by envy toward
Moses but by his absence: “When the people saw that Moses was so
long in coming down from the mountain…”(Exodus 32:1)
The biblical golden calf incarnates not envy but the people´s desire for
a new leader, a new Moses
Machiavelli on Exodus 32
“[H]e [Moses] stood at the entrance to the camp and said, ‘Whoever is
for the Lord, come to me’. And all the Levites rallied to him. Then he
said to them, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man
strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one
end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’’ The
Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand
of the people died (Exodus 32: 26-28).
Where did envy come from?
Interpretations of Exodus 32
Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin make no reference to envy on their
reflections on Exodus 32
“Exodus 32 was frequently cited in the long debates which raged over
the questions of religious persecution and holy war” (Walzer 1968: 4).
The struggle between the Two Cities: the heavenly and the earthly
For Machiavelli, the conflict is not between two rival Cities but one that
confronts two parts within the city (the people and the grandi)
Exodus 32 and envy (of the few)
Where did envy come from?
“In the camp they grew envious of Moses” (Psalms 106: 16)
“Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain
Reubenites—Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—
became insolent and rose up against Moses. With them were 250
Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed
members of the council” (Numbers 16: 1, italics are mine).
The rebellion of Korah was a rebellion of the
few
Numbers centers on the theme of grumbling and rebellion on the part
of the people in the wilderness
There are two important differences that distinguish the rebellion of
Korah from all the other rebellions described in Numbers.
First, Korah´s rebellion is an uprising not against God´ authority but
Moses’s.
The humanists of the Pope's court have made use of the history of this
revolt, and its consequences ("then the earth was opened [...] and the
flame burned the wicked“ [Psalms 16:17-18]), to affirm the supremacy
of papal authority, which derived from Moses´s
The rebellion of Korah…
Another distinctive feature of the rebellion narrated in Numbers 16 is
that the rebels are clearly identified
In all the other rebellions the agent is referred to as the "people", or
“all the Israelites", here the rebels are mentioned by name
“Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from
the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do
the work at the Lord’s tabernacle and to stand before the community
and minister to them?” (Numbers 16:9)
Envy and the arming of the people
Discourses III, 30 is titled: “For One Citizen Who Wishes to Do Any Good
Work in His Republic by His Authority, It Is Necessary First to Eliminate
Envy; and How, on Seeing the Enemy, One Has to Order the Defense of
a City”
These two topics, the elimination of envy and the defense of the city
from its enemies, are connected in the text apparently only by the
example of Camillus’s protecting Rome from all Tuscany
On how to army the “multitude”
Envy and the arming of the people
“[W]hosoever might be wise as he [Camillus] was” (D, III, 30) would
have acted the same way
This should be read as a reference to Moses
Moses also “ought first to have those enrolled and selected whom he
wishes to be armed, whomever they have to obey [Moses himself],
where to meet, where to go” (D, III, 30)
Moses incarnates this “effective truth”: the only way to subdue the
envious is by arming “with a certain order and method” the people
Alternative interpretations
Harvey Mansfield (1979: 400) argued that if Moses was forced to kill
“infinite men” it was because “all men” were his rivals
Maurizio Viroli: the violence used against the worshippers was
necessary for turning a disobedient multitude into a law-abiding
people: Moses was forced to kill infinite men “in order to impose on
the people of Israel a respect for the laws that God had entrusted to
him and for his political orderings” (2010: 63)
Conclusions
Machiavelli reflects on “problem of envy” within the context of the
struggle between the people and the grandi
Thus, for Machiavelli envy relates to another desire, that is, the desire
to dominate others
Envy can only be fight against by opposing it people´s desire not to be
dominated, that is, by arming the people
“There has never been a new prince who has disarmed his subjects; on
the contrary, whenever he has found them unarmed, he has always
armed them” (P, 20).
Conclusions
“The histories are full of examples of this” (P, 20).
A “judicious” reading of Discourses III, 30 show us that one of these
“histories” is that of Moses arming the people to defend his institutions
from the envy of the great.