Review of Machiavelli and Erasmus

            Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book to Lorenzo the Magnificent, giving him guidance on how a prince should rule his subjects. He begins by describing the importance of war to a state. Machiavelli says “war is the only essential art to those who govern.” Even in times of peace, according to Machiavelli, preparation for war is crucial. He then describes the qualities a prince should possess. He says that theorizing about ideal societies is a waste of time because humans can never achieve them and that too much thinking of this subject will “ruin” a leader. Machiavelli then goes through a progression of good qualities with their negative opposites (i.e. charity vs. stinginess) and shows that a balance in all qualities is optimal for a leader. The leader should not be too charitable or stingy. Finally, Machiavelli states that it is not necessary for a ruler to actually be good and possess good qualities, but to appear to have them. He ends by praising Lorenzo and his magnificence.

            Machiavelli noticed several very important and significant qualities that are imperative to successful rulers. His vast amount of evidence of successful rulers from history cements his case. His analysis of qualities of a ruler are sound, especially that they only be superficial or have the appearance of possessing the qualities. People don’t care what a person actually is; rather what they act like. His wisdom in advising the rulers not to be on the extremes of good or bad, so they are not hated or taken advantage of, but to find a suitable middle ground is very astute. The reason why these tactics are successful is that man’s nature is corrupt and are too corrupted to discern the differences.

            Erasmus wrote his book as a scathing satire of society in the late 15^th and early16^th centuries. Folly, the protagonist of the story, starts by explaining the goals of man, which is to return to the childhood, where the greatest happiness can be found. He then goes on to criticize the church’s idolization of Mary above Christ. Folly next mocks the lawyers, scientists and theologians, the learned people of the day, for being too prideful in their work. Especially the scientists, Folly says, are so arrogant that they think they have tremendous knowledge, while they really have none at all. The theologians and church leaders focus too much on their own interpretations of passages of scripture to make themselves sound wise rather than following its commands. The monks are then criticized for being too rule-bound and legalistic. Finally, Folly mocks the people of the court for being too pompous about their wealth.

            The satire of Erasmus is certainly effective. Many of the criticisms are blatant rebuking and mocking. Looking back, it is easy to see how much the scientists at the time did not know but they still thought they had an accurate view of the workings of the world. The humanisticness of Erasmus certainly shows through in his evaluation of the church because it had grown too far away from the Bible and relied on its own authority.

            The common theme in both works is the natural state of corruption of man. Machiavelli’s ruler can only be successfully because men are corrupt and those qualities of a leader are meant to lead corrupted people. Erasmus shows the fallen nature of man in his criticisms of the more educated people of society that love themselves more than anything else. The best example of this is his criticism of the monks who will “go on endlessly” bragging about their accomplishments claimed to be in service of Christ. The ignorance of man of its own arrogance is expressed heavily in Erasmus’s work, and reflects the Platonic view of the nature of man. Even according to Herodotus, “God tolerates pride in none but himself.” Man’s arrogance is falsely anchored man is not simply corrupt, but, as said by Calvin, is completely depraved. Machiavelli shows this false view when he says that God does not want to “take away our free will and the share of glory which belongs to us.” No glory belongs to us as humans because the only good in our lives is from Christ. Additionally, in Christ, we find the ultimate meaning and purpose in our lives, the joy which comes from glorifying him. From Aristotle to Machiavelli, philosophers think of happiness of the ultimate end of life. The ultimate goal of every man is to find happiness in one way or another. Folly explains that men seek to return to the days of their childhood, when they were most happy. The very fact that Folly is saying that when men try to return to their happy childhood, they are seeking her, shows that, even if Erasmus did not mean it, happiness is not enough. Only true joy can fill men’s hearts and satisfy their deepest desires. This joy can only be found in Christ.